Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Breakfast yes or no?
Replies
-
Let's provide one more example of why breakfast is personal choice.
Two people body eat dinner at 7pm. Both go to bed at 11pm. One sleeps for 8 hours and the other for 12 hours. What is going to happen if they both start their meals at noon the next day?0 -
The guy who woke up at 8 hours is obviously gonna die from malnutrition....0
-
So what does your body have fat cells for? What have mine been storing for so long, crafty little things. I thought they held calories as triglycerides this whole time.bigcountry89je48 wrote: »I think that breakfast helps the intake of nutrients. The fact that at the begginig of the day you are already on your way to achieving your set calories/nutrients etc. Also since it's the first meal of the day, it is (in my case) kind of a set time, unlike lunch or dinner that vary (like when you have to push lunch/dinner because of work/school/special events).UHhhhhhWHAaaTmf wrote: »Eating breakfast *Kickstarts your metabolism* (speeds up) making you feel hungry sooner than if you skipped (depending if you are substituting with coffee etc)
Would you get in your car to drive a mile or few with NO GAS? (no calories) I wouldnt.
You need fuel to function, yes you will go into your body's store reserves for energy from fat but with skipping breakfast you aren't getting aminos (protein) to maintain and prevent (catabolism)muscle breakdown.
We work hard for muscle..Why would you want to lose it?
My .02 cents
I will have to agree here without breakfast your body has no calories "fuel" to burn off. I eat 2 boiled eggs and have a protein shake every morning plus my daily vitamins. If I don't eat breakfast I feel like crap all day and feel like I havnt accomplished anything. You have to take in calories to burn off anyways just low portions at a time.
Not to mention the glycogen stored in your muscles and the glucose circulating in your bloodstream.
And I guess maybe some people have never heard of Intermittent Fasting and/or fasted cardio.0 -
bigcountry89je48 wrote: »I think that breakfast helps the intake of nutrients. The fact that at the begginig of the day you are already on your way to achieving your set calories/nutrients etc. Also since it's the first meal of the day, it is (in my case) kind of a set time, unlike lunch or dinner that vary (like when you have to push lunch/dinner because of work/school/special events).UHhhhhhWHAaaTmf wrote: »Eating breakfast *Kickstarts your metabolism* (speeds up) making you feel hungry sooner than if you skipped (depending if you are substituting with coffee etc)
Would you get in your car to drive a mile or few with NO GAS? (no calories) I wouldnt.
You need fuel to function, yes you will go into your body's store reserves for energy from fat but with skipping breakfast you aren't getting aminos (protein) to maintain and prevent (catabolism)muscle breakdown.
We work hard for muscle..Why would you want to lose it?
My .02 cents
I will have to agree here without breakfast your body has no calories "fuel" to burn off. I eat 2 boiled eggs and have a protein shake every morning plus my daily vitamins. If I don't eat breakfast I feel like crap all day and feel like I havnt accomplished anything. You have to take in calories to burn off anyways just low portions at a time.
You presumably ate the day before, so I wouldn't assume you wake up glycogen depleted. You also probably have some excess fat to burn. Humans can easily survive for a period of time without eating, it's not hard or bad for us to skip a meal. (I eat breakfast myself because I enjoy it, but it's not necessary -- it's really just a traditional pattern of eating in many places.)0 -
No breakfast.
I wanna spike the human growth hormone (HGH) and testosterone in my body.
I love going to gym at 6am with no food in my system.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »How do you think science gets supported.anyways you classified it as a debate now debate HunDancingDarl wrote: »Neither
Btw your post is going to be problematic on here as it is extremely controversial. So I will stick to my opinion based on my own ideas and experiences. It doesn't matter when you eat only what and how much. If you ain't hungry don't eat brekky, it will help boost your metabolism for a small period then after that it will slow it so hence the controversy on here. Both theories are correct. A one day fast us fine,skipping briskly is fine don't get too obsessed .
This is the debate section. The purpose is to discuss and debate those part of nutrition. You can have an opinion, but if its not supported by science it will be challenged, especially in this section.
The controversy here is that many people get information from blogs, newspapers and netflix "documentaries" as opposed to scientific articles.
When people talk about an increase in metabolism, they are talking about your bodies response to upregulate your metabolism to digest calories; since your body burns calories to digest foods (thermal effect of food), people feel that eating multiple times a day, they will enable this process to continuously burn calories. After its done digesting food, your metabolism will deregulate and go back to running your system. But the thing is, the TEF will be the same regardless of meal and is more dependent on total calorie intake (btw, this is a 24 hour continuous process). This is why, meal frequency does not matter.
And another issue is, people have put those labels (breakfast, lunch and dinner) and have delineated specific periods of time for those. So technically, we all eat breakfast (since it means that you break the fast). People just so happen to suggest whether we do it during the periods established for breakfast, lunch or dinner.
By scientific study.
And I am sorry, but what am I supposed to be debating with you. I already provided a lengthy response and you didn't have any other questions.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »How do you think science gets supported.anyways you classified it as a debate now debate HunDancingDarl wrote: »Neither
Btw your post is going to be problematic on here as it is extremely controversial. So I will stick to my opinion based on my own ideas and experiences. It doesn't matter when you eat only what and how much. If you ain't hungry don't eat brekky, it will help boost your metabolism for a small period then after that it will slow it so hence the controversy on here. Both theories are correct. A one day fast us fine,skipping briskly is fine don't get too obsessed .
This is the debate section. The purpose is to discuss and debate those part of nutrition. You can have an opinion, but if its not supported by science it will be challenged, especially in this section.
The controversy here is that many people get information from blogs, newspapers and netflix "documentaries" as opposed to scientific articles.
When people talk about an increase in metabolism, they are talking about your bodies response to upregulate your metabolism to digest calories; since your body burns calories to digest foods (thermal effect of food), people feel that eating multiple times a day, they will enable this process to continuously burn calories. After its done digesting food, your metabolism will deregulate and go back to running your system. But the thing is, the TEF will be the same regardless of meal and is more dependent on total calorie intake (btw, this is a 24 hour continuous process). This is why, meal frequency does not matter.
And another issue is, people have put those labels (breakfast, lunch and dinner) and have delineated specific periods of time for those. So technically, we all eat breakfast (since it means that you break the fast). People just so happen to suggest whether we do it during the periods established for breakfast, lunch or dinner.
Despite what some post-modernists want to espouse, science and the rational empirical process is not simply one form of opinion. At some point the fact that it produces efficacious results tends to act rather eloquently as an argument for it over other methods for interpreting the reality.0 -
How do artists get funded? The popular ones by following trends, and the unpopular ones by committee. Shall we tar and feather the artists for stooping to filthy lucre? They have to feed their families somehow.
I respect the conclusion of someone who first posits a question, designs an experiment to find an answer, and obtains a conclusive result. Bonus points if the conclusion is published, retested, and validated.
Over, say, a charming vlogger.0 -
I don't want to live in a world without breakfast...0
-
DancingDarl wrote: »How do you think science gets supported.anyways you classified it as a debate now debate HunDancingDarl wrote: »Neither
Btw your post is going to be problematic on here as it is extremely controversial. So I will stick to my opinion based on my own ideas and experiences. It doesn't matter when you eat only what and how much. If you ain't hungry don't eat brekky, it will help boost your metabolism for a small period then after that it will slow it so hence the controversy on here. Both theories are correct. A one day fast us fine,skipping briskly is fine don't get too obsessed .
This is the debate section. The purpose is to discuss and debate those part of nutrition. You can have an opinion, but if its not supported by science it will be challenged, especially in this section.
The controversy here is that many people get information from blogs, newspapers and netflix "documentaries" as opposed to scientific articles.
When people talk about an increase in metabolism, they are talking about your bodies response to upregulate your metabolism to digest calories; since your body burns calories to digest foods (thermal effect of food), people feel that eating multiple times a day, they will enable this process to continuously burn calories. After its done digesting food, your metabolism will deregulate and go back to running your system. But the thing is, the TEF will be the same regardless of meal and is more dependent on total calorie intake (btw, this is a 24 hour continuous process). This is why, meal frequency does not matter.
And another issue is, people have put those labels (breakfast, lunch and dinner) and have delineated specific periods of time for those. So technically, we all eat breakfast (since it means that you break the fast). People just so happen to suggest whether we do it during the periods established for breakfast, lunch or dinner.
Despite what some post-modernists want to espouse, science and the rational empirical process is not simply one form of opinion. At some point the fact that it produces efficacious results tends to act rather eloquently as an argument for it over other methods for interpreting the reality.
In other words, science > dem feelz.0 -
I went from having black coffee and cigarettes for breakfast and not eating til 6pm (waking up at 7am), to eating a 250-350 cal breakfast every day, to now only having a cup of coffee with creamer for "breakfast" and then eating at 11 or 12.
I've come to realize it does not really matter if *I* eat breakfast or not, it's just what I prefer. Am I hungry? Okay then, I'll eat. Not hungry? Just coffee. I prefer to workout on an empty stomach. Or even better, coffee about 30-60 minutes beforehand.0 -
Personally I've gotten nearly miraculous results doing the 8 hour eating window (12pm-8pm) intermittent fasting protocol. I'm not sure but some evidence suggests this kind of eating works better for men due to our different hormonal make up. I have read in a few different places women can benefit from a 10 hour eating window. Besides, everybody eats breakfast--it just depends on 'when' you eat it. I eat mine at noon. Those who (like me) do not wake up hungry are not doing themselves any favors by eating early in the morning, in my opinion.0
-
yes.0
-
Bad things can happen if I skip breakfast lol (cravings,irritability, low energy, hunger). Especially if you're active, I think it's important for most people0
-
DancingDarl wrote: »Neither
Btw your post is going to be problematic on here as it is extremely controversial. So I will stick to my opinion based on my own ideas and experiences. It doesn't matter when you eat only what and how much. If you ain't hungry don't eat brekky, it will help boost your metabolism for a small period then after that it will slow it so hence the controversy on here. Both theories are correct. A one day fast us fine,skipping briskly is fine don't get too obsessed .
[Edited by MFP Staff]
How does eating breakfast boost metabolism?0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »How do you think science gets supported.anyways you classified it as a debate now debate HunDancingDarl wrote: »Neither
Btw your post is going to be problematic on here as it is extremely controversial. So I will stick to my opinion based on my own ideas and experiences. It doesn't matter when you eat only what and how much. If you ain't hungry don't eat brekky, it will help boost your metabolism for a small period then after that it will slow it so hence the controversy on here. Both theories are correct. A one day fast us fine,skipping briskly is fine don't get too obsessed .
This is the debate section. The purpose is to discuss and debate those part of nutrition. You can have an opinion, but if its not supported by science it will be challenged, especially in this section.
The controversy here is that many people get information from blogs, newspapers and netflix "documentaries" as opposed to scientific articles.
When people talk about an increase in metabolism, they are talking about your bodies response to upregulate your metabolism to digest calories; since your body burns calories to digest foods (thermal effect of food), people feel that eating multiple times a day, they will enable this process to continuously burn calories. After its done digesting food, your metabolism will deregulate and go back to running your system. But the thing is, the TEF will be the same regardless of meal and is more dependent on total calorie intake (btw, this is a 24 hour continuous process). This is why, meal frequency does not matter.
And another issue is, people have put those labels (breakfast, lunch and dinner) and have delineated specific periods of time for those. So technically, we all eat breakfast (since it means that you break the fast). People just so happen to suggest whether we do it during the periods established for breakfast, lunch or dinner.
Despite what some post-modernists want to espouse, science and the rational empirical process is not simply one form of opinion. At some point the fact that it produces efficacious results tends to act rather eloquently as an argument for it over other methods for interpreting the reality.
In other words, science > dem feelz.
With the addition of "because it works."0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
Yes, heard that phrase b40 -
not sure why everybody is arguing, most people has breakfast at some point during the day0
-
i find that i enjoy eating something early in the day. overall, i eat kinda like a hobbit, with 5-7 "meals" a day. but you know, as a 6-foot-3 and 210 lbs triathlete i probably have a lot more calorie wiggle room than a lot of people.0
-
I lose weight easier when I eat a bigger portion of my daily calories before midday. Ie stuff my face at breakfast.. Porridge with fruit and low fat yogurt, with bacon and egg and mushroom and tomato grilled sets me up for a day of activity and no grumbling tummy. Stops me from needing to eat snacks and junk.0
-
DancingDarl wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Neither
Btw your post is going to be problematic on here as it is extremely controversial. So I will stick to my opinion based on my own ideas and experiences. It doesn't matter when you eat only what and how much. If you ain't hungry don't eat brekky, it will help boost your metabolism for a small period then after that it will slow it so hence the controversy on here. Both theories are correct. A one day fast us fine,skipping briskly is fine don't get too obsessed .
[Edited by MFP Staff]
How does eating breakfast boost metabolism?
Not eating breakfast is not a weight loss solution. It is something you choose not to do when you are not hungry. Eat your caloric value whenever you like makes no difference. Unless you have some special medical reason of course. I prefer to get my first meal in at about 10am 1030am. But I know healthy fit people who have a full breakfast at 730am, and then a fair few of them skip and do lunch slightly bigger. I think we all know deep down this is ridiculous the notion that if you skip it will help or hinder.
That's great but it didn't answer my question. You stated eating breakfast would boost ones metabolism . I am asking how would eating breakfast boost ones metabolism.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »That is an entirely different topic. I suggest you post about it in a different thread. There already is one going regarding it.
It's not an entirely different topic it's a claim YOU MADE in this thread.
I suggest you answer it.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »There is two different threads regarding IT and metabolism.
And?
Multiple threads are common here. Can you answer the question or were you just talking out of your *kitten*?0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »If you ain't hungry don't eat brekky, it will help boost your metabolism for a small period then after that it will slow it so hence the controversy on here.
Here's the claim, made in this thread.
Since silliness about metabolism is often part of arguments that people must eat breakfast, it's on topic in this thread and a reasonable thing to debate.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »There is two different threads regarding IT and metabolism.
I'm not much of a social propriety type of person, so I'll openly state, it looks obvious that you're spending about 5x the effort answering the question would on making the conversation being about where and how the question is asked.
You'd save face answering, even if the answer is you misstated or were wrong on reflection.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »There is two different threads regarding IT and metabolism.
I'm not much of a social propriety type of person, so I'll openly state, it looks obvious that you're spending about 5x the effort answering the question would on making the conversation being about where and how the question is asked.
You'd save face answering, even if the answer is you misstated or were wrong on reflection.
It's hard to be wrong or eat crows. Bird pie anyone?0 -
100% untrue...jamkelly10 wrote: »If you skip breakfast your body craves to make up for these missed calories throughout the day, due to meeting energy demands of daily tasks I.e working, walking, cleaning and the simplest way to make up for skipping breakfast is snacking on junk food/higher calorie meals which results in weight gain.
If your body 'gets used' to missing breakfast, you still won't have the optimal concentration/performance you would have if you were to eat breakfast.
0 -
I don't view it as an either or. If I am hungry, I eat breakfast. If I am not hungry, I don't...0
-
DancingDarl wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »If you ain't hungry don't eat brekky, it will help boost your metabolism for a small period then after that it will slow it so hence the controversy on here.
Here's the claim, made in this thread.
Since silliness about metabolism is often part of arguments that people must eat breakfast, it's on topic in this thread and a reasonable thing to debate.
I think I made it pretty clear just how controversial it is.
I thought you were claiming that saying "eat breakfast if you want, it doesn't matter" was controversial. When, if you'd read the thread, you would have seen it was not.If you look into how the body is affected in first lets say day of fasting(look up the IF thread) then you will see the correlation between metabolism increase very surprising and slight.
What are you talking about? Are you claiming that ONE day of fasting changes (increases) metabolism? Why don't you try to write more clearly?After 3 days IF or just plain fasting your metabolism will slow. So essentially it can be if monitored carefully not as scary or woo as some people would have you believe.
One does not fast for 3 days with IF, so again, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I don't think any of this is scary. I just think it's false to assert that eating or not eating breakfast affects your metabolism.
(This thread is not actually about IF. Lots of people don't eat breakfast without doing IF.)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions