Where is the science!

Azdak

The definitive answer for everyone is "yes". Eating boosts metabolism so eating breakfast boosts your metabolism.

No YOUR definitive answer is yes
Somebody elses on here is No

I don't know, my wife doesn't know, half the people on MFP don't know

Thats my point. If breakfast DOES boost your metabolism, then it's a standard fact that virtually everyone agrees upon and there can no longer be any debate over it such as for example ... erm, obesity increases your chance of diabetes - truth is that it isn't a standard fact yet as there is still plenty of debate over it

You're asking the wrong question--or I should say you are not asking the question precisely enough, which is part of the problem.

The answer is: breakfast does "boost metabolism". (yes)

However, the real question (s) is/are: Does breakfast boost metabolism more than any other meal (no)

Does breakfast boost metabolism disproportionately higher for the rest of the day (no)

Does breakfast provide a feeling of satiety and does it contribute to more controlled eating the rest of the day (likely, but not necessarily for everyone, and there are probably psychological as well as physical issues involved).

So for the question of "does exercise boost metabolism?", the seeming non-definitive answer to the question is not lack of science or lack of facts, it's lack of context.

myofibril

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/fundamental-principles-versus-minor-details.html

The end.

Wonderob

The definitive answer for everyone is "yes". Eating boosts metabolism so eating breakfast boosts your metabolism.

No YOUR definitive answer is yes
Somebody elses on here is No

I don't know, my wife doesn't know, half the people on MFP don't know

Thats my point. If breakfast DOES boost your metabolism, then it's a standard fact that virtually everyone agrees upon and there can no longer be any debate over it such as for example ... erm, obesity increases your chance of diabetes - truth is that it isn't a standard fact yet as there is still plenty of debate over it

You can 'debate' a fact all you want but it doesn't change the fact. It just makes the person debating against the fact wrong. Theories and hypothoses are debatable. Facts are facts.

But a fact isn't a fact because you said so. Tell me how you you perceive this to be a fact rather than a hypothesis?

ArroganceInStep

Well I took it to mean that the main principles of weight loss are 99% of the battle whilst, whilst meal timings, metabolism boosts, fat burning zones etc make up the other 1%,

Yes, so it's a waste of effort to focus on that 1% when you don't have the 99% in order. It's only once you get the 99% in order that it's worth worrying about that remaining 1%.

You mentioned doing this for people who struggle with weight. Maybe there is an ideal frequency interval or specific workout zone they should be shooting for that'll increase their efficiency by 0.000001%. When they're having trouble just getting a handle on eating right and working out regularly, do you really think that tiny efficiency boost is worth worrying about?

Your counter about it adding up over time really misses the mark. If the meat of the issue isn't handled, not maximizing some minute detail will NEVER matter.

Wonderob

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/fundamental-principles-versus-minor-details.html

The end.

Good article and could be the end ...... if the article wasn't next to a big link saying 'Go to store'

How does one know if this is the definitive truth or yet another way in which the author is trying to make money - we don't

DrMAvDPhD

Firstly, everyone has an agenda, Scientists need to publish results to secure funding. Funding agencies need results to satisfy their backers. Secondly, no science is cut-and-dry. Especially sciences that involve human subjects. There are so many unknown variables, that it is often impossible to isolate single cause-and-effect relationships. All results are open to interpretation, and will be interpreted differently by different parties.

Wonderob

Well I took it to mean that the main principles of weight loss are 99% of the battle whilst, whilst meal timings, metabolism boosts, fat burning zones etc make up the other 1%,

Yes, so it's a waste of effort to focus on that 1% when you don't have the 99% in order. It's only once you get the 99% in order that it's worth worrying about that remaining 1%.

And I fear that my motivation for this thread is not for the greater good of mankind, but because I have reached the 99% mark and I'm just looking to tune the 1%

cordianet

You'd think fat people would have figured out a long time ago that one size does NOT fit all. Expecting there to be some holy grail of dieting that always works for everyone is the nutritional equivalent of the one size fits all robe. It may work for most, but just can't work for everyone.

Rather than copy it, if you care for why even "science" is not going to fix your diet issues, read this:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/cordianet

Ultimately the truth is simple, eat fewer calories than you burn and get some exercise to increase your fitness. That said, the devil's in the details. What may be the best way for you to consume fewer calories than you burn may not work for me. And why should it? We didn't get fat for the same reasons, why should losing the fat be any different?

StarkLark

Sure our bodies operate on scientific principles, and you can always say that "science is science" and that it should be consistent across the board. Just as science is science, math is math. And if you have an equation (the equation being our body) then it will only be equal for everyone if ALL the variables going into the equation are the same.

And no two people have identical variables. Everyone is different (sound familiar?)

So what are the variables... well obviously diet, age, gender play large roles. But even more specifically, body chemistry, hormone levels, basically any chemical component in your body that can differ from another person is a variable that can affect the overall "fitness" equation.

That's why there is usually no one "right" answer that applies to everyone when it comes to specific health/fitness questions.

rybo

I believe a fitting line for this discussion is

"Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true"

mcarter99

I pretty much agree with the OP. Especially about anecdotal evidence. But I also agree that science isn't definitive or all-knowing.

What bugs me is people don't seem to care much what the authorities say. Yes, the USDA is somewhat beholden to industry and that's probably why the new recommendations include a glass of milk. But there are other authorities and for the most part they all do say about the same thing- Eat less, move more.

But people get bombarded with a concept here to the point where they think it must be true. "All of these people here can EAT MORE and lose more! They're onto something the Mayo Clinic and USDA and WW and the whole medical industry missed! They all tell me eating below my BMR is dangerous which does sound reasonable yet my doctor tells me to eat 1200! My doctor must be wrong!" :sad:

Research shows that you can get a person to say a picture of a cat is a dog by surrounding them with people that say that cat is a dog.

Those are sesame seeds on the McDonalds bun. Poppy seeds are black and tiny.

myofibril

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/fundamental-principles-versus-minor-details.html

The end.

Good article and could be the end ...... if the article wasn't next to a big link saying 'Go to store'

How does one know if this is the definitive truth or yet another way in which the author is trying to make money - we don't

You're right. We don't. The only discipline where absolute proof is possible is mathematics. The rest is probabilities supported by research. Having say that if you are going to play the odds it is better to go with a safe bet generally.

You might find the following interesting if you are a seeker of the truth:

http://www.myosynthesis.com/two-minds-flame-war

ArroganceInStep

And I fear that my motivation for this thread is not for the greater good of mankind, but because I have reached the 99% mark and I'm just looking to tune the 1%

Ok, well in that case, all you can do is read what you can, try to form a reasonable hypothesis based on your interpretation of the information, and then try it and see.

The most elite folks when it comes to fitness didn't sit around waiting for the perfect study to come out that answered everything definitively, they went with the information that was available and acted on that assumption. If it didn't work they changed tactics; if it did work but not to the degree they expected they refined the program to better suit their needs.

Find a paradigm or philosophy that makes sense to you and that you think you could work with, and f***ing do it. That's really all there is to it.

Captain_Tightpants

The problem isn't the science, it's the distribution of misinformation - even at the level of medical professionals. Weight is such an emotionally loaded topic in our society that crap just gets spewed everywhere by everyone. The best you can do is find a source of information that you trust is relatively unbiased, capable of interpreting the studies accurately, and seems genuinely interested in getting to the core facts. For me, that person is Lyle McDonald (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/)

iplayoutside19

.the reason people still debate these things is because they are prepared to believe anything without doing their own investigations.

Here are some links if anyone wants to start out

Meal Frequency
http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/critique-of-issn-position-stand-on-meal.html

God herein lies the problem!

i am NOT lazy and I am prepared to do the research! But how do we know what is true?

The first article that you link is a very interesting article about how one seemingly informed and reliable source (a nutritional consultant, magazine writer and personal trainer) is completely opposing another seemingly informed and reliable source (The International Society of Sports Nutrition) with regard to meal frequency!

You see my problem here!

Right, which is why with the exception of a few concepts mainly; You must expend more engery than you consume, everyone needs to learn by trial and error and figure out what works for them through experience. That's why I ignore most of the studies, tests, theories, fads, etc. Science likes to ignore one thing that seems pretty obvious to me, and that humans are emotional beings. Before I changed my lifestyle I KNEW that eating and living the way was, was not healthy. I even knew from classes I took in HS how to develop my own exercise program. It wasn't until I was emotionally mature enough to deal with the issue that I made any progress.

There's no "right way" to be active and healthy. What I do know, is that if a person emotionally buys into their weight loss & body transformation that they will find a way to reach their goals regardless what the experts say.

bcattoes

The definitive answer for everyone is "yes". Eating boosts metabolism so eating breakfast boosts your metabolism.

No YOUR definitive answer is yes
Somebody elses on here is No

I don't know, my wife doesn't know, half the people on MFP don't know

Thats my point. If breakfast DOES boost your metabolism, then it's a standard fact that virtually everyone agrees upon and there can no longer be any debate over it such as for example ... erm, obesity increases your chance of diabetes - truth is that it isn't a standard fact yet as there is still plenty of debate over it

You can 'debate' a fact all you want but it doesn't change the fact. It just makes the person debating against the fact wrong. Theories and hypothoses are debatable. Facts are facts.

But a fact isn't a fact because you said so. Tell me how you you perceive this to be a fact rather than a hypothesis?

Metabolism refers to all the physical and chemical processes in the body that convert or use energy. That includes digestion.

Here are couple of good articles on metabolism, if you are interested:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/metabolism/WT00006/
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/make-most-your-metabolism

bcattoes

There's no "right way" to be active and healthy. What I do know, is that if a person emotionally buys into their weight loss & body transformation that they will find a way to reach their goals regardless what the experts say.

Actually, any true "expert" will say this as well. The right plan for weight loss is the one you will stick with. Nutrition experts will also stress proper nutrition, but they will admit that losing weight by any means necessary will improve health, if even nutrition is poor.

Don't confuse scientific study results with expert advice. Expert advice will take into account science, but study results are confined to that study's parameters. Any study is only a piece of the puzzle and the results should rarely be used as advice.

Mindmovesbody

Sugar is sugar, tell me metabolically how sucrose in fruit is different from sucrose from a a sugar packet?

The benefits in eating fruit far outway any disadvantages of the sugar content - hence good for you. Nutritionally beneficial

There are no benefits to eating refined sugar so you get only disadvantages - hence bad for you. Empty calories

Its fructose that's in fruit not sucrose!! That's the difference! They are metabolised differently and surplus of each is stored and utilised differently! Sucrose (which breaks down to glucose) is stored as fat!! Fructose remains in the blood stream and is used by mitochondria to form energy!!

Thank you :flowerforyou: For the info and the sites mentioned above!

Hendrix7

.the reason people still debate these things is because they are prepared to believe anything without doing their own investigations.

Here are some links if anyone wants to start out

Meal Frequency
http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/critique-of-issn-position-stand-on-meal.html

God herein lies the problem!

i am NOT lazy and I am prepared to do the research! But how do we know what is true?

The first article that you link is a very interesting article about how one seemingly informed and reliable source (a nutritional consultant, magazine writer and personal trainer) is completely opposing another seemingly informed and reliable source (The International Society of Sports Nutrition) with regard to meal frequency!

You see my problem here!

But it gives all the possible tools to make your own decision. There is difference between believing in something based on the research you have conducted and believing something just because someone told you to.

If you are yearning for world in which everybody agrees with everybody else.....then you are in for a long wait. Educate yourself as much as possible...if other people don't want to do that, that's their problem.

Wonderob

. Educate yourself as much as possible...if other people don't want to do that, that's their problem.

But is it? Is the obesity epidemic the sole problem of each of the individuals or somewhat the collective problem of governments and society?

Let's take Maths as an example. If a country had a problem whereby all children were growing up ignorant of the basics of mathematics. Using your argument you could say educate yourself as much as possible, if people don't want to do that then that's their problem.

Or you could re-evaluate how and what a society is teaching and address it that way - why can't we do that for health too?