Skipping breakfast?

Boom_Bap · 12-12-2018 10:05am

letsgo2018 wrote: »

Total BS. If that were true there would be no medical science

So my resting heart rate is identical to yours and I'd hit the same peak as you at the exact same time?
The reason there is medical science is to measure and research this stuff not because they've boxed everything off.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 12-12-2018 10:13am

silverharp wrote: »

there is a wider context though , there is a reasonably well known doctor in Canada Dr Jason Fung (a kidney specialist) who treats Type 2 diabetics with fasting protocols , he works off an Insulin model , ie when you eat your body releases insulin when you don’t eat your body stops releasing insulin, insulin promotes weight gain as any Type 1 diabetic will confirm.

He would also contend that one way American’s went wrong was increasing the number of meals they eat from 3 to 6 thus reducing their fasting window from an average of say 12 hours in the past to less than 8 today. The evidence is there in people having their diabetes reversed. At the end of the day you can only measure calories going in, you cant fully control what your body does with them. It is possible to reduce your calories and not lose weight because your body simply works off the new budget and slows you down.

Given the levels of obesity in an age when everyone knows about calories at least implies that people don’t have enough information in relation to where their calories come from or why certain foods incline one to overeat whereas others promote satiety or that eating 6 meals a day is probably not opimal

Where does the idea that Americans in general eat 6 meals a day come from?

silverharp · 12-12-2018 10:14am

Boom_Bap wrote: »

So my resting heart rate is identical to yours and I'd hit the same peak as you at the exact same time?
The reason there is medical science is to measure and research this stuff not because they've boxed everything off.

in every study done there is always a group that gets an above average results and a group that gets a below average or fail result. People are different and respond to inputs differently. Logically if something works for particular people but on average is no better to something else you would still tell the outperforming group to stick with it, it works for them.

silverharp · 12-12-2018 10:20am

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Where does the idea that Americans in general eat 6 meals a day come from?

Its something this doctor makes a point off emphasising , that people tended to only eat 3 meals a day a didn't snack and that this has changed now

https://idmprogram.com/the-critical-importance-of-meal-timing-for-weight-loss/

From the NHANES study in 1977, most people ate was 3 times per day – breakfast, lunch and dinner. I grew up in the 1970s. There were no snacks. If you wanted an after school snack, your mom said “No, you’ll ruin your dinner”. If you wanted an bedtime snack, she just said “no”. Snacking was not considered either necessary or healthy. It was a treat, to be taken only very occasionally.

By 2004, the world had changed. Most people were now eating almost 6 times per day. It is almost considered child abuse to deprive your child of a mid-morning snack or after school snack. If they play soccer, it somehow became necessary to give them juice and cookies between the halves. We run around chasing our kids to eat cookies and drink juice, and then wonder why we have a childhood obesity crisis. Good job, everybody, good job. Without any science to back it up, many nutritional authorities endorsed eating multiple times per day as a healthy practice. There were no studies that remotely suggested this was true. It was likely the successful efforts of snack food company advertising to dieticians, and doctors, clueless about nutrition at the best of times, who simply went along for the ride.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 12-12-2018 11:36am

Well maybe people snack in the US 3 times a day but I don’t see it here.

The grazing idea is probably nonsense though.

As for the science of nutrition, very little is real science. Trust nothing but empirical studies.

12-12-2018 11:45am

silverharp wrote: »

there is a wider context though , there is a reasonably well known doctor in Canada Dr Jason Fung (a kidney specialist) who treats Type 2 diabetics with fasting protocols , he works off an Insulin model , ie when you eat your body releases insulin when you don’t eat your body stops releasing insulin, insulin promotes weight gain as any Type 1 diabetic will confirm. ................

Yeah, no doubt.
Excess calories will provide weight gain, 100% guaranteed. The energy has to go somewhere so if it's not used it's excess and will be stored.

Anyone trying intermittent fasting etc as a weight loss tool who is not in a calorie deficit is wasting their time. Skipping breakfast might attain a calorie deficit but any weight loss will be as a result of the calorie deficit.

Any one carrying more than a few extra pounds also has close to zero chance of intuitively eating themselves into a calorie deficit as the chances are they have close to zero idea what calories a biscuit, breast of chicken, portion of potatoes, sandwich, yoghurt etc actually contains

silverharp · 12-12-2018 11:48am

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Well maybe people snack in the US 3 times a day but I don’t see it here.

The grazing idea is probably nonsense though.

As for the science of nutrition, very little is real science. Trust nothing but empirical studies.

I'd notice it at work in particular with obese people at work , come 11am and 5pm you hear the rustle of some bar or crisps being opened, chances are they eat again after dinner "what time do you eat your Cornflakes?" I'd be astonished if most obese people only ate 3 times a day.

Most studies are cr@p when you dig into exactly how they were carried out. At this stage I would only tend to trust a clinician who gets results, gets their patient off their meds etc.

12-12-2018 12:07pm

silverharp wrote: »

I'd notice it at work in particular with obese people at work , come 11am and 5pm you hear the rustle of some bar or crisps being opened, chances are they eat again after dinner "what time do you eat your Cornflakes?" I'd be astonished if most obese people only ate 3 times a day. ............

Again, it's what they are eating, not when IMO.
I have breakfast at 9 ish, lunch before 1pm. I might have 2 snacks before dinner that'd be at 7pm or 8pm and I might have another snack after that too.

For me a snack is a protein bar (230 kcals), low calorie crackers and 150g cottage cheese (215 kcals) or maybe 250g yoghurt (approx 150 kcals depending on the brand etc).

A snickers is 250 kcals so I could also have a snickers instead of any of the above but I don't as I tend to aim for high protein snacks.

The most I go without food would be about 10/11/12 hours and that's essentially overnight. During the day I don't think I'm ever more than 3 hours away from eating. An I lost 3 stone over 6 months with that eating pattern with a calorie deficit. Currently 6 weeks or so on maintenance cals (800kcals/day more than what I ate for the 6 months) and my weight is constant.

12-12-2018 12:41pm

Augeo wrote: »

Again, it's what they are eating, not when IMO.

I myself have no idea as I am not an expert by far in food or nutrition science. I do have anecdotes from which I can understand why some people label themselves nutrition experts. It is very easy to get results that make you think yourself justified in claiming to be an expert.

For me it was when someone asked me for diet advice and what I gave them changed their lives a lot. Weight loss - more concentration - more energy and drive. And so on.

So he told others. They came to me. I helped them. And word kinda spread I was some kinda go to guy on the subject. Though I always denied this strongly up front before offering my advice to eat person.

Then one day a guy came to me and he was already eating all the things I would have suggested he eat. In pretty much the "right" quantities. I was stumped for awhile. Didn't know what to tell him. He was not losing weight and felt lethargic mentally and physically.

In the end I looked at the _when_ he was eating different things. And I noticed the heavier stuff he was eating around when he should be concentrating. The energy rich stuff he was eat far away from the time of day when he usually did a lot of physical exercise.

In the end I wrote him up a new time table rather than a new diet. And the change for him was remarkable. Weight loss kicked in and all kinds of increases in energy and drive and concentration. And this appears to have remained constant in the long term. Not a jot of _what_ he was eating was changed to my knowledge.

Anecdote is dangerous though. It could have been placebo. It could have been that this change was merely delayed and was about to happen anyway just when I stepped in. Or there could be something else he is not telling me that changed. Who knows.

But it was a very powerful result which I have repeated in myself. I started watching _when_ I eat certain things - as I have been 10 years closely watching _what_ I eat. And I did notice improvements. Including eliminating entirely the dreaded mid afternoon slump at work.

12-12-2018 1:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

......... Weight loss kicked in ............

Could you quantify what the loss was?

12-12-2018 3:04pm

Afraid not no I never asked him for specifics after the fact. He had targets and he now meets them that's all I know. Exactly what the targets were etc etc I can not say. He has quite visibly lost weight though over 2 years. I would estimate from the mid 80s to the mid to slightly late 60s. But that's just a visual estimate. Not scientific

To his annoyance a lot of it is from areas like his face and arms and legs. Still has a big of a belly. Recently enough he said if he could take just a little more off his belly and put it back around his face and a couple of other places - he would be perfect.

12-12-2018 3:08pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Afraid not no I never asked him for specifics after the fact. He had targets and he now meets them that's all I know. Exactly what the targets were etc etc I can not say. He has quite visibly lost weight though over 2 years. I would estimate from the mid 80s to the mid to slightly late 60s. But that's just a visual estimate. Not scientific ...............

You reckon he lost 15kg + by just altering when he ate with no difference in the calorie intake or calorie burn/consumption?

12-12-2018 3:26pm

No. I think he _started_ to lose weight heavily by doing that.

I imagine over the last 2 years - following the initial significant weight loss - his calorie burn has gone up though. After all few of us start off with an exercise plan and are doing the exact same one 2 years later. We lift heavier - run faster - endure longer - and so forth. For example I run well over 3 times the distance in my hour run in the morning than I did when I started doing it 7 or 8 years ago.

So what I "reckon" is that his weight remained constant for a significant period of time despite his best efforts. His modification of the "when" of his food intake changed and caused many weight changes - and those weight changes in turn caused subsequent behaviour changes that in turn further caused weight changes and so on.

I think the biggest initial effect of the "when" changes however were not weight but energy, drive, motivation and concentration. He was not eating the foods that made his sleepy when he needed to be alert. He was not eating the foods that gave him lots of energy many hours after requiring that energy. And the effects of that likely fed heavily into his life style and had knock on effects to his weight issues.

As I said - just anecdote. Peppered with some correlation-causation issues. But it was interesting none the less.

Body weight is a weird weird thing - not the simple equation most people think it is I feel. For example as I said in another thread much to the consternation of whoever it was I was saying it to at the time - I am significantly lighter myself now than I was in my college days. Yet I eat more in a single meal than I would eat in a full 24 hours back then when I was the bulbous belly type. Yes I am significantly more active but it seems a weird very non-linear scale. In me at least.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 12-12-2018 4:03pm

Was a breakfast eater all through my teens, haven't been for years, always been slim and am currently pretty fit. I walk 3km to work and I'd far rather do that on an empty stomach than a full one tbh. First thing I eat would be a couple of sandwiches or dinner leftovers (curry, lasagne etc) at about noon, then something small every couple of hours or so (with a bigger dinner) until about ten or half past; very much just an eat when I'm hungry kind of person. Never really had much of an appetite for breakfast even when I was in the habit of eating it.

I do like a nice big, long, relaxed breakfast when I get up at weekends but that's about the same time as I'd be having my sandwiches during the week anyway.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 12-12-2018 6:43pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not sure historically Breakfast was all that much of a thing if something I learned a few months ago is true. Apologies for inaccuracies below - this is from memory:

A quick google on that doesn’t convince me about Rome.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_cuisine

You are right about the Middle Ages and breakfast.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_cuisine

However the exemption of working men and women is a pretty big exemption.

13-12-2018 9:05am

Well as I said I was citing it entirely from memory so I am not sure what details I might have wrong. But I would take the work of a professional historian over a "quick google" if someone had a gun to my head and I had to choose

Here is a citation of the author in question:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/mostly-old-and-ill-ate-breakfast-until-rise-working-man-180954041/

There is an interesting summation of the history of breakfast here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5FYZ_8Z9qk

While this article here suggests something almost half way between that and the wikipedia article you linked to. It basically just suggests the romans were "not big on breakfast" and "it was not a major meal" and when it was had it was normally had "on the run" and had a "lack of importance":

http://www.empirerome.com/wordpress/?page_id=599

Of course as you mention at the end of your post class does seem to come into it in pretty much every age. So I reckon some confusion when looking at what "the answer" might be in any particular historical age is that there likely was no "the answer" and different groups of people likely placed different levels of import on it at different times for different reasons. Certainly however there is enough variation over time to suggest that those saying skipping breakfast is a problem - or those going a little more extreme and calling it the "most important meal of the day" are not really on strong ground.

gctest50 · 13-12-2018 9:11am

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Where does the idea that Americans in general eat 6 meals a day come from?

also why phones have landscape mode

Macy0161 · 13-12-2018 9:41am

silverharp wrote: »

I'd notice it at work in particular with obese people at work , come 11am and 5pm you hear the rustle of some bar or crisps being opened, chances are they eat again after dinner "what time do you eat your Cornflakes?" I'd be astonished if most obese people only ate 3 times a day.

Plenty of obese people in my work that are 3 times a day eaters (from what I see). As opposed to me at 70kg who would have two or three snacks a day between meals (including a "second" breakfast of yogurt, fruit and muesli).

It's overall calories that matter, not how they're consumed.

OldRio · 13-12-2018 10:20am

Graces7 wrote: »

That advice is wise in that if you skip breakfast you are then going to get hungry midmorning and eat junk. Eating a breakfast stops that.

Fasting also is dodgy; the body sees what is happening and slows down .

Utterly incorrect.

wakka12 · 13-12-2018 10:45am

ford2600 wrote: »

I never eat breakfast.

I thinned my own forestry by hand; as physically demanding as any medieval labouring. I would have typically risen at 7 and worked, fasted until 4.

We are designed for feast and famine. Eating all your daily energy needs and more in one sitting is trivial. For me a 24 hr fast is trivial. The adaptations to make that possible for anyone are primarily psychological rather than physiological. People who have eaten breakfast everyday are utterly convinced of it's necessity and how impossible a long fast would be.

Burning body fat, in a fasted but not ketogenic state is a perfectly fine way to provide energy for sedentary activity and sub 70% VO2 max activity.

I've regularly cycled hilly 160km rides before my breakfast and continued on for up to 450km with as little as 1000cals consumed on bike. Cycled multi days events without issue with similar daily deficits.

My direct experiences of African tribes, where the vast majority of our genetics was forged, never left me with the understanding that breakfast or regular eating was necessary. In fact there was more than one smart comment about the weak white man's need to constantly top up.

Everyone is different. If I exercise and hadnt eaten beforehand I feel extremely faint, definitely not psychological

silverharp · 13-12-2018 12:59pm

Macy0161 wrote: »

Plenty of obese people in my work that are 3 times a day eaters (from what I see). As opposed to me at 70kg who would have two or three snacks a day between meals (including a "second" breakfast of yogurt, fruit and muesli).

It's overall calories that matter, not how they're consumed.

If someone is eating 6 times a day its going to be more difficult to eat within a certain calorie range, if someone is a smallish sedentary female for example and has weight issues that person would be better served only eating twice a day and should be getting their nutrients from whole foods , maybe having one or two “unhealthy” treats a week, however there are too many confectionary isles and convenience food shops around to suggest people are eating right, they are eating too much and the wrong types of “food”. There was no obesity crises in the 60’s when there was no shortage of food just a smaller selection

13-12-2018 1:05pm

Macy0161 wrote: »

................
It's overall calories that matter, not how they're consumed.

Indeed, it's quite simple conceptually and in practise from my experience.
Most other chat is simply noise IMO.

UCD GroupThink · 22-12-2018 10:21pm

Naos wrote: »

Eat a low carb/high protein/high fat meal as your last meal on a Friday night around 9pm and then don't eat until around 1pm Sat. Do similar on the Sunday. Then try to do it during the working week.

Why does everyone seem to aim to cut out eating in the morning instead of during the hours before bed?

Alf Veedersane · 22-12-2018 10:45pm

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

Why does everyone seem to aim to cut out eating in the morning instead of during the hours before bed?

Because the 'when' doesn't matter nearly as much as the 'how much'.

Gael23 · 23-12-2018 9:44am

Breakfast is the most important meal of your day. It kickstarts your digestive system following the overnight fast.
Triggers a trip to the throne as well.

orourkeda1977 · 23-12-2018 11:06am

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

You know the way when were we younger we would have heard, that going without a breakfast is very dangerous, and that it can actually make you gain weight.

Is that just something that's said to make anorexic kids eat. I think I heard Dr Phil say it to a fat girl who was desperately trying to lose weight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6KClPkotxM&t=447s

Thank you

In fairness, Dr Phil says more than his prayers sometimes.

Alf Veedersane · 23-12-2018 11:20am

Gael23 wrote: »

Breakfast is the most important meal of your day. It kickstarts your digestive system following the overnight fast.

That myth has been debunked.

_Kaiser_ · 23-12-2018 11:32am

I've been skipping breakfast for well over 20 years now and my weight has remained pretty stable in that time.

Could probably do with losing a bit but that's more down to my sweet tooth, and spending most of my time sitting down at a desk, at home in the evening, or in the car. That said, I'm no whale either.. If I feel like the weight is creeping up I just cut back on the junk food.

Breakfast is certainly important for kids as they grow I think but also because they're increasingly more active than their parents (at least in their first pre-teen years).
That in itself is a problem, and one I know I should really do something about myself, but with many jobs being less manual and long commutes now the norm, summoning the energy to go for a walk at 7/8pm after a 12/13 hour day is a challenge in itself.

Naos · 23-12-2018 11:37am

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

Why does everyone seem to aim to cut out eating in the morning instead of during the hours before bed?

Because generally speaking, it's harder to stop eating after you've eaten than it is to just forgo food early in the day.

Try it both ways, see what works for you.

killanena · 23-12-2018 11:42am

I don't eat breakfast at all and haven't sense I was a kid. I usually get up at 4:45, in work for 6, then i eat at large lunch at 9am, finished work at 3pm, snack around 4pm and dinner at 7pm. I'm not recommending it by any means, its just what works for me.

On my days off I guess I do eat breakfast because I dont get up till 8 but still eat at 9.

I also eat pretty healthy for the most part though I don't condemn myself over getting a take away or breakfast roll once or twice a week.

I'm not under or overweight, I have NY health, I don't drive so I do a lot of walking on a daily basis so I guess that helps. I also only sleep about 4 hours most nights but I take an hour nap around 5pm.

Skipping breakfast?

Comments