Eating Breakfast
Options
Replies
-
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
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions