Eating Breakfast
Replies
-
@BartBVanBockstaele
Congrats on your weight loss! Very inspiring. I'm curious because I eat the same way - just protein and vegetables. What are your portions and calories?
0 -
Thank you. What I do, is very simple: every meal consists of 250 g vegetables and a can of sardines (1st meal) or 50 g boiled soybeans (3rd and 5th meal) or 33 g of lupini flakes (2nd, 4th and 6th meal). The vegetables are onions, green beans, broccoli, green/red peppers, mushrooms (not officially a vegetable), spinach, Brussels sprouts, kale, okra, tomatoes and garlic with spices. I occasionally deviate from that, but this is close to 100% of what I eat.@BartBVanBockstaele
Congrats on your weight loss! Very inspiring. I'm curious because I eat the same way - just protein and vegetables. What are your portions and calories?
Since my local Bulk Barn stopped selling lupini flakes, I am ready to replace them with a mixture of lentils, oats and flaxseed and I already use that mixture for additional meals in case I have long working days or allnighters, such as last weekend and for the next few days. That pushes me over my calorie plan, but since it is (fortunately) only a few times a week, all it does is slow me down and it makes my plan doable by avoiding intolerable hunger.
What are you doing?
I should perhaps add that I am just about in maintenance mode by now. I expect that my final weight will be just below 60 kg, perhaps 57 kg, but time will tell. I do not know what my "ideal weight is", I will see it when I am there.0 -
I forgot to add my calories as per your question: it is an average of a little under 1050 kcal.0
-
Ha, this one popped up because it was revived by the question to Bart! But I will chime into the general consensus with a small twist!
Breakfast is one of the majoring in the minors things. There exist studies that show slightly better results by having breakfast. I personally suspect some increased avoidance of AT by continuously kicking in some fuel. There exist studies, of course, that are point to IF as being a thing for reasons. Reasons that don't necessarily have to do with weight loss. Do we see where this is going? Sure. There may be differences and the differences will loom larger based on inclination.
I've lost, gained and maintained weight while NOT eating breakfast. I've also lost, gained, and maintained weight WHILE eating nice jam and croissant packed breakfasts, and I've also lost gained and maintained weight while eating bacon and egg brunches followed by no lunch.
It also depends on activity. Yes some people do exercise fasted. But I suspect that most people who enjoy1 -
In short, it is just a subjective thing. We can add exercise to that. Some people become ravenously hungry with exercise, prompting them to overeat, some people feel their hunger goes away on exercise, prompting to them to undereat. In the end, being overweight/obese is a risk factor. Some people seem to do fine despite being fat. Most people don't do fine being fat, and even those that do, usually only do so for a limited time, and then health deteriorates. It is quite comparable to the infrastructure in the US. The US has saved numberless billions (trillions?) by reducing maintenance on road systems, water pipes and the like. And we are now seeing what that means: everything is crumbling down. Fat weight is no exception to that.Ha, this one popped up because it was revived by the question to Bart! But I will chime into the general consensus with a small twist!
Breakfast is one of the majoring in the minors things. There exist studies that show slightly better results by having breakfast. I personally suspect some increased avoidance of AT by continuously kicking in some fuel. There exist studies, of course, that are point to IF as being a thing for reasons. Reasons that don't necessarily have to do with weight loss. Do we see where this is going? Sure. There may be differences and the differences will loom larger based on inclination.
I've lost, gained and maintained weight while NOT eating breakfast. I've also lost, gained, and maintained weight WHILE eating nice jam and croissant packed breakfasts, and I've also lost gained and maintained weight while eating bacon and egg brunches followed by no lunch.
It also depends on activity. Yes some people do exercise fasted. But I suspect that most people who enjoy0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Calories per week>everything elseRetroguy2000 wrote: »It doesn't matter when you eat. What matters is total calories week to week. You'll lose the same amount of weight however you choose to manage the total calories, whether via IF, TRE, or whatever.
This is simply not true. Yes, total calories is important, but the chemical processes happening in your body matter too. WHAT you eat and WHEN you eat it can significantly impact your body's insulin response, which has a great deal to do with losing weight, or not losing.
Your body needs a constant source of energy in the blood stream. It prefers to get that from food you have just eaten. But if there isn't any, your body will begin to produce glucose, first from stored glycogen in your liver, and then from stored triglycerides in your fat cells.
Our bodies are complicated systems. Taking reductionist positions like "all that matters is X" is both scientifically incorrect, and unhelpful.
4 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »It doesn't matter when you eat. What matters is total calories week to week. You'll lose the same amount of weight however you choose to manage the total calories, whether via IF, TRE, or whatever.
This is simply not true. Yes, total calories is important, but the chemical processes happening in your body matter too. WHAT you eat and WHEN you eat it can significantly impact your body's insulin response, which has a great deal to do with losing weight, or not losing.
Your body needs a constant source of energy in the blood stream. It prefers to get that from food you have just eaten. But if there isn't any, your body will begin to produce glucose, first from stored glycogen in your liver, and then from stored triglycerides in your fat cells.
Our bodies are complicated systems. Taking reductionist positions like "all that matters is X" is both scientifically incorrect, and unhelpful.
I think there's an open question, though, whether or not these effects are so significant that they're going to matter to the average person trying to lose weight. They might be observable under lab conditions, but what method yields the most "bang for your buck"? What can a person actually stick with long term?
While it's not necessarily stated, I think a lot of people end up dieting thinking that they have to follow a very precise formula (usually sold to them by some huckster who somehow keeps them coming back for more) because it's the "only" way it works. These intricate workings of our body are fascinating, but there's an element of losing the forest for the trees, too.3 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »You'll lose the same amount of weight however you choose to manage the total calories, whether via IF, TRE, or whatever.
This is simply not true. Yes, total calories is important, but the chemical processes happening in your body matter too. WHAT you eat and WHEN you eat it can significantly impact your body's insulin response, which has a great deal to do with losing weight, or not losing.
Successfully implementing a caloric reduction regiment, successfully adhering to it, successfully not rebounding at the end are all extremely complicated processes that have to do with both biology and psychology.
And if the answer were simple and universal there would be no scope for debate because the golden LONG TERMS SUCCESSFUL answers would have emerged a long time ago. And they would apply to more than the 20% or so of the people who attempt and (substantially) succeed in substantial weight loss. In fact, the fact that I can't easily find a precise number for successful diets or an agreement as to what is defined as successful weight loss is an argument about the lack of a universal solution.
HOWEVER, there are a bunch of results and studies that pretty much come up with the gobsmackingly gobsmacking conclusion that in the LONG term (not in 24h or 48h or 72h or even just a week or even a month), but in the long term, your whole weight trajectory will map to your effective caloric balance.
This is a pretty powerful and important message for all the people who have tried and failed doing keto, or south beach, or ornish, or weight watchers, or fake pregnancy hormone, or boost 14 times a day and nothing else, or cabbage soup everyday, or eggs only, or juice, or .....
It truly does NOT matter what you eat... IF... IF... IF... you can achieve a caloric deficit AND nourish yourself in a way that allows you to not keel over or otherwise get sick.
These are BIG iffs. And optimizing beyond just not getting sick would be high on MY list.
And, surprisingly, the above results TEND NOT to happen on the eat like crap only desserts or only fast food diets.
But getting results also does NOT mean that you cannot eat chocolate or at McDonald's once in a while. Or having a nutritious breakfast. Or NOT having any. If you're allergic to chocolate though... then it might be a bad idea to have some.4 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »It doesn't matter when you eat. What matters is total calories week to week. You'll lose the same amount of weight however you choose to manage the total calories, whether via IF, TRE, or whatever.
This is simply not true. Yes, total calories is important, but the chemical processes happening in your body matter too. WHAT you eat and WHEN you eat it can significantly impact your body's insulin response, which has a great deal to do with losing weight, or not losing.
Your body needs a constant source of energy in the blood stream. It prefers to get that from food you have just eaten. But if there isn't any, your body will begin to produce glucose, first from stored glycogen in your liver, and then from stored triglycerides in your fat cells.
Our bodies are complicated systems. Taking reductionist positions like "all that matters is X" is both scientifically incorrect, and unhelpful.
In real terms for weight loss all that matters is your calorie amount.
Unhelpful to claim other factors like meal timing are anything other than very minute and meaningless in real terms
4 -
All that matters is, we need to eat less food than is requires to maintain current body weight to allow for weight loss. Basically when calories are mentioned it's food we're actually referring too. Foods have distinct metabolic pathways that influence our metabolic health, function, hormonal regulation, satiety signaling, digestion, body temp, our microbiome and what that regulates, essential nutrients and so on and so on. Discounting how foods distinctly interact with our body is basic reductionist thinking which focuses on the symptom, and in this case it's "weight gain from too many calories". Basically when I hear someone say it's all about calories, what I hear is, it's all about the food. in my opinion of course. cheers0
-
Retroguy2000 wrote: »It doesn't matter when you eat. What matters is total calories week to week. You'll lose the same amount of weight however you choose to manage the total calories, whether via IF, TRE, or whatever.
This is simply not true. Yes, total calories is important, but the chemical processes happening in your body matter too. WHAT you eat and WHEN you eat it can significantly impact your body's insulin response, which has a great deal to do with losing weight, or not losing.
Your body needs a constant source of energy in the blood stream. It prefers to get that from food you have just eaten. But if there isn't any, your body will begin to produce glucose, first from stored glycogen in your liver, and then from stored triglycerides in your fat cells.
Our bodies are complicated systems. Taking reductionist positions like "all that matters is X" is both scientifically incorrect, and unhelpful.
Isn’t the glycogen and fat cells thing exactly what we want happening in a deficit, anyway?
1 -
MelodyandBarbells wrote: »Retroguy2000 wrote: »It doesn't matter when you eat. What matters is total calories week to week. You'll lose the same amount of weight however you choose to manage the total calories, whether via IF, TRE, or whatever.
This is simply not true. Yes, total calories is important, but the chemical processes happening in your body matter too. WHAT you eat and WHEN you eat it can significantly impact your body's insulin response, which has a great deal to do with losing weight, or not losing.
Your body needs a constant source of energy in the blood stream. It prefers to get that from food you have just eaten. But if there isn't any, your body will begin to produce glucose, first from stored glycogen in your liver, and then from stored triglycerides in your fat cells.
Our bodies are complicated systems. Taking reductionist positions like "all that matters is X" is both scientifically incorrect, and unhelpful.
Isn’t the glycogen and fat cells thing exactly what we want happening in a deficit, anyway?
Glucose in the muscle is not a source of glucose to be then distributed via blood then to cells, the glycogen in muscle is used exclusively in muscle tissue for energy (ATP) only. Certain functions within the body require
exclusively the use of glucose and helps prevent hypoglycemia for example and the basic adaptive process that's referred to as gluconeogenesis.
The glycogen fat cell thing as you describe is just the normal metabolic pathways that are defined mostly through hormones and metabolic states of anabolism and catabolism which happens multiple times through a 24 hour session. There is no magic to this and at the end of that 24 hour session if we are in caloric balance for example one cancels the other and if we ate more than needed then a shift to fat storage would have taken place, not ground breaking in any way. Cheers2 -
neanderthin wrote: »MelodyandBarbells wrote: »Retroguy2000 wrote: »It doesn't matter when you eat. What matters is total calories week to week. You'll lose the same amount of weight however you choose to manage the total calories, whether via IF, TRE, or whatever.
This is simply not true. Yes, total calories is important, but the chemical processes happening in your body matter too. WHAT you eat and WHEN you eat it can significantly impact your body's insulin response, which has a great deal to do with losing weight, or not losing.
Your body needs a constant source of energy in the blood stream. It prefers to get that from food you have just eaten. But if there isn't any, your body will begin to produce glucose, first from stored glycogen in your liver, and then from stored triglycerides in your fat cells.
Our bodies are complicated systems. Taking reductionist positions like "all that matters is X" is both scientifically incorrect, and unhelpful.
Isn’t the glycogen and fat cells thing exactly what we want happening in a deficit, anyway?
Glucose in the muscle is not a source of glucose to be then distributed via blood then to cells, the glycogen in muscle is used exclusively in muscle tissue for energy (ATP) only. Certain functions within the body require
exclusively the use of glucose and helps prevent hypoglycemia for example and the basic adaptive process that's referred to as gluconeogenesis.
The glycogen fat cell thing as you describe is just the normal metabolic pathways that are defined mostly through hormones and metabolic states of anabolism and catabolism which happens multiple times through a 24 hour session. There is no magic to this and at the end of that 24 hour session if we are in caloric balance for example one cancels the other and if we ate more than needed then a shift to fat storage would have taken place, not ground breaking in any way. Cheers
I’m just wondering why Paul says timing is important and yet goes on to write that if one didn’t eat at a specific time, the body would break down fat cells to make up the balance.3 -
MelodyandBarbells wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »MelodyandBarbells wrote: »Retroguy2000 wrote: »It doesn't matter when you eat. What matters is total calories week to week. You'll lose the same amount of weight however you choose to manage the total calories, whether via IF, TRE, or whatever.
This is simply not true. Yes, total calories is important, but the chemical processes happening in your body matter too. WHAT you eat and WHEN you eat it can significantly impact your body's insulin response, which has a great deal to do with losing weight, or not losing.
Your body needs a constant source of energy in the blood stream. It prefers to get that from food you have just eaten. But if there isn't any, your body will begin to produce glucose, first from stored glycogen in your liver, and then from stored triglycerides in your fat cells.
Our bodies are complicated systems. Taking reductionist positions like "all that matters is X" is both scientifically incorrect, and unhelpful.
Isn’t the glycogen and fat cells thing exactly what we want happening in a deficit, anyway?
Glucose in the muscle is not a source of glucose to be then distributed via blood then to cells, the glycogen in muscle is used exclusively in muscle tissue for energy (ATP) only. Certain functions within the body require
exclusively the use of glucose and helps prevent hypoglycemia for example and the basic adaptive process that's referred to as gluconeogenesis.
The glycogen fat cell thing as you describe is just the normal metabolic pathways that are defined mostly through hormones and metabolic states of anabolism and catabolism which happens multiple times through a 24 hour session. There is no magic to this and at the end of that 24 hour session if we are in caloric balance for example one cancels the other and if we ate more than needed then a shift to fat storage would have taken place, not ground breaking in any way. Cheers
I’m just wondering why Paul says timing is important and yet goes on to write that if one didn’t eat at a specific time, the body would break down fat cells to make up the balance.
There are a number of intermittent fasting and/or low carb people who post a bunch of misdirected stuff on the internet. Other people believe them and then come here to again further misinterpret actual facts because they don't understand what they've heard or read. That is what happens on this site - a lot.4 -
MelodyandBarbells wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »MelodyandBarbells wrote: »Retroguy2000 wrote: »It doesn't matter when you eat. What matters is total calories week to week. You'll lose the same amount of weight however you choose to manage the total calories, whether via IF, TRE, or whatever.
This is simply not true. Yes, total calories is important, but the chemical processes happening in your body matter too. WHAT you eat and WHEN you eat it can significantly impact your body's insulin response, which has a great deal to do with losing weight, or not losing.
Your body needs a constant source of energy in the blood stream. It prefers to get that from food you have just eaten. But if there isn't any, your body will begin to produce glucose, first from stored glycogen in your liver, and then from stored triglycerides in your fat cells.
Our bodies are complicated systems. Taking reductionist positions like "all that matters is X" is both scientifically incorrect, and unhelpful.
Isn’t the glycogen and fat cells thing exactly what we want happening in a deficit, anyway?
Glucose in the muscle is not a source of glucose to be then distributed via blood then to cells, the glycogen in muscle is used exclusively in muscle tissue for energy (ATP) only. Certain functions within the body require
exclusively the use of glucose and helps prevent hypoglycemia for example and the basic adaptive process that's referred to as gluconeogenesis.
The glycogen fat cell thing as you describe is just the normal metabolic pathways that are defined mostly through hormones and metabolic states of anabolism and catabolism which happens multiple times through a 24 hour session. There is no magic to this and at the end of that 24 hour session if we are in caloric balance for example one cancels the other and if we ate more than needed then a shift to fat storage would have taken place, not ground breaking in any way. Cheers
I’m just wondering why Paul says timing is important and yet goes on to write that if one didn’t eat at a specific time, the body would break down fat cells to make up the balance.
The body continuously breaks down adipose in the form of triglycerides for ATP and within the endocrine system, adipose also help produce hormones that are vital for the facilitation of other physiological processes, basically is just how the body works, no magic.
Why he mentioned timing, I'm not sure. To me, timing is a clock and every cell in our body has an internal clock that is controlled by one central clock within the hypothalamus called the suprachiasmatic nucleus and hormonally works in tandem with light and dark which is facilitated through our optic nerve referred to as our circadian rhythm. Paul probably thinks that timing is that period that's dictated by periods of anabolism and catabolism, which again is a normal function dictated by our innate physiology, but not sure. Cheers.1 -
MelodyandBarbells wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »MelodyandBarbells wrote: »Retroguy2000 wrote: »It doesn't matter when you eat. What matters is total calories week to week. You'll lose the same amount of weight however you choose to manage the total calories, whether via IF, TRE, or whatever.
This is simply not true. Yes, total calories is important, but the chemical processes happening in your body matter too. WHAT you eat and WHEN you eat it can significantly impact your body's insulin response, which has a great deal to do with losing weight, or not losing.
Your body needs a constant source of energy in the blood stream. It prefers to get that from food you have just eaten. But if there isn't any, your body will begin to produce glucose, first from stored glycogen in your liver, and then from stored triglycerides in your fat cells.
Our bodies are complicated systems. Taking reductionist positions like "all that matters is X" is both scientifically incorrect, and unhelpful.
Isn’t the glycogen and fat cells thing exactly what we want happening in a deficit, anyway?
Glucose in the muscle is not a source of glucose to be then distributed via blood then to cells, the glycogen in muscle is used exclusively in muscle tissue for energy (ATP) only. Certain functions within the body require
exclusively the use of glucose and helps prevent hypoglycemia for example and the basic adaptive process that's referred to as gluconeogenesis.
The glycogen fat cell thing as you describe is just the normal metabolic pathways that are defined mostly through hormones and metabolic states of anabolism and catabolism which happens multiple times through a 24 hour session. There is no magic to this and at the end of that 24 hour session if we are in caloric balance for example one cancels the other and if we ate more than needed then a shift to fat storage would have taken place, not ground breaking in any way. Cheers
I’m just wondering why Paul says timing is important and yet goes on to write that if one didn’t eat at a specific time, the body would break down fat cells to make up the balance.
Paul's presentation of the physiology is . . . limited, in certain respects, IMO. Just to mention a few more, he is ignoring the CO aspects that will influence the body's fuel mix and utilization under different conditions, is implying that the net energy balance isn't central to net fat loss over time, and seems to be influenced by the insulin-demonizers despite insulin being of limited importance to people with normal insulin response (except wrt appetite and the like, perhaps). (Obviously insulin response matters to those already diabetic or IR, possibly some other special cases.)
The body's fuel choice in the moment is irrelevant for most of us - exceptions for endurance athletes and people with some health conditions, perhaps some other unusual cases.
Calorie balance is central for weight loss, as the direct influence. But calories are only one attribute of food. Nutrition of course matters for health and thriving, and can indirectly affect weight loss through fatigue/reduced CO or appetite/compliance.
Food choice and timing isn't irrelevant to weight loss success, though. If no relevant health conditions, I'd focus on energy balance, along with perceived energy level, and subjective appetite management/satiation. Food choice is also key to nutrition, and therefore to best odds of long-term health.
I don't know about you, but I'm generally suspicious of always/everyone kinds of theories about practical weight management, beyond the physics. Humans are adaptive omnivores, psychology matters, and we're all unique individuals.
But hey, don't believe me either, I'm just another random idiot with opinions on the internet. Go learn stuff from sound sources, ideally ones that aren't mainly focused on marketing something (including eyeballs for others' ads).2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions