You MUST eat breakfast (or not?)
Options
Awkward30
Posts: 1,927 Member
So, the new hot topic has been whether you must eat breakfast or not. Believe it or not, scientific studies have established that real people lose approximately the same on fasting regimens (eating at different times and skipping days). So you should eat when you want. If eating breakfast makes you hungry two hours later, try going without it and see how you feel. If skipping a meal makes you feel woozy or weak or lethargic, then eat!
Here are two sources I found that explain that intermittent fasting is fine. Here they didn't really find that intermittent fasting was better than continuous eating, but let me repeat, it is not detrimental. I'll repeat this again, while standing on my tippy toes hoping to be seen by those people who keep repeating the oft-quoted, completely unsubstantiated claims about why you need to eat more often to stoke the metabolism or whatever iteration people are spouting. There are plenty more sources, I just picked these two because they popped out of pubmed easily and a lot of fasting research has been done on males, but these were for the ladies!
Calories burned are proportional to the amount eaten, so yeah, you will start burning calories digesting food earlier if you eat earlier, but if you ate all your calories in one meal, it would just be one huge spike instead of a bunch of small spikes. The total amount of calories burned digesting the food will be the same.
Menopause. 2012 Aug;19(8):870-876.
Short- and long-term effects of continuous versus intermittent restrictive diet approaches on body composition and the metabolic profile in overweight and obese postmenopausal women: a pilot study.
Arguin H, Dionne IJ, Sénéchal M, Bouchard DR, Carpentier AC, Ardilouze JL, Tremblay A, Leblanc C, Brochu M.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare changes in body composition and the metabolic profile between women taking an intermittent diet (ID) and women taking a continuous diet (CD).
METHODS: Twenty-five obese postmenopausal women were randomized to an ID (n = 13) or a CD (n = 12). In the ID, 5-week energy restriction periods were followed by 5-week weight stabilization periods. In the CD, 15 weeks of energy restriction was followed by 5 weeks of weight stabilization. Outcome measures before, during, and after weight loss, as well as after a 1-year follow-up, were body weight and composition, waist circumference, resting metabolic rate, and fasting lipid and glucose levels.
RESULTS: Body weight, waist circumference, percentage fat mass, and fat mass decreased significantly and similarly in both groups (P < 0.0001). Both groups showed similar overall decreases in plasma total cholesterol and triglycerides (all P < 0.05). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol improved significantly in the CD group only, whereas fasting glucose decreased significantly in the ID group only. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and resting metabolic rate remained stable in both groups. Fasting plasma triglyceride and glucose levels were the only metabolic variables to further improve after the fifth week of the protocol. At the 1-year follow-up, both interventions were associated with successful and similar weight loss maintenance and improvements in fasting plasma glucose levels.
CONCLUSIONS: The ID resulted in similar short- and long-term changes in body composition and metabolic profile compared with a CD. Most improvements occurred during the first 5 weeks of treatment in both interventions.
J Obes (Lond). 2011 May;35(5):714-27. Epub 2010 Oct 5.
The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women.
Harvie MN, Pegington M, Mattson MP, Frystyk J, Dillon B, Evans G, Cuzick J, Jebb SA, Martin B, Cutler RG, Son TG, Maudsley S, Carlson OD, Egan JM, Flyvbjerg A, Howell A.
BACKGROUND: The problems of adherence to energy restriction in humans are well known.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the feasibility and effectiveness of intermittent continuous energy (IER) with continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other metabolic disease risk markers.
DESIGN: Randomized comparison of a 25% energy restriction as IER (∼ 2710 kJ/day for 2 days/week) or CER (∼ 6276 kJ/day for 7 days/week) in 107 overweight or obese (mean (± s.d.) body mass index 30.6 (± 5.1) kg m(-2)) premenopausal women observed over a period of 6 months. Weight, anthropometry, biomarkers for breast cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dementia risk; insulin resistance (HOMA), oxidative stress markers, leptin, adiponectin, insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 and IGF binding proteins 1 and 2, androgens, prolactin, inflammatory markers (high sensitivity C-reactive protein and sialic acid), lipids, blood pressure and brain-derived neurotrophic factor were assessed at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months.
RESULTS: Last observation carried forward analysis showed that IER and CER are equally effective for weight loss: mean (95% confidence interval ) weight change for IER was -6.4 (-7.9 to -4.8) kg vs -5.6 (-6.9 to -4.4) kg for CER (P-value for difference between groups = 0.4). Both groups experienced comparable reductions in leptin, free androgen index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and increases in sex hormone binding globulin, IGF binding proteins 1 and 2. Reductions in fasting insulin and insulin resistance were modest in both groups, but greater with IER than with CER; difference between groups for fasting insulin was -1.2 (-1.4 to -1.0) μU ml(-1) and for insulin resistance was -1.2 (-1.5 to -1.0) μU mmol(-1) l(-1) (both P = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: IER is as effective as CER with regard to weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other health biomarkers, and may be offered as an alternative equivalent to CER for weight loss and reducing disease risk.
If anyone knows of any research that disputes this, please let me know. I haven't yet read any and would love to know if there are any conditions or populations that research shows IF is not suited for.
Here are two sources I found that explain that intermittent fasting is fine. Here they didn't really find that intermittent fasting was better than continuous eating, but let me repeat, it is not detrimental. I'll repeat this again, while standing on my tippy toes hoping to be seen by those people who keep repeating the oft-quoted, completely unsubstantiated claims about why you need to eat more often to stoke the metabolism or whatever iteration people are spouting. There are plenty more sources, I just picked these two because they popped out of pubmed easily and a lot of fasting research has been done on males, but these were for the ladies!
Calories burned are proportional to the amount eaten, so yeah, you will start burning calories digesting food earlier if you eat earlier, but if you ate all your calories in one meal, it would just be one huge spike instead of a bunch of small spikes. The total amount of calories burned digesting the food will be the same.
Menopause. 2012 Aug;19(8):870-876.
Short- and long-term effects of continuous versus intermittent restrictive diet approaches on body composition and the metabolic profile in overweight and obese postmenopausal women: a pilot study.
Arguin H, Dionne IJ, Sénéchal M, Bouchard DR, Carpentier AC, Ardilouze JL, Tremblay A, Leblanc C, Brochu M.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare changes in body composition and the metabolic profile between women taking an intermittent diet (ID) and women taking a continuous diet (CD).
METHODS: Twenty-five obese postmenopausal women were randomized to an ID (n = 13) or a CD (n = 12). In the ID, 5-week energy restriction periods were followed by 5-week weight stabilization periods. In the CD, 15 weeks of energy restriction was followed by 5 weeks of weight stabilization. Outcome measures before, during, and after weight loss, as well as after a 1-year follow-up, were body weight and composition, waist circumference, resting metabolic rate, and fasting lipid and glucose levels.
RESULTS: Body weight, waist circumference, percentage fat mass, and fat mass decreased significantly and similarly in both groups (P < 0.0001). Both groups showed similar overall decreases in plasma total cholesterol and triglycerides (all P < 0.05). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol improved significantly in the CD group only, whereas fasting glucose decreased significantly in the ID group only. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and resting metabolic rate remained stable in both groups. Fasting plasma triglyceride and glucose levels were the only metabolic variables to further improve after the fifth week of the protocol. At the 1-year follow-up, both interventions were associated with successful and similar weight loss maintenance and improvements in fasting plasma glucose levels.
CONCLUSIONS: The ID resulted in similar short- and long-term changes in body composition and metabolic profile compared with a CD. Most improvements occurred during the first 5 weeks of treatment in both interventions.
J Obes (Lond). 2011 May;35(5):714-27. Epub 2010 Oct 5.
The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women.
Harvie MN, Pegington M, Mattson MP, Frystyk J, Dillon B, Evans G, Cuzick J, Jebb SA, Martin B, Cutler RG, Son TG, Maudsley S, Carlson OD, Egan JM, Flyvbjerg A, Howell A.
BACKGROUND: The problems of adherence to energy restriction in humans are well known.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the feasibility and effectiveness of intermittent continuous energy (IER) with continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other metabolic disease risk markers.
DESIGN: Randomized comparison of a 25% energy restriction as IER (∼ 2710 kJ/day for 2 days/week) or CER (∼ 6276 kJ/day for 7 days/week) in 107 overweight or obese (mean (± s.d.) body mass index 30.6 (± 5.1) kg m(-2)) premenopausal women observed over a period of 6 months. Weight, anthropometry, biomarkers for breast cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dementia risk; insulin resistance (HOMA), oxidative stress markers, leptin, adiponectin, insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 and IGF binding proteins 1 and 2, androgens, prolactin, inflammatory markers (high sensitivity C-reactive protein and sialic acid), lipids, blood pressure and brain-derived neurotrophic factor were assessed at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months.
RESULTS: Last observation carried forward analysis showed that IER and CER are equally effective for weight loss: mean (95% confidence interval ) weight change for IER was -6.4 (-7.9 to -4.8) kg vs -5.6 (-6.9 to -4.4) kg for CER (P-value for difference between groups = 0.4). Both groups experienced comparable reductions in leptin, free androgen index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and increases in sex hormone binding globulin, IGF binding proteins 1 and 2. Reductions in fasting insulin and insulin resistance were modest in both groups, but greater with IER than with CER; difference between groups for fasting insulin was -1.2 (-1.4 to -1.0) μU ml(-1) and for insulin resistance was -1.2 (-1.5 to -1.0) μU mmol(-1) l(-1) (both P = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: IER is as effective as CER with regard to weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other health biomarkers, and may be offered as an alternative equivalent to CER for weight loss and reducing disease risk.
If anyone knows of any research that disputes this, please let me know. I haven't yet read any and would love to know if there are any conditions or populations that research shows IF is not suited for.
0
Replies
-
Self bumping in hopes that I can prevent at least one of these threads?0
-
I read information on mercola.com that also recommends IF. I have started doing it on most days; I just delay breakfast until 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. I don't do it on days that my husband is home for breakfast. I think it makes sense, and I've started losing weight again. I think he did mention a few groups that it might not be a good idea for; I think diabetics were mentioned.0
-
Calories and macros being correct > time of day when you eat them.0
-
I read information on mercola.com that also recommends IF. I have started doing it on most days; I just delay breakfast until 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. I don't do it on days that my husband is home for breakfast. I think it makes sense, and I've started losing weight again. I think he did mention a few groups that it might not be a good idea for; I think diabetics were mentioned.
One of the sources I posted did show an improvement in fasting glucose for only the IF group, so perhaps IF is actually better than regular eating for diabetics.0 -
So OP I was going to offer to take you for some breakfast but after this thread......
(jk) totally agree, i have seen a new one of these "do i need breakfast" threads daily!0 -
Eating certain things like Oatmeal will ALWAYs make me more hungrier in an hour than if I ate nothing at all.....I eat if I'm hungry..I dont go by any rules,but I know that if im going to eat pure carbs to have a snack near by or add some fat/protein to my meal.0
-
Yep, I have successfully lost a lot of weight and maintained pretty well without ever eating breakfast. In fact when I do eat too early, I am ravenous throughout the day and tend to overeat because of it. IF has been great for me. I'm really sick of people saying breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Meal timing doesn't have any effect on weight loss0
-
I think he did mention a few groups that it might not be a good idea for; I think diabetics were mentioned.
IF is not recommended for children, pregnant women, and women imminently planning to become pregnant. Diabetics, and adults with chronic illnesses are advised to consult their doctors before doing IF.0 -
losing weight depends on how much you eat not WHEN you eat it.
I eat breakfast every day because .... I'm fcking hungry... it seems silly to ME to not eat breakfast. I'd be starving all morning.0 -
Yep, I have successfully lost a lot of weight and maintained pretty well without ever eating breakfast. In fact when I do eat too early, I am ravenous throughout the day and tend to overeat because of it. IF has been great for me. I'm really sick of people saying breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Meal timing doesn't have any effect on weight loss
I read once that cereal companies came up with the concept that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. I do a mild form of IF a few times a week.0 -
Break fast-- the actually meaning is to break the fast..
I do not think you need to eat every 2-3 hours while awake but the morning ( at least for me and others that I know) it is already a 12-14 hour fast.
Any health issue I have had ( minus thyroid) IBS, Low blood sugar have all been treated by eating breakfast.0 -
Self bumping in hopes that I can prevent at least one of these threads?
.....as one who has seen a bajillion threads that are carbon copies of one another, all voicing the same ridiculous "You MUST eat breakfast / 6 meals / Low Carb / 50% Protein / 10% Fat / No Wheat / No Carbs after Lunch / No more than 1200 / Only on Tuesday and Thursday / blahblahblah"....I say.....Good luck, my friend.0 -
Yep, I have successfully lost a lot of weight and maintained pretty well without ever eating breakfast. In fact when I do eat too early, I am ravenous throughout the day and tend to overeat because of it. IF has been great for me. I'm really sick of people saying breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Meal timing doesn't have any effect on weight loss
I read once that cereal companies came up with the concept that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. I do a mild form of IF a few times a week.
You're on to something there. My theory is that not only the idea of breakfast, but the whole concept of "eat every three hours to rev your metabolism" . . . just snacking in general, is something the food industry created to sell their snacks. Think about it. If eating every couple of hours is good for you, those 100 calorie packs and granola bars and things suddenly become awfully convenient, right? And it's more expensive to buy individually wrapped small portioned snacks than to buy in bulk. It's bull. Prepackaged snacks that are nothing but sugar and empty carbs will do nothing to fill you up and in fact can actually make you hungrier. How is that good for you? And snacking is actually a fairly new thing in human history (well, most societies that I know of, anyway. I'm sure someone will jump in with info about some ancient African tribe that ate 10x a day and how this shows that small meals are healthy and normal for our bodies or whatever).0 -
Well, you have to eat. That's for sure. But eating the moment you rolled out of bed is optional.0
-
I get up at 6am every day, 5am on gym days. If I eat breakfast, I am hungry all day long and always end up eating more. For me, I simply am not hungry until around 11:45am. After that, I have dinner around 7pm. Sometimes I will have a few snacks in between like an apple, banana, etc. and sometimes a late night snack (1/2 cup ice cream or some pretzels).
Overall, it is all about finding what keeps you from being hungry. Some people MUST eat when they get up, others don't. It really isn't universal.0 -
Yep, I have successfully lost a lot of weight and maintained pretty well without ever eating breakfast. In fact when I do eat too early, I am ravenous throughout the day and tend to overeat because of it. IF has been great for me. I'm really sick of people saying breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Meal timing doesn't have any effect on weight loss
I read once that cereal companies came up with the concept that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. I do a mild form of IF a few times a week.
You're on to something there. My theory is that not only the idea of breakfast, but the whole concept of "eat every three hours to rev your metabolism" . . . just snacking in general, is something the food industry created to sell their snacks. Think about it. If eating every couple of hours is good for you, those 100 calorie packs and granola bars and things suddenly become awfully convenient, right? And it's more expensive to buy individually wrapped small portioned snacks than to buy in bulk. It's bull. Prepackaged snacks that are nothing but sugar and empty carbs will do nothing to fill you up and in fact can actually make you hungrier. How is that good for you? And snacking is actually a fairly new thing in human history (well, most societies that I know of, anyway. I'm sure someone will jump in with info about some ancient African tribe that ate 10x a day and how this shows that small meals are healthy and normal for our bodies or whatever).
LMAO at the African Tribe comment! Sooooo True!0 -
Shameless self bump pointed at the thread on the first ppage saying this dude lost 91 lb because of breakfast and IF YOU DON'T DO IT, YOU'LL DIE! Or worse, you will get/stay FAT FOREVER!0
-
So OP I was going to offer to take you for some breakfast but after this thread......
(jk) totally agree, i have seen a new one of these "do i need breakfast" threads daily!
How about brunch? lol compromise?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 927 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions