Breakfast - Not the weight loss fairy it's supposed to be?

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by James81

No, because we established that after 3 days, the body enters starvation mode and stores fat more rapidly, remember?

We also established (by the two links I posted above), that the body won't enter starvation mode after a mere 12 hours. Nor will metabolism change that much.

Again, you reach to extremes to try and make a point.

Actually, I did more research and there is no proff of that claim. Even if the body takes 3 days to stop. Your metabolism doesnt go from optimal at 2days, 23 hrs and 59 min 59 sec to total shut down, it gradually slows down. Your 2 links also established that your metabolism will probably slow down. Now as a dieter why would you pull the handbrakes on the mechanism that will determine how much fat vs. muscle you lose.


Think of it like this. If you are driving on a long journey without alot of petrol pumps, you will fill up the tank and maybe carry an extra gas tank. Your body does this in the form of glycogen (carbs) and adipose bodyfat. Now the body can only store about 350 grams of glycogen in the muscles and 70 grams in the liver, but it can store unlimited amount of food as fat for later use. unlike the car, the body can give you better miles per gallon of food, depending on how rarely you feed it becos as you stated the body is smart and adapts. Bodyfat is there to keep you alive. so the less you feed, the more efficient its got to be at giving you sips of fuel for tasks it would have given you buckets for beforehand




Do you train in a gym? Because I do and I can tell you from personal experience the difference between people who eat 1ce a day in the evening and people who eat through out the day. One loses alot of muscle and the other loses fat faster

[rocksupreme]

Originally Posted by Orecle

Do you train in a gym? Because I do and I can tell you from personal experience the difference between people who eat 1ce a day in the evening and people who eat through out the day. One loses alot of muscle and the other loses fat faster

Anecdotes of self-reported dietary habits hold no water.

What you have written so far in this thread has totally failed to convince me that you are an expert on diet and metabolism. Please report back with some serious research.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

Whether or not one eats breakfast is just one of about a million factors that determines one's health and wellness.

Nobody has every claimed that eating breakfast was like flipping a "skinny" switch. But eating the right things at the right times (varies according to who you are, where you are, and where you want to be) is one of the key ways to improve your health.

This kind of vast oversimplification is one reason for all the fad diets that people try and can't figure out why they're still fat.

For the record, my bodyfat fluctuates between 8 and 12 %, and I eat eggs, sausage, and butter every single morning. My cholesterol is low and my triglycerides are extremely low. I look at least five years younger than I am (and I ain't old). Is it because I eat breakfast? Probably not, but it certainly isn't hurting...

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

If you usually eat crap and have a sedentary lifestyle, maybe this is accurate. BUT, I can tell you for a fact, that it is not true for me (former "skinny-fat," so NOT a mesomorph). I fast one day a week and burn fat every single time.

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

Anecdotes of self-reported dietary habits hold no water.

What you have written so far in this thread has totally failed to convince me that you are an expert on diet and metabolism. Please report back with some serious research.

Pot calling the kettle black.
1. You are being hypocritical. Are you not the same one who went on about fasting and losing bodyfat everytime, Are you not the one who bragged about eating bacon and crap and being between 8 - 12% bf? Sounds like 'Anecdotes of self-reported dietary habits' to me?

And yours hold no water with me eiether, so I guess we even'.


ps. I dont remember trying to convince you so NO i will not provide you with SERIOUS research.

pss. For the record, most so-called serious research is done on an extremely small population size ie 11 - 20 people, or they are done by companies selling snake-oil

I would have debated you if you were'nt so rude and dismissive, espiecally wen you have the cheek to chastise me for something you have done in 2 posts on this thread

[James81]

Originally Posted by Orecle

Actually, I did more research and there is no proff of that claim. Even if the body takes 3 days to stop. Your metabolism doesnt go from optimal at 2days, 23 hrs and 59 min 59 sec to total shut down, it gradually slows down. Your 2 links also established that your metabolism will probably slow down. Now as a dieter why would you pull the handbrakes on the mechanism that will determine how much fat vs. muscle you lose.


Think of it like this. If you are driving on a long journey without alot of petrol pumps, you will fill up the tank and maybe carry an extra gas tank. Your body does this in the form of glycogen (carbs) and adipose bodyfat. Now the body can only store about 350 grams of glycogen in the muscles and 70 grams in the liver, but it can store unlimited amount of food as fat for later use. unlike the car, the body can give you better miles per gallon of food, depending on how rarely you feed it becos as you stated the body is smart and adapts. Bodyfat is there to keep you alive. so the less you feed, the more efficient its got to be at giving you sips of fuel for tasks it would have given you buckets for beforehand




Do you train in a gym? Because I do and I can tell you from personal experience the difference between people who eat 1ce a day in the evening and people who eat through out the day. One loses alot of muscle and the other loses fat faster

Well, it might help you to know that I'm one of those people that believe exercising and diet is a lifelong habit and not one based on "speed." So, the fact that perhaps my metabolism slows a bit until I eat my first meal in the day doesn't really bother me (i.e. I don't mind "pulling the handbrake slightly" once in a while), because I know I have the rest of my life to be healthy.

But even knowing that, You still haven't convinced me of much. I think it's the HABIT that matters the most here, and not some science of the week. If you are habitually used to eating two meals per day, then why on earth would you force yourself to eat 6 meals per day?

What you fail to understand is that everybody is different. The most important part of this lifestyle is not WHEN you eat, but WHAT you eat. And the "eating" part is not nearly as important as the exercise part.

[rocksupreme]

Oh no! The dreaded "mad" smiley! I must be in big trouble now.

Originally Posted by Orecle

Pot calling the kettle black.
1. You are being hypocritical.

Are you not the same one who went on about fasting and losing bodyfat everytime, Are you not the one who bragged about eating bacon and crap and being between 8 - 12% bf? Sounds like 'Anecdotes of self-reported dietary habits' to me?

And yours hold no water with me eiether, so I guess we even'.

Wow. I guess we both lose the pissing contest then...

I can see your point. I have used personal anecdote to support some claims here. I don't think I "went on," or "bragged" necessarily (and I'm certain I don't eat crap), but it could be possible to get that impression.

Still, you have the choice to believe what I write or challenge its veracity. You could have asked me for sources or expert opinions about high-fat diets and fasting for fat loss. I would have been happy to share the resources that have shaped my approach.

ps. I dont remember trying to convince you so NO i will not provide you with SERIOUS research.

In your statement that I originally quoted, you were in fact, trying to convince readers of this thread that people who eat once a day and people who eat multiple meals have different results.

To me, your statement just sounded like third-hand hearsay. You're not talking about your own habits, you're making guesses about the habits of others. I was skeptical, so I called you on it. I guess I hit a nerve.

pss. For the record, most so-called serious research is done on an extremely small population size ie 11 - 20 people, or they are done by companies selling snake-oil

That's not serious research. That's crap research. I think you're smart enough to know the difference, which is why I was hoping you would direct me to some of the good kind of research that supports your argument.

I would have debated you if you were'nt so rude and dismissive, espiecally wen you have the cheek to chastise me for something you have done in 2 posts on this thread

Honestly, I'm not interested in debating. I was just hoping you could give us some better info than "some guys in my gym told me they eat a certain way and they're pretty buff."

I didn't know it was rude to ask for clarification and evidence. Sorry, my bad. If I had known you'd get worked up into some sort of tantrum about it, I would not have posted. If you could have responded with a bit more class, I would have certainly tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[edith]

rocksupreme, you rock! (bet you've never heard that before!)

***

Why would it be better to eat an amount of food to *prepare* yourself for an amount of activity, rather than eat afterward, when your body knows how much you expended? That's what eating breakfast is. You haven't done anything yet, really. Maybe a small amount to eat after not eating all night. But if you could fill up a couple of hours into the day, it would make more sense. Problem is - with work or school - people aren't freed up to fill up as needed.

[rocksupreme]

Originally Posted by edith

rocksupreme, you rock! (bet you've never heard that before!)

Aww, shucks...

Why would it be better to eat an amount of food to *prepare* yourself for an amount of activity, rather than eat afterward, when your body knows how much you expended? That's what eating breakfast is. You haven't done anything yet, really. Maybe a small amount to eat after not eating all night. But if you could fill up a couple of hours into the day, it would make more sense. Problem is - with work or school - people aren't freed up to fill up as needed.

That sounds sensible. There's no rule that says breakfast has to be eaten upon waking. I've seen a lot of coaches recommend eating after some morning exercise (a walk/jog, or just some good stretching).

The main point about breakfast to me is that the body's energy systems require some sort of regularity with fuel intake. If your diet consists primarily of fats (in my case, eggs and meat, but Steve Pavlina gets his fats from raw vegan sources), you can go longer between meals. If most of your energy comes from carbohydrates, you're going to need to replenish more often.

Breakfast is the easiest meal to skip for most people because we sleep through the insulin crash after dinner. If we eat a big lunch and try to skip dinner, we feel like we're dying by bedtime.

My personal preference is to give the body a lot of calories and then exercise enough to prevent excess fat storage, but a lot of people think caloric restriction is the only way to lose weight or keep bodyfat in check. It's really a matter of matching your diet to your lifestyle and energy needs.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

For the record, my bodyfat fluctuates between 8 and 12 %, and I eat eggs, sausage, and butter every single morning. My cholesterol is low and my triglycerides are extremely low. I look at least five years younger than I am (and I ain't old). Is it because I eat breakfast? Probably not, but it certainly isn't hurting...

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

If you usually eat crap and have a sedentary lifestyle, maybe this is accurate. BUT, I can tell you for a fact, that it is not true for me (former "skinny-fat," so NOT a mesomorph). I fast one day a week and burn fat every single time.

Please show me one piece of research in even one of your posts? Pls show me one statement that proves you as an expert from all your posts in this thread? Pls tell me anything I said that you disagree with and pls show me some serious research To clarify?

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

Oh no! The dreaded "mad" smiley! I must be in big trouble now.



Wow. I guess we both lose the pissing contest then...

I can see your point. I have used personal anecdote to support some claims here. I don't think I "went on," or "bragged" necessarily (and I'm certain I don't eat crap), but it could be possible to get that impression.

Still, you have the choice to believe what I write or challenge its veracity. You could have asked me for sources or expert opinions about high-fat diets and fasting for fat loss. I would have been happy to share the resources that have shaped my approach.

Did I even address you let alone refute, anything thing you wrote? Why am I going to ask you for sources on highfat diets or fasting? Did I in any of my posts shoot down any of your claims? I see plenty of low carbs, high fat and protein diets in bodybuilding and thoroughly beleive in their efficacy, so What did I say in my post to give you the impression that I needed the knowlegde

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

In your statement that I originally quoted, you were in fact, trying to convince readers of this thread that people who eat once a day and people who eat multiple meals have different results.

To me, your statement just sounded like third-hand hearsay. You're not talking about your own habits, you're making guesses about the habits of others. I was skeptical, so I called you on it. I guess I hit a nerve.

No. I was debating James 81. Just because my statement sounded like heresay doesnt mean it was. Pls can you provide research that PROVES or even suggest I am wrong (since you threw the 1st punch)

In fact I know pls go through all my posts and tell me which posts you have a problem with and I will happily defend them.

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

That's not serious research. That's crap research. I think you're smart enough to know the difference, which is why I was hoping you would direct me to some of the good kind of research that supports your argument.

I was being sarcastic and I know you are smart enough to know that

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

Honestly, I'm not interested in debating. I was just hoping you could give us some better info than "some guys in my gym told me they eat a certain way and they're pretty buff."

I didn't know it was rude to ask for clarification and evidence. Sorry, my bad. If I had known you'd get worked up into some sort of tantrum about it, I would not have posted. If you could have responded with a bit more class, I would have certainly tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You are eiether lying or have forgotten your post.
You claim

(1) I was just hoping you could give us some better info than "some guys in my gym told me they eat a certain way and they're pretty buff."

(2) didn't know it was rude to ask for clarification and evidence

but I thought you didnt want a debate, then why did want better info, clarification and evidence. If i provided it and you didnt agree would we not end up debating? Kick started by you, right?

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

Anecdotes of self-reported dietary habits hold no water.

What you have written so far in this thread has totally failed to convince me that you are an expert on diet and metabolism. Please report back with some serious research.

The above post was the post that kicked things off.



Where in the above post did you ask for better, or even any info on my posts?, and where did you ask for any clarification and evidence?

You were rude, be a man and admit it. You would never speak to somebody who wasnt even addressing you like that, in person in your gym. If you had asked me to backup my claims from the start I would have done it

ps. are you the same Andy Fossett in the pictures on the Anabolic Diet website?
pss. Do you or have you ever coached bodybuilding competitors? If so would you have them eat there 1st meal 8 - 10 hrs after waking. pls tell me your reasons why
psss. Would you qualify yourself as a fitness expert and why?

[rocksupreme]

Originally Posted by Orecle

No. I was debating James 81.

Then use a PM instead of the public board. When you post on the public board, everyone has the right to comment.

You were rude, be a man and admit it.

Rudeness is apparently in the eye of the beholder; you seem to have beheld my post in a way I did not intend. Was it was rude enough for you to mount a full-on attack? I'm not sure you're the right person to point the finger on politeness here.

ps. are you the same Andy Fossett in the pictures on the Anabolic Diet website?

Yes. I am the person on the site linked in my signature. Mysteriously enough...

pss. Do you or have you ever coached bodybuilding competitors? If so would you have them eat there 1st meal 8 - 10 hrs after waking. pls tell me your reasons why

Not much into bodybuilding. I do coach martial arts competitors.

I would not advise that for athletes.

psss. Would you qualify yourself as a fitness expert and why?

Um... no. The first thing any expert does with a new client is assessment, so I don't believe anyone giving out easy answers across the board can pretend to be authoritative. I just don't think there's one right answer for everyone about meal timing and frequency.

[Atrox]

With the risk of attracting 3 "enemies" in one post, I would like to add that you are all acting in the same manner. Everybody is saying "well, if you'd have asked me to give you proof of serious research, I would have given it to you", but then nobody does anything in this direction. More so, each is talking out of his own personal experience and then blames the other one for doing the exact same thing.

No, nobody died and made me moderator, but since I have started this thread, I believe I am entitled to ask you to take your personal fight somewhere else.

Peace.

[papitosabe]

Originally Posted by James81

Why would metabolism "slow to a crawl" just because you choose to eat later in the day?

Especially if you make a habit out of it. The more you repeat a behavior with your body, the more your body will adapt and adjust to that behavior.

And let's face it...weight loss is regulated by a simple formula:

calories in > calories out --->Gain weight
calories in =calories out ---->Maintain weight
calories in < calories out ---->Lose weight

That has very little to do with metabolism. Metabolism regulates the amount of activity you need to do or the amount of calories you take in to maintian/lose/gain weight.

Someone who eats 6 small meals a day at 2000 calories will see no difference than someone who eats 2 large meals a day at 2000 calories.

The same person eating the same amount of calories per day will not cause a noticeable shift in metabolism so long as the amount of calories coming in stays at the same rate everyday.

cals in vs calls out is the law of thermodynamics... got it, but i guarantee you that the person eating 6 times will be more lean than the one eating 2 even if staying at the same weight.... regarding breakfast, look at the word, BREAK FAST...you are breaking a fast from the time you went to sleep to the time you wake up...if you skip breakfast, you're body needs an energy source when you wake up...there's only about a 30 minute window where you're body will use its fats stores in the morning by not eating...so if you exercise to hard in the A.M. or go about the day with not eating, you will break down muscle tissue as an energy source (catabolism)...

[James81]

Originally Posted by papitosabe

cals in vs calls out is the law of thermodynamics... got it, but i guarantee you that the person eating 6 times will be more lean than the one eating 2 even if staying at the same weight.... regarding breakfast, look at the word, BREAK FAST...you are breaking a fast from the time you went to sleep to the time you wake up...if you skip breakfast, you're body needs an energy source when you wake up...there's only about a 30 minute window where you're body will use its fats stores in the morning by not eating...so if you exercise to hard in the A.M. or go about the day with not eating, you will break down muscle tissue as an energy source (catabolism)...

I think you need to study fasting a little bit. I used to fast every year in January for 3 days, and then spend 2 days after that coming off the fast. In doing so, I learned quite about about fasting and how to go about it.

First of all, when you fast, your body switches over and starts burning off those reserves of fat that are in your body. (so, in essence, by not eating breakfast, your body is switching towards that fat-burning process automatically)

Secondly, when you are ready to come OFF the fast, they urge you to do so slowly. After a three day fast, I would start on the fourth day by eating a piece of fruit for breakfast, a piece of bread for lunch, a salad for supper. Then on the fifth day, I would eat fruit and bread, a salad for lunch, and then eat a very light dinner, slowly introducing meat back in that 5th day.

However, the people who urge you to eat breakfast, urge you to make it your BIGGEST meal of the day (from what I've heard), even though your body has been on a "fast" for 12 hours or more. You know what happened when I tried to rush off a fast? I got diahrea and had stomach issues.

It doesn't matter how long you wait to eat. What matters is how you break that period of fasting. Someone who skips breakfast should know that if you are going to do that, then you need to eat a light, sensible lunch. So long as you ease your body back into the eating and eat RIGHT, it doesn't matter when you eat.

I've never eaten breakfast on a regular basis a day in my life. When I DO eat breakfast, I feel like crap the entire day. And I've never struggled with weight gain because of it. I did gain some weight when I was married, but that was because I was eating pizza and subs everyday, instead of healthy food. Then, I lost the weight after my divorce, and still never ate breakfast and I never lost muscle either (I actually GAINED muscle because the catalist for losing weight was me pushing carts at a local Walmart every night for 6 hours). I never felt better then I did those days pushing carts, and I never ate breakfast hardly at all then.

About a month ago, I started following the dogma that is out there. I ate like 6 times a day, and exercised 4 or 5 days a week (and it was healthy food like fruts and vegetables mostly). After 30 days, I actually gained weight, and it wasn't muscle. It was fat, right in my gut.

My point? Everybody is different. What matters MOST is the HABIT that you are used to, that you eat right and your body is getting enough fuel, and that you don't force anything on yourself, but you ease into it slowly.

[angies]

What James said is exactly my experience. I never used to eat breakfast and was fine until I read that you have to eat breakfast and eat 6 meals a day. When I follow this I gain weight slowly over the year. I find that I get more hungry when I do this and tend to over eat. Now I don't eat breakfast, I go to the gym 4 times a week in the morning, I have raw for lunch and proper dinner. my weight is slowly reduced and I feel much healthier. I do not know the real science on how things works but just know that this works for me.

Now I just chuckle when my friends try to convince me to eat breakfast. I have been there and no expert can convince me to go back there.

[CoolBee]

I know eating breakfast makes me so hungry that I stuff my face all day.
Regardless of whether I eat breakfast or not, and regardless of how big or small any breakfast that I do eat is, I am hungry at 1030am. If I have NOT eaten breakfast, the hunger is a mild annoyance that passes off after about 10 mins. If I HAVE eaten breakfast, the hunger is so distracting and gnawing that I have to eat and eat to quell it.
Several years ago I had access to a medical research library through the Athens system and looked up the research on eating breakfast - there was not a lot and most of it seemed to be based on either deprived adolescents for whom it was the only nourishing meal they were getting all day or on groups of overweight women drinking 'nutritious shakes' and conducted over 3 whole days.

I know people (fat or thin) like me who find eating breakfast makes them ravenously hungry all day, and others who can't function without it. We are all different.

Personally, I favour the idea that everyone 'must' eat breakfast is pushed heavily by the breakfast cereal industry and bears little relation to real life.

Now if I suspect I am being asked the question by a breakfast-jihadee I say 'yes I always eat breakfast'. I generally take my first meal sometime 1130-12 if I can, and the second meal about 5-6pm and a light snack late. This eating plan works well for me, I don't feel hungry all day, and it keeps my weight under control (in that my weight stays steady - whether its too high or not)

Exercise is the main factor for me in whether or not I lose/gain weight.

[MightySunTzu]

Originally Posted by papitosabe

if you skip breakfast, you're body needs an energy source when you wake up...there's only about a 30 minute window where you're body will use its fats stores in the morning by not eating...so if you exercise to hard in the A.M. or go about the day with not eating, you will break down muscle tissue as an energy source (catabolism)...

Hi papitosabe,

This 30 minute rule is interesting and i hurry to eat a fruit meal in the morning as if i believe it. That and because it feels good and so right . Do you have any sources/links to support this concept?

[papitosabe]

Originally Posted by James81

I think you need to study fasting a little bit. I used to fast every year in January for 3 days, and then spend 2 days after that coming off the fast. In doing so, I learned quite about about fasting and how to go about it.

First of all, when you fast, your body switches over and starts burning off those reserves of fat that are in your body. (so, in essence, by not eating breakfast, your body is switching towards that fat-burning process automatically)

Secondly, when you are ready to come OFF the fast, they urge you to do so slowly. After a three day fast, I would start on the fourth day by eating a piece of fruit for breakfast, a piece of bread for lunch, a salad for supper. Then on the fifth day, I would eat fruit and bread, a salad for lunch, and then eat a very light dinner, slowly introducing meat back in that 5th day.

However, the people who urge you to eat breakfast, urge you to make it your BIGGEST meal of the day (from what I've heard), even though your body has been on a "fast" for 12 hours or more. You know what happened when I tried to rush off a fast? I got diahrea and had stomach issues.

It doesn't matter how long you wait to eat. What matters is how you break that period of fasting. Someone who skips breakfast should know that if you are going to do that, then you need to eat a light, sensible lunch. So long as you ease your body back into the eating and eat RIGHT, it doesn't matter when you eat.

I've never eaten breakfast on a regular basis a day in my life. When I DO eat breakfast, I feel like crap the entire day. And I've never struggled with weight gain because of it. I did gain some weight when I was married, but that was because I was eating pizza and subs everyday, instead of healthy food. Then, I lost the weight after my divorce, and still never ate breakfast and I never lost muscle either (I actually GAINED muscle because the catalist for losing weight was me pushing carts at a local Walmart every night for 6 hours). I never felt better then I did those days pushing carts, and I never ate breakfast hardly at all then.

About a month ago, I started following the dogma that is out there. I ate like 6 times a day, and exercised 4 or 5 days a week (and it was healthy food like fruts and vegetables mostly). After 30 days, I actually gained weight, and it wasn't muscle. It was fat, right in my gut.

My point? Everybody is different. What matters MOST is the HABIT that you are used to, that you eat right and your body is getting enough fuel, and that you don't force anything on yourself, but you ease into it slowly.

you're body always burns fat, just at different levels depending on what heart rate you're at...and when you sleep, you actually burn a higher percentage of fat...thats a fact..

2nd...when you fast, you're body will go into a catabolic state...that means you break down muscle tissue, thats a fact, its no pseudoscience...yea, it may be good to fast to get rid of waste in your body thru fasting, but at the end of the day, you lose muscle, thereby lowering your metabolic rate..

yea, if you eat crap for breakfast you will feel like crap...go to mcd's and get a deluxe breakfast, then eat a nutritious breakfast another morning, you should be fine...if you're having problems eating in the morning and getting stomach aches and such, you may need to see someone about that...but telling people to skip a sensible breakfast is not logical IMO...i guess we'll just agree to disagree...

i used to weigh 256, now I way 189...i was told to start eating 5 times a day from my normal two months a day...breakfast was hard because i wasn't hungry...but i did it... with exercise i lost 9 lbs the 1st month...i don't crash from food like i used to...

[papitosabe]

Originally Posted by MightySunTzu

Hi papitosabe,

This 30 minute rule is interesting and i hurry to eat a fruit meal in the morning as if i believe it. That and because it feels good and so right . Do you have any sources/links to support this concept?

studied it thru the national association of sports medicine (NASM) and it goes into depth a little more, just don't have it on me...and its not 30 min exactly...its something like 25 to 35 if i remember correctly..its a small window...while you sleeping you're body burns calories and you use up you're glycogen stores(sugar)..so when you wake up, you're levels are low...its said its a good time to exercise for that small period to tap into mostly fat (no intense exercise) and no food or juice...going too hard and long will go into that catabolic state i mentioned, and you may crash, feel dizzy, kinda of like diabetics when they don't have that sugar...hope this makes sense... you will find both sides of the spectrum about this though and some say its a myth...but the glycogen theory makes sense to me, because i tried it on myself along with some other things thru trial and error...

[James81]

Originally Posted by papitosabe

you're body always burns fat, just at different levels depending on what heart rate you're at...and when you sleep, you actually burn a higher percentage of fat...thats a fact..

2nd...when you fast, you're body will go into a catabolic state...that means you break down muscle tissue, thats a fact, its no pseudoscience...yea, it may be good to fast to get rid of waste in your body thru fasting, but at the end of the day, you lose muscle, thereby lowering your metabolic rate..

yea, if you eat crap for breakfast you will feel like crap...go to mcd's and get a deluxe breakfast, then eat a nutritious breakfast another morning, you should be fine...if you're having problems eating in the morning and getting stomach aches and such, you may need to see someone about that...but telling people to skip a sensible breakfast is not logical IMO...i guess we'll just agree to disagree...

i used to weigh 256, now I way 189...i was told to start eating 5 times a day from my normal two months a day...breakfast was hard because i wasn't hungry...but i did it... with exercise i lost 9 lbs the 1st month...i don't crash from food like i used to...

Like I said, you don't understand how fasting works.

[MightySunTzu]

Originally Posted by James81

I think you need to study fasting a little bit. I used to fast every year in January for 3 days, and then spend 2 days after that coming off the fast. In doing so, I learned quite about about fasting and how to go about it. First of all, when you fast, your body switches over and starts burning off those reserves of fat that are in your body. (so, in essence, by not eating breakfast, your body is switching towards that fat-burning process automatically)

Actually this major shift into ketosis (burning fat as the primary fuel source) doesn't take place until about the 3rd day of a water fast. Mostly in day 1 our body is burning up all of the glucose and glycogen stores. Day two completes this process and then it actually becomes necessary to convert some protein to glucose to fuel the brain (about 2-3 ounces in this day). The transition into ketosis (in day 3) allows the amount of protein burning to be reduced to about 1/2 to 1 ounce per day. A water fast is indeed protein sparing, but only once the body has transitioned into ketosis. At this point, ketones actually become the primary source of fueling the brain, though the brain still continues to require a certain amount of glucose throughout the fast (and thus a small amount of protein continues to be converted to glucose). I guess to make a long story short, the amazing protein sparing aspect of our bodies is very real, it's just not real until the 3rd day of a fast.

Originally Posted by James81

Secondly, when you are ready to come OFF the fast, they urge you to do so slowly. After a three day fast, I would start on the fourth day by eating a piece of fruit for breakfast, a piece of bread for lunch, a salad for supper. Then on the fifth day, I would eat fruit and bread, a salad for lunch, and then eat a very light dinner, slowly introducing meat back in that 5th day... However, the people who urge you to eat breakfast, urge you to make it your BIGGEST meal of the day (from what I've heard), even though your body has been on a "fast" for 12 hours or more. You know what happened when I tried to rush off a fast? I got diahrea and had stomach issues.

I'm sorry, are you equating an overnight 12 hour fast to a 72 hour fast? Breaking a 3 day fast with a big meal (not advisable) is not the same as eating a big breakfast after a 12 hour break. Proportionately, that would be like comparing a 3 day fast to an 18 day fast.

Originally Posted by James81

It doesn't matter how long you wait to eat. What matters is how you break that period of fasting. Someone who skips breakfast should know that if you are going to do that, then you need to eat a light, sensible lunch. So long as you ease your body back into the eating and eat RIGHT, it doesn't matter when you eat.

You are talking about being on water-only most mornings until lunchtime, yes? I'm the first person to believe in the benefits of periodic fasting, but i don't believe we are best served by extending our daily overnight fast by several hours every day as a habit. I do very much believe that our metabolism is made to be slower in such a scenario as the body in all its wisdom reacts to the absense of intake and begins to conserve nutrients.

Originally Posted by James81

I've never eaten breakfast on a regular basis a day in my life. When I DO eat breakfast, I feel like crap the entire day. And I've never struggled with weight gain because of it. I did gain some weight when I was married, but that was because I was eating pizza and subs everyday, instead of healthy food. Then, I lost the weight after my divorce, and still never ate breakfast and I never lost muscle either (I actually GAINED muscle because the catalist for losing weight was me pushing carts at a local Walmart every night for 6 hours). I never felt better then I did those days pushing carts, and I never ate breakfast hardly at all then.

I'm guessing it's not fruit you ate for breakfast if what you ate made you feel lousy. What kind of food was it, the Standard American Diet of bacon, eggs, hash browns, orange juice and danishes? Milk and cerial perhaps? If breakfast made you feel crappy, perhaps it was the wrong choice of foods.

re: muscle building, certainly we can build muscle without eating breakfast, the question is "am i doing everything i can to build as much muscle as possible?". Certainly we can burn fat without eating breakfast, but the question is "am i doing everything i can to burn fat while preserving muscle?" We'll never know if you would have gained even more muscle by eating something upon awakening, but most body builders and their coaches will say you would have. Is it even remotely possible that they know something that you don't?

Originally Posted by James81

About a month ago, I started following the dogma that is out there. I ate like 6 times a day, and exercised 4 or 5 days a week (and it was healthy food like fruts and vegetables mostly). After 30 days, I actually gained weight, and it wasn't muscle. It was fat, right in my gut.

Well if we go by your own words, 2000 calories in a day is 2000 calories regardless of how it is partitioned. If eating 6 times a day caused you to gain weight compared to having eaten twice, it can only be (again by your own words) that you took in more calories with the greater number of meals than you were taking in with the smaller number... and now the apples to apples comparison is gone. By your own words, the same number of calories in 2 meals would have given you the same weight gain. And according to a good many experts in the field of weight loss, your metabolism would have been slower with 2 meals as compared to with 6, so with an equal number of calories taken in, you would have gained even more.

[James81]

Originally Posted by MightySunTzu

Actually this major shift into ketosis (burning fat as the primary fuel source) doesn't take place until about the 3rd day of a water fast. Mostly in day 1 our body is burning up all of the glucose and glycogen stores. Day two completes this process and then it actually becomes necessary to convert some protein to glucose to fuel the brain (about 2-3 ounces in this day). The transition into ketosis (in day 3) allows the amount of protein burning to be reduced to about 1/2 to 1 ounce per day. A water fast is indeed protein sparing, but only once the body has transitioned into ketosis. At this point, ketones actually become the primary source of fueling the brain, though the brain still continues to require a certain amount of glucose throughout the fast (and thus a small amount of protein continues to be converted to glucose). I guess to make a long story short, the amazing protein sparing aspect of our bodies is very real, it's just not real until the 3rd day of a fast.

I'm sorry, are you equating an overnight 12 hour fast to a 72 hour fast? Breaking a 3 day fast with a big meal (not advisable) is not the same as eating a big breakfast after a 12 hour break. Proportionately, that would be like comparing a 3 day fast to an 18 day fast.

Fasting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glucose is the body's primary fuel source and is essential for the brain's functioning. When denied glucose for more than 4–8 hours, the body will turn to the liver for glycogen, a storage form of glucose, to be used for fuel. A process called glycogenolysis converts glycogen into a usable form of fuel. At this point, the body will also use small amounts of protein to supplement this fuel. This fuel will last for up to 12 hours before the body needs to turn to muscle stores of glycogen, lasting for a few more days. If glucose is still denied at this point, muscle wasting is prevented by temporarily switching to fat as the fuel source, meaning fat is converted into ketone through catabolism. Ketones, while not sugars, are able to be used by the brain as a fuel source as long as glucose is denied.

As a byproduct of metabolism, some toxins are captured in adipose tissue. During fat catabolism these toxins are released into the blood stream[1] and present the body with a second challenge for their elimination. The body will continue to use fat for as long as there is fat to consume. The body will generally indicate to the faster when fat levels are running extremely low (less than 7% of bodyweight for males 10% for females) with an increased urge for food. Fasts are usually broken long before this point. If the fast is not broken, starvation will begin to occur, as the body begins to use protein for fuel. Death can occur if fasting is pursued to the point of complete starvation.

.

I underlined the important parts. I also found it interesting the bit about fasting every other day actually being healthy(wouldn't that be HELL on your metabolism?).

Originally Posted by MightySunTzu

You are talking about being on water-only most mornings until lunchtime, yes? I'm the first person to believe in the benefits of periodic fasting, but i don't believe we are best served by extending our daily overnight fast by several hours every day as a habit. I do very much believe that our metabolism is made to be slower in such a scenario as the body in all its wisdom reacts to the absense of intake and begins to conserve nutrients.

But what you don't understand is that the body will react to only significant CHANGES made in it. If the body is used to not eating until lunchtime, then it's not going to change everyday, it will adapt to that. If you have a daily habit of NOT eating breakfast, the body will actually react to when you DO eat breakfast because it's not used to handling that.

Originally Posted by MightySunTzu

I'm guessing it's not fruit you ate for breakfast if what you ate made you feel lousy. What kind of food was it, the Standard American Diet of bacon, eggs, hash browns, orange juice and danishes? Milk and cerial perhaps? If breakfast made you feel crappy, perhaps it was the wrong choice of foods.

No, I love standard american breakfast foods, but I simply CANNOT eat them in the mornings.

When I eat breakfast, it's usually fruit. Or something like Cream of Wheat or Oatmeal. But mostly just some fruit (apples, bananas, etc.).

Originally Posted by MightySunTzu

re: muscle building, certainly we can build muscle without eating breakfast, the question is "am i doing everything i can to build as much muscle as possible?". Certainly we can burn fat without eating breakfast, but the question is "am i doing everything i can to burn fat while preserving muscle?" We'll never know if you would have gained even more muscle by eating something upon awakening, but most body builders and their coaches will say you would have. Is it even remotely possible that they know something that you don't?

I'm not a guru on food, and I don't pretend to be. But I do know a few things and I have read a few things (and I've tried SEVERAL different types of diets).

I do know that I don't look at it as "am I doing everything I can to build as much muscle as I can and burn as much fat as I can", because, well, I'm at peace with myself and don't feel the need to constantly strive to be the best at optimum levels. I recognize dieting as a lifelong habit, and I realize that it's a slow process. But it's all good, because I have the rest of my life to do it.

That being said, I do what works for me. Yes, I am open to someone knowing something that I don't, but when I personally try it and discover that it doesn't work for me, I stop doing it instead of forcing myself to do something that I know isn't working.

And that has been my point. I'm not arguing that eating breakfast is bad. I'm just saying that NOT ALL PEOPLE need to eat breakfast to burn fat. And I'm also arguing that the difference in metabolism from not eating breakfast is negligible. And my final arguement is that the body is a fuction of habit. The habits you create for yourself will determine your body's efficiency.

I like to think of it in terms of our ancestors and how they ate and lived (from an evolutionary point of view). Do you really believe that they woke up and first thing at breakfast? No, if they wanted breakfast when they woke up, they had to go out and get it (exercise before eating!). Do you think they ate 6 times a day? I bet they were lucky to find food 2 or 3 times a day.

Our society may be different today, but our bodies are very much adapted to that type of lifestyle (our ancestors as hunters and gatherers).

Originally Posted by MightySunTzu

Well if we go by your own words, 2000 calories in a day is 2000 calories regardless of how it is partitioned. If eating 6 times a day caused you to gain weight compared to having eaten twice, it can only be (again by your own words) that you took in more calories with the greater number of meals than you were taking in with the smaller number... and now the apples to apples comparison is gone. By your own words, the same number of calories in 2 meals would have given you the same weight gain. And according to a good many experts in the field of weight loss, your metabolism would have been slower with 2 meals as compared to with 6, so with an equal number of calories taken in, you would have gained even more. [/COLOR][/FONT]

I don't really pay much attention to calories (because I focus more on exercise)...but I went from eating pizzas, subs, hot dogs, hamburgers, french fries, etc. twice a day (usually would get two hot dogs or two hamburgers at lunch with some fries and something sweet like a candy bar, and at night I would order a pizza, wings, or a sub of some kind), which, incidentally, I wasn't gaining any weight even eating THAT kind of trash because I was staying active.

But then I decided that it was healthier for me to eat healthier (not for the sake of my WEIGHT, but for other things like cholestoral, blood pressure, heart health, etc.), so I took a 30 day trial of eating as you suggest.

For breakfast, I would have fruit or oatmeal (as I said above). At 10 AM I would eat a thing of non-fat yogurt. At lunch I ate a tuna on wheat bread sandwhich, an apple, and an orange. At 2 I would eat about a half cup of mixed nuts and another apple. For dinner, I would eat two different types of vegetables (usually fresh, as I'm not keen on canned veggies) with fish. Before bed sometime I would eat a salad (my salads are pure veggies with NO lettuce) with low-fat itallian dressing.

My guess is that the caloric intake was probably LOWER eating 6 times a day than it was when I wasn't really caring about what I was eating 2 or 3 times a day.

[MightySunTzu]

Hi James,

Originally Posted by James81

Fasting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Glucose is the body's primary fuel source and is essential for the brain's functioning. When denied glucose for more than 4–8 hours, the body will turn to the liver for glycogen, a storage form of glucose, to be used for fuel. A process called glycogenolysis converts glycogen into a usable form of fuel. At this point, the body will also use small amounts of protein to supplement this fuel. This fuel will last for up to 12 hours before the body needs to turn to muscle stores of glycogen, lasting for a few more days. If glucose is still denied at this point, muscle wasting is prevented by temporarily switching to fat as the fuel source, meaning fat is converted into ketone through catabolism. Ketones, while not sugars, are able to be used by the brain as a fuel source as long as glucose is denied."

With your wiki quote you actually support my position so i suppose a thank you is in order . However, their description is less complete than others i have seen, i would say it is abbreviated, perhaps for simplicity and leaves out the parts about the protein that needs to be converted to glucose especially as the body is transitioning towards ketosis and also to a much lesser extent (to the tune of 1/2 to 1 ounce per day) throughout the fast. This quote is more thorough:

"The Physiological Changes of Fasting
Many of the most dramatic changes that occur in the body during fasting take place on the first three days of the fast. These occur as the body switches from one fuel source to another. Normally, the primary form of energy the body uses for energy is glucose, a type of sugar. Most of this is extracted or converted from the food we eat. Throughout the day, the liver stores excess sugar in a special form called glycogen that it can call on as energy levels fall between meals. There is enough of this sugar source for 8-12 hours of energy and usually, it is completely exhausted within the first 24 hours of fasting. (However, once the body shifts over to ketosis or fat as fuel, this new fuel is used to also restore the body's glycogen reserves.)
Once the liver's stores of glycogen are gone, the body begins to shift over to what is called ketosis or ketone production - the use of fatty acids as fuel instead of glucose. This shift generally begins on the second day of fasting and completed by the third. In this interim period there is no glucose available and energy from fat conversion is insufficient but the body still needs fuel. So it accesses glucose from two sources. It first converts glycerol, available in the body's fat stores, to glucose but this is still insufficient. So it makes the rest that it needs from catabolizing, or breaking down, the amino acids in muscle tissue, using them in the liver for gluconeogenesis, or the making of glucose. Between 60 and 84 grams of protein are used on this second day, 2-3 ounces of muscle tissue. By the third day ketone production is sufficient to provide nearly all the energy the body needs and the body's protein begins to be strongly conserved. The body still needs a tiny amount of glucose for some functions, however, so a very small amount of protein, 18-24 grams, is still catabolized to supply it - from 1/2 to 1 ounce of muscle tissue per day. Over a 30 day water fast a person generally loses a maximum of 1-2 pounds of muscle mass."
from The Health Benefits of Water Fasting .

In any case, fasting is indeed a protein sparing activity. To fast for 30 days and lose only 1-2 pounds of muscle is to me a small price to pay for the phenomenal benefits that will be derived, cleansing and otherwise... along with about 15 pounds of actual fat loss... and gaining that muscle back will be easy, especially with the fasters newly detoxified super-charged body.

Originally Posted by James81

But what you don't understand is that the body will react to only significant CHANGES made in it. If the body is used to not eating until lunchtime, then it's not going to change everyday, it will adapt to that. If you have a daily habit of NOT eating breakfast, the body will actually react to when you DO eat breakfast because it's not used to handling that.

You may have a good point here. I can't honestly say i know one way or the other. Do you have any literature to back up this interesting contention? I still suspect (and believe) that even with delayed eating as a lifestyle and even though the body will adapt to it in some ways, your metabolism will still be slower (substantial enough as to not be neglegible) than it would have been by breaking the daily fast sooner and you will still use up a small amount of protein/muscle in the morning when the body is reaching for carbs that are not there.

Originally Posted by James81

No, I love standard american breakfast foods, but I simply CANNOT eat them in the mornings.

When I eat breakfast, it's usually fruit. Or something like Cream of Wheat or Oatmeal. But mostly just some fruit (apples, bananas, etc.).

I do see your point that in the morning a person's body may not feel like eating a heavy breakfast. I went years just having sweet creamy coffee for breakfast until i saw that i needed to quit that habit and replace it with something healthy. So just out of curiousity, does the morning fruit agree with you or does that make you feel lousy too? I actually won't have anything but fruit (smoothies or otherwise) or fresh juice until noon, but that's not the same as skipping breakfast. It is actually a small feast .

Originally Posted by James81

I do know that I don't look at it as "am I doing everything I can to build as much muscle as I can and burn as much fat as I can", because, well, I'm at peace with myself and don't feel the need to constantly strive to be the best at optimum levels. I recognize dieting as a lifelong habit, and I realize that it's a slow process. But it's all good, because I have the rest of my life to do it.

For me, this is all the more reason to embrace every good health habit i can. If i am going to all the trouble of working out my muscles for example, i want to have the dietary habits that will provide the support i need to attain the full benefits of that workout. With all other factors being equal (such as being sure to have protein before and after the workout), if eating 6x per day will gain me 3 grams of muscle from that workout and eating 2x will gain me 2 grams, i want to be walking in the habit that gives me the 50% extra. Over a year and over a lifetime, that's a lot of extra benefit from those workouts.

Originally Posted by James81

I like to think of it in terms of our ancestors and how they ate and lived (from an evolutionary point of view). Do you really believe that they woke up and first thing at breakfast? No, if they wanted breakfast when they woke up, they had to go out and get it (exercise before eating!). Do you think they ate 6 times a day? I bet they were lucky to find food 2 or 3 times a day. Our society may be different today, but our bodies are very much adapted to that type of lifestyle (our ancestors as hunters and gatherers).

Haha, an interesting possibility . I'm guessing the folks that lived by apple trees ate as often as they wanted and the guys that lived in the glaciers had to work harder. But really who knows? The guys in Alaska that killed game must have had it for many days to feast on, no? Then there are the nuts that could have been gathered and socked away in abundance.

In any case, if most of the research points to there being a greater benefit in eating more frequent, smaller meals (which i believe it does), i'm going to live that way unless i come to a place where i am convinced otherwise. If on the other hand people choose to eat 2-3 meals per day, while it may not be optimal, it's certainly not going to kill them. To be honest, i did that for many years. I could adapt to either, so i choose the way i believe to be the best.

I'm not stating this as scientific fact, but i remember reading somewhere from a certain proponent that 2-3 meals per day makes your body akin to a Hyundai and 6 meals per day makes it into the most high performance machine it can be, like a porsche. It makes a certain sense to me and i really do feel more energetic throughout the day eating this way.

[rocksupreme]

Originally Posted by MightySunTzu

i really do feel more energetic throughout the day eating this way.

That's probably because you keep your insulin levels extremely high during the day. If you are eating relatively low carb, this can work out, but it can be taxing on your system over time (like anything, really) and lead to fat storage is you aren't careful about when you eat your carbs and fats.

Sounds like it's working for you though, which is great. But it may have as much to do with what you're eating as is does with how often.

[MightySunTzu]

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

That's probably because you keep your insulin levels extremely high during the day. If you are eating relatively low carb, this can work out, but it can be taxing on your system over time (like anything, really) and lead to fat storage is you aren't careful about when you eat your carbs and fats.

These are good points rock, good things to be aware of. Since you got me curious, i looked up glycemic index of foods and found that fruits in general are considered to be low (because of their fiber and other nutrient content). 55 and above is "high" (based on a 100 number for pure glucose) and 35 (or 40?) and below is considered "low". Some common high foods are french fries "95", white bread "85", potatos "95", white rice "90", corn flakes "85". Even carrot juice which i expected to be high was ranked pretty low with an index of 40. Apples are 35. Apple juice is 50, orange juice is 45.

Almost everything i eat is on the low list (with some medium), so happily, i don't believe i keep my insulin levels high at all.

The Glycemix Indexes Table

Do you practice low carb? I actually don't.

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

Sounds like it's working for you though, which is great. But it may have as much to do with what you're eating as is does with how often.

Yes i think so too. I do believe that frequency of meals is a factor, but a relatively minor one compared to exercising (whip ass high intensity cardio and resistance training are especially good) and eating nutritiously, however frequent.

[rocksupreme]

Originally Posted by MightySunTzu

exercising (whip ass high intensity cardio and resistance training are especially good) and eating nutritiously, however frequent.

Well, those will ensure your results right there.

By the way, I didn't mean to say your insulin was necessarily "high" in an objective sense. Rather, after eating, your insulin levels increase relatively. A lot of the surging and waning of energy levels people experience throughout the day are due to the fluctuation of hormone levels after meals. By eating often, those levels stay pretty high until you are asleep.

[MartinP]

heres a great article on breakfast:

The Importance Of Eating Breakfast « That Health Rules

[MightySunTzu]

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

By the way, I didn't mean to say your insulin was necessarily "high" in an objective sense. Rather, after eating, your insulin levels increase relatively. A lot of the surging and waning of energy levels people experience throughout the day are due to the fluctuation of hormone levels after meals. By eating often, those levels stay pretty high until you are asleep.

Ah, i misinterpreted you... thought you were dissin my blood sugar

[rocksupreme]

Originally Posted by MightySunTzu

Ah, i misinterpreted you... thought you were dissin my blood sugar

Nah, man. I don't even know her...

[Dreamline]

Food and meal timing, calories in and calories out, intentional fasting, diets, juicing, breakfast and no breakfast..are all modern inventions for something humans have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years and didn't need an ounce of technology for.

First, the amount of total food we consume is massive compared to what we really need.

Second, humans are designed to withstand short, medium and fairly long gaps in the spacing between meals without having to worry about "losing muscle mass." Any serious symptoms one experiences when skipping a meal have probably more to do with a withdrawal of sugar (ie: carbs) than anything else, when all factors are considered, and the resulting insulin responses. This isn't a design issue. It's a carbo overload issue.

Certain humans, the least physically evolved of us, which are those with blood type O, are designed to absolutely thrive on sporadic meals and have digestion and metabolism that are geared toward squeezing every ounce of nutrition out of a meal. Overeating and eating larger, regular heavy meals with carbohydrates and sugars are actually quite detrimental to their health. They are encouraged to skip breakfast on the blood type diet.

If you have ever heard of Ayurveda, people with Kapha, or sluggish metabolisms, are encouraged to not have breakfast at all, have a larger lunch and a very light dinner. Another way of living that is thousands of years old.

Interestingly, I was in the habit of skipping breakfast years and years before I learned I was a Kapha with blood type O. Thriving. So what other people tell you has nothing on what your own body tells you. If you do better with breakfast, eat it. If you don't feel as good with breakfast, skip it.

Jennifer

[rocksupreme]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

Food and meal timing, calories in and calories out, intentional fasting, diets, juicing, breakfast and no breakfast..are all modern inventions for something humans have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years and didn't need an ounce of technology for.

I don't think anybody was claiming that the body's relationship with food was a new thing. Just because we give it a name doesn't mean we invented it. We didn't invent atoms when we discovered the principles of quantum physics. They were there all along.

I don't know that we can make meaningful statements about the amount of food we need. We all need different amounts of food based on a variety of factors.

I'd also hesitate to say that humans were "designed" to function in a particular way, unless you're a creationist, in which case, best of luck to you in life.

They are encouraged...

by whom?

[Dreamline]

The blood type diet is primarily the realm of Dr Peter D'Adamo, ND...here is his site:

Eat Right For Your Type :: The Official Blood Type Diet Site


The ayurvedic stuff is just google-able. There are many sources.

Jennifer