The Fat Loss TroubleshootThis is your place to troubleshoot your fat loss problems from nutrition to training. This section is led by Leigh Peele, author of "The Fat Loss Troubleshoot," the ultimate fat loss manual. If your results have slowed or stalled this is the place to come for advice for all your fat loss needs.
Okay, this is an off-shoot of the "skipping breakfast" thread I started earlier.
All the responses got me to thinking about IF there is any metabolic benefit to eating breakfast?
Most ppl agree that eating breakfast does make you hungrier throughout the day, so that would mean that it starts digestion, right? Isn't digestion one of the greatest calorie-burners?
Assuming that you don't have to eat breakfast . . . is there still a 'diet/weight loss' benefit to eating breakfast? does it help you burn more calories?
or does it not matter at all?
and if it isn't digestion, why are you hungrier if you eat breakfast?
__________________
***********************
If you weren't born drop dead gorgeous, be thankful for the opportunity to develop character first.
Is everyone really hungrier if they eat breakfast? Definitely not true of me. I'm starving all morning if I don't have something w/in an hour of waking.
I used to be hungrier if I ate breakfast. Now if I have a bowl of oatmeal or two eggs I'm mostly full until lunch time. But if I don't I'm usually ok until lunch time too, or at least almost until then.
I'm going to guess that even if it does get digestion going (it must, you're digesting breakfast right?) its still not burning enough calories to make up for the fact that you had food and now you want more food.
I'd venture to say the benefit of breakfast is that its yummy, and in the case that you are hungry, it fills you up.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Dog
Plus, my desire to remain stunningly attractive outweighs the call of the cheesecake. mostly...
From a psychological standpoint, maybe. Depends on which controls hunger better, really.
Quote:
and if it isn't digestion, why are you hungrier if you eat breakfast?
Hunger's tied up with quite a few feedback mechanisms, GI tract and digestion process being one of them. It's possible that gastric emptying, increased TEF, changes in blood glucose or AA, or other things I've forgotten are responsible.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Is everyone really hungrier if they eat breakfast? Definitely not true of me. I'm starving all morning if I don't have something w/in an hour of waking.
same here.
So many studies have shown that people who eat b'fast weigh less. Whether that is due to physiological or psychological reasons who knows but it has been studied a lot and those studies always seem to point to the same conclusion. I have even seen some studies that showed that people who ate half of their daily calories at b'fast ate less during the day and weighed less. Again prolly both psychological and physiological things going on but seems to work.
So many studies have shown that people who eat b'fast weigh less. Whether that is due to physiological or psychological reasons who knows but it has been studied a lot and those studies always seem to point to the same conclusion. I have even seen some studies that showed that people who ate half of their daily calories at b'fast ate less during the day and weighed less. Again prolly both psychological and physiological things going on but seems to work.
I'm curious about those studies - FIRST, you've got study design to worry about. Let's say the question is worded, "Do you eat breakfast?". Many folks might only answer yes if they eat a meal. Others might count the nutrigrain bar or the donut.
OTOH, the question, "Do you eat in the morning after waking up?" might get a whole different set of attitudes and responses.
Once you get past all the wording problems, then there's other issues that pop up when you start to draw conclusions.
Maybe someone who eats breakfast answered the question only because they actually have a sit down meal. Now, that person *might* be more likely to eat healthier and more consciously throughout the day, which leads to less weight gain.
The opposite of that coin is that someone who waits until the donut break at 11am to eat anything might also be having fast food at 1pm and Olive Garden for dinner. Maybe.
And, of course, there is still the possibility that breakfast is doing something metabolically . . . but its not the only potential reason why there are weight discrepancies.
__________________ "My yoga class had me trembling and sweating and I feel MUCH better." - Fang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tenacious Training and Tweaking (the A lotta Alitteration thread)
It's not so much hunger that makes me eat breakfast.. when I would skip it, I could just as well not eat till the evening as being in a fasted state revs me up too much. Once I would sit down for a meal.. a face plant into food is not unusual.
Eating breakfast calms me down. Using the right combinations = a combination of eggs, fruit, coconut & coffee + fish oil seems to do a very good job to keep me calm & happy till at least 6-8 hrs later.
Regardless of benefits or non-benefits, how could you not eat breakfast?!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katydid77
Okay, this is an off-shoot of the "skipping breakfast" thread I started earlier.
All the responses got me to thinking about IF there is any metabolic benefit to eating breakfast?
Most ppl agree that eating breakfast does make you hungrier throughout the day, so that would mean that it starts digestion, right? Isn't digestion one of the greatest calorie-burners?
Assuming that you don't have to eat breakfast . . . is there still a 'diet/weight loss' benefit to eating breakfast? does it help you burn more calories?
or does it not matter at all?
and if it isn't digestion, why are you hungrier if you eat breakfast?
__________________
Charles Staley, B.Sc., MSS The Relentless Pursuit Of New Personal Records™ http://Www.CharlesStaley.com
800-519-2492
"It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."
As in.. breaking the fast 'breakfast' ?
I'm often having a pre-breakfast... within 20mins of waking up I'll eat 2-3 dates, take my supplements (among which a fatburner) with a glass of grapefruit juice (some naringin present) & sometimes wait for another 2 hrs before actual breakfast gets eaten around 10-11am.
Ah.. the bliss of working @ home !
For the record, during Ramadan the fast is traditionally broken with a date . I figured, since a date is high glycemic & has good fibers & vitamins it is a very rapid way to get you out of gluconeogenesis.
From the standpoint of promoting leanness, exercise is of most value if oxidation of stored fat is maximized during and following the exercise sessions. Bahadori has proposed that this can best be achieved if prolonged exercise of moderate intensity is performed during a 12-14h "mini-fast" that entails skipping a meal; if subsequent food consumption features low-fat foods, the fat stores expended during and after the exercise will not be fully repleted by dietary fat. Thus, prolonged compliance with such a regimen should lead to steady loss of body fat until a much leaner equilibrium body composition is attained. The feasibility and efficacy of this strategy has been examined in an open pilot study. Participants were asked to perform prolonged, moderate-intensity aerobic exercise at least 3-5 times weekly, nesting each exercise session within a 12-14h mini-fast. No restrictions were placed on daily calorie consumption, but low-fat, low-glycemic-index food choices were recommended. Of the 34 subjects originally enrolled, 27 returned for follow-up evaluations at 6 and 12weeks. During the 12week study, the average fat loss in these 27 subjects - 7.4kg - corresponded to one-quarter of their baseline fat mass. Fasting insulin levels likewise fell by 25%. The rate of fat loss was at least as great in the second 6weeks as in the first, suggesting that fat loss might have persisted for some time if the study had been prolonged. This protocol, combining elements of exercise training, fasting, and low-fat eating, is both sustainable and healthful, and in reasonably compliant subjects may have considerable potential for promoting and maintaining leanness and insulin sensitivity.
PMID: 19577377
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
From the standpoint of promoting leanness, exercise is of most value if oxidation of stored fat is maximized during and following the exercise sessions. Bahadori has proposed that this can best be achieved if prolonged exercise of moderate intensity is performed during a 12-14h "mini-fast" that entails skipping a meal; if subsequent food consumption features low-fat foods, the fat stores expended during and after the exercise will not be fully repleted by dietary fat. Thus, prolonged compliance with such a regimen should lead to steady loss of body fat until a much leaner equilibrium body composition is attained. The feasibility and efficacy of this strategy has been examined in an open pilot study. Participants were asked to perform prolonged, moderate-intensity aerobic exercise at least 3-5 times weekly, nesting each exercise session within a 12-14h mini-fast. No restrictions were placed on daily calorie consumption, but low-fat, low-glycemic-index food choices were recommended. Of the 34 subjects originally enrolled, 27 returned for follow-up evaluations at 6 and 12weeks. During the 12week study, the average fat loss in these 27 subjects - 7.4kg - corresponded to one-quarter of their baseline fat mass. Fasting insulin levels likewise fell by 25%. The rate of fat loss was at least as great in the second 6weeks as in the first, suggesting that fat loss might have persisted for some time if the study had been prolonged. This protocol, combining elements of exercise training, fasting, and low-fat eating, is both sustainable and healthful, and in reasonably compliant subjects may have considerable potential for promoting and maintaining leanness and insulin sensitivity.
PMID: 19577377
So to translate this into a program:
So one could fast from 10pm tonight to 12 noon tomorrow; that truly is not much of a fast... just a little minifast, and then go out for an hour brisk walk, and come back and have lunch.
If my cardio is 7-8pm I'd need to fast the whole day before that, to be able to come home and have dinner... That's more like my EatStopEat 22 hour fast. hmmm
I wonder what "prolonged" means... more than 60 min? how much more?
I still haven't dug up my pilfered user name and password to access journal articles, but I did find this blog that gives more details of the study mentioned above:
So many studies have shown that people who eat b'fast weigh less.
Studies also repeatedly show that income level and obesity level are highly related. So making more money might be the best diet. It's the old correlation vs. causation issue.
PMDL nailed it -- the physiological issues are probably minimal. Fasting used to be feared as too catabolic to muscle but that doesn't seem to be true. Except when it is (like if you aren't using the muscles).
And fasted cardio was a running joke in fitness circles that was thought to have no benefit. Except now it seems that there might be something to it after all. But these things, even while statistically significant, don't matter if they aren't applied in the context of the big picture -- if you want to lose weight, you gotta burn more than you eat.
Bottom line -- if you can skip breakfast without any major cravings, "make up meals" or mental sharpness issues at work, then go for it if you want to reduce calories and save time in the morning.
__________________ Megaloi -- My Blog
"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
- Mignon McLaughlin
I have some gripes about that study. Of course, it does say it's a pilot study, so that's something to keep in mind.
They didn't do any controls whatsoever. Perhaps that's something for future experiments? About the only thing it shows right now is that you CAN lose weight and fat while doing mini fasts. It says nothing about the effectiveness of this protocol compared to other alternatives. We don't really know the effects here of the various components of the protocol. Is it simply calories in versus out? What role does the fasting play? Does it enhance the effects of less calories in and more out? This study doesn't address that question.
Here's what the one experimental group got:
Quote:
One week prior to the initiation of the study, prospective participants
were given a half-hour lecture explaining the protocol and a
5-page handout which summarized it. The volunteers were asked
to exercise at least 3–5 days weekly, in the context of a mini-fast
as explained above. Exercise in which the subject supports his
own weight – e.g. brisk walking, jogging, stair climbing, treadmills, and elliptical gliders – was recommended, and the volunteers were asked to gradually increase the duration of their exercise sessions to around 45 min, as their bodies became acclimated to the exercise.
Guidance on food choices was also provided; consumption of fatty animal products was particularly discouraged, whereas consumption of whole natural foods moderate in both fat content and glycemic index was strongly encouraged. Moderate alcohol
consumption was explicitly permitted.
The results seen seem like they would be possible based entirely on the exercise and nutrition advice, especially since they started with what seems like a pretty overweight/obese group. The average starting weight was 90.2 kg, which is ~199 lbs, and an average waist size of 108.2 cm, or ~42.6 inches. They don't give a breakdown of the different participants based on sex, or BMI, or anything else. Just averages for the entire group.
What I would like to see for controls:
- The most important control group, IMO, would be a group that got the same diet advice (low fat, low GI diet) and same exercise advice, but no fasting.
- Another would be fasting and diet advice, but no exercise.
- There are other variations that would be informative, but I understand it's hard to get volunteers for this type of study.
There are a few more things that bug me, but I'll stop here. It will be interesting to see what their future experiments show.
I never skip meals, I can't. Some people can skip meals with no problem, they don't even think about it. Their bodies can handle it just fine. Mine, I crash and burn. Even though my blood sugar tests as fine always, I know I'm sensitive to blood sugar drops.
I've always woken up ready for breakfast, even in HS and college when no one seemed to eat breakfast, and I'd be first in line for lunch and dinner. But after that, I don't need any food, not a nighttime eater.
Whether or not there's a benefit, I think just depends on whether or not eating at a specific time makes you feel better or not. I know there are all the specifics out there, about raising metabolism and such, but food to me is about how I feel when I eat.
Raising metabolism is the only thing that doesn't happen with a fast.. though there can be a small effect on body temperature due to larger amounts of catecholamines being produced as a result of the stress of fasting.
But apparently there's all kind of health markers improving, especially for people with pre-diabetes that have a blood glucose level that runs on the high side.
Shouldn't it just be an individual preference choice? In other words, some folks have issues with blood sugar levels, and eating breakfast, as well as eating consistently throughout the day, is important to their well being. Others don't mind at all having long breaks without food. I'm one of those individuals that can eat breakfast, then go 8 hours during work and not eat anything. I was really successful in getting a ton of weight off with "Body for Life"; but I felt like a slave to the 5 or 6 small meals per day approach. For me, that approach was successful, but a drag. I've since broken away from that mindset and now I don't worrying about whether or not I eat during the day. If I fit lunch in great. If not, I'll just eat the calories after work. No big deal either way.
I never skip meals, I can't. Some people can skip meals with no problem, they don't even think about it. Their bodies can handle it just fine. Mine, I crash and burn. Even though my blood sugar tests as fine always, I know I'm sensitive to blood sugar drops.
I've always woken up ready for breakfast, even in HS and college when no one seemed to eat breakfast, and I'd be first in line for lunch and dinner. But after that, I don't need any food, not a nighttime eater.
Whether or not there's a benefit, I think just depends on whether or not eating at a specific time makes you feel better or not. I know there are all the specifics out there, about raising metabolism and such, but food to me is about how I feel when I eat.
Most people can't just go from eating regularly to skipping one or two meals. Their bodies and minds are ready and waiting for regular food. It took me about two weeks of slowly increasing the span between waking and eating before I was able to go until noon, muck less dinner.
Most people here will see the same thing you see when you skip a meal. It takes a break-in period for most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soonermark99
Shouldn't it just be an individual preference choice?
Shouldn't it just be an individual preference choice?
Yes, I wasn't pushing for a new law or anything. I was simply asking if there was a dietary metabolic benefit to eating breakfast, or if that was one of those things that have gotten overrated in the world of abundance in nutritional input and information.
For myself, I will say that I have never really enjoyed eating breakfast, BUT if i make myself eat something in the mornings, it really helps me to not make poorer food choices throughout the day.
Currently, I have been drinking 16 oz of 2% milk in the mornings. It's easy (doesn't make me gag), and gives me a sensation of satiety for several hours. I figure its 24 grams of protein for only a couple hundred calories, so that's a good trade off.
__________________
***********************
If you weren't born drop dead gorgeous, be thankful for the opportunity to develop character first.
Yes, I wasn't pushing for a new law or anything. I was simply asking if there was a dietary metabolic benefit to eating breakfast, or if that was one of those things that have gotten overrated in the world of abundance in nutritional input and information.
For myself, I will say that I have never really enjoyed eating breakfast, BUT if i make myself eat something in the mornings, it really helps me to not make poorer food choices throughout the day.
Currently, I have been drinking 16 oz of 2% milk in the mornings. It's easy (doesn't make me gag), and gives me a sensation of satiety for several hours. I figure its 24 grams of protein for only a couple hundred calories, so that's a good trade off.
That was kind of my point. It sounds like even though you have to force yourself to consume something first think in your day, it works better for you through out the rest of day.
They didn't do any controls whatsoever. Perhaps that's something for future experiments? About the only thing it shows right now is that you CAN lose weight and fat while doing mini fasts. It says nothing about the effectiveness of this protocol compared to other alternatives. We don't really know the effects here of the various components of the protocol. Is it simply calories in versus out? What role does the fasting play? Does it enhance the effects of less calories in and more out? This study doesn't address that question.
The big selling point w/ this vs. previous studies - and what made a control group pretty redundant - is the lack of calorie monitoring.
In virtually every study done w/o researcher oversight, compliance is crap. Overweight people consistently under-report their food intake, unless someone is watching them or better, preparing and providing their meals.
The big push here is that these people weren't monitored for what or how much they ate, only the timing. And they still lost, consistently.
The take-away is that limiting the feeding window and combining it w/ exercise yields losses.
Quote:
The results seen seem like they would be possible based entirely on the exercise and nutrition advice, especially since they started with what seems like a pretty overweight/obese group. The average starting weight was 90.2 kg, which is ~199 lbs, and an average waist size of 108.2 cm, or ~42.6 inches. They don't give a breakdown of the different participants based on sex, or BMI, or anything else. Just averages for the entire group.
Average bodyfat score started at 30% and dropped to low 20s, which is a substantial drop.
And yeah, a better breakdown of the data set would have been nice, but it's Med Hypothesis.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
I have some gripes about that study. Of course, it does say it's a pilot study, so that's something to keep in mind.
the journal that its published in (no peer review), and the fact above (I wouldnt call that a pilot study perse, but they can say whatever they want in that journal) make your points overly critical
you are just lucky tehy dont start talking about navel fluff
Steinhauser G.
Vienna University of Technology, Atominstitut der Osterreichischen Universitäten, Stadionallee 2, 1020 Vienna, Austria. georg.steinhauser@ati.ac.at
Hard facts on a soft matter! In their popular scientific book (Leyner M, Goldberg B. Why do men have nipples - hundreds of questions you'd only ask a doctor after your third martini. New York: Three Rivers Press; 2005), Leyner and Goldberg raised the question why "some belly buttons collect so much lint". They were, however, not able to come up with a satisfactory answer. The hypothesis presented herein says that abdominal hair is mainly responsible for the accumulation of navel lint, which, therefore, this is a typically male phenomenon. The abdominal hair collects fibers from cotton shirts and directs them into the navel where they are compacted to a felt-like matter. The most abundant individual mass of a piece of lint was found to be between 1.20 and 1.29 mg (n=503). However, due to several much larger pieces, the average mass was 1.82 mg in this three year study. When the abdominal hair is shaved, no more lint is collected. Old T-shirts or dress shirts produce less navel fuzz than brand new T-shirts. Using elemental analysis, it could be shown that cotton lint contains a certain amount of foreign material, supposedly cutaneous scales, fat or proteins. Incidentally, lint might thus fulfill a cleaning function for the navel.
ANY Benefit to eating breakfast?
?
Linear Mode
