Is skipping breakfast really that bad for you?

Options
2

Replies

  • laserturkey
    laserturkey Posts: 1,680 Member
    Options
    My experience has been much like yours, OP. The earlier I start my eating in the day, the longer I have to eat, and the more I want to eat all day. If I have breakfast it is very small or very late.
  • Joannie30
    Joannie30 Posts: 415 Member
    Options
    I don't eat breakfast. I'm still alive and losing steadily.

    I have 1-2 cups of coffee first thing (about 7.30am) as it's all i can face really at that time. I eat at around 11am and this works for me. I think its just a matter of what works for each individual person really.
  • Nvertommen
    Nvertommen Posts: 27
    Options
    Well, then try measuring your metabolism with Fitmate. There is a difference in restmetabolism if you ate or didn't.
  • Nvertommen
    Nvertommen Posts: 27
    Options
    It is just that your metabolism will start when you start eating food. Because of thermogenesis you will burn more or less calories a day, according to what or if you ate.

    So, if you skip breakfast you will burn less, so you'll need less calories a day, which can be a difference of 200-300. But if you don't get more hungry during the day because you didn't have breakfast, I guess it is not that bad.
    I do not believe this whatsoever.

    Well, then try measuring your metabolism with Fitmate. There is a difference in restmetabolism if you ate or didn't.
  • pixtotts
    pixtotts Posts: 552 Member
    Options
    im not sciencey i know nothing about this really... but my thoughts / what iv found...

    Im REALLY bad at eating breakfast never ate it when i was at school or college one year at uni i did have a couple of cream crackers to nibble on as i walked in but that was it breakfast was something done only 2 weeks a year when we were on holiday, and on christmas day. Now i try and eat breakfast every day.
    I find like you if i dont eat breakfast i dont get hungry till LUNCH time 12-1 ... then im in need of a SNACK at 3... then DINNER at 6... then sometimes a SNACK again mid evening 8 or 9 ...
    if i do eat BREAKFAST....im peckish at 11 SNACK ... then LUNCH 1 -1.30 is ... then DINNER at 6
    ((i dont always give in to snacks but the hungry want is there... ))

    iv written it all out like that because no matter what i find im hungry 4 times a day its just when they are and what i call them changes... so i have concluded that breakfast is important because it does seem to kick start when i want to eat and what i want to eat, and i believe its bad for you to eat too late in the day so starting my eating day at 8 am means it finishes earlier than if i started it at lunch time... mid evening snack is a bad idea in my eyes far too late to be eating... andddd... i think the fact that my 11am snack has a name makes it important... im all for elevenses :D !
    x
  • hayleymc3
    hayleymc3 Posts: 128 Member
    Options
    I think it's just a personal preference thing. I personally love breakfast and have it every morning because it gives me a good start to my day. On days I don't have it, I feel tired, run down, get stomach pains, etc.

    I know plenty of people who are (at this point in time, anyway) much healthier than me and they skip breakfast. I genuinely believe it's a matter of an individual's wants and needs, although I do encourage that you read and study on this topic more for yourself, using articles like the one another poster provided.
  • kykykenna
    kykykenna Posts: 656 Member
    Options
    In my own personal experience, I too, would skip breakfast. always did. Then , come close to dinner time, I was, of course, starving. I ate once a day. Seemed to be from 5pm to bed.......never sure of calories, but what I can tell you from MY experience, is I never saw the scale move an ounce until I started eating breakfast, which of course made me hungry, and ate (grazed?) through the day, followed by a lighter dinner, because I wasnt famished. For me, that, and only that is when the scale moved. Yup. Everyone is different. But my old way didnt work. I tried it for a damn decade.....LOL... I figured why not something different. Thank goodness I did.:) But that is just me.:wink:
    *Edited to say i still hate breakfast. :laugh:
  • Articeluvsmemphis
    Articeluvsmemphis Posts: 1,987 Member
    Options
    it isn't-just eat when you like. i'm always hungry, i'm not gonna train my body to eat at certain times, just eat when hungry.
  • gguynes
    gguynes Posts: 20
    Options
    You are better off asking your doctor or going to a nutritionist... everyone has their own opinion and/or has done their own research. The problem is that each person responding has found the right "fit" for themselves. I choose to eat breakfast because (as someone already stated) I want to begin burning calories first thing in the morning. I would rather have my metabolism running in high gear, than slowing down because I have not eaten...

    To address the desire to eat more after breakfast, I had to change what I ate for breakfast. I switched to more protein and less carbohydrates as my first meal of the day. That prevented me from "craving" more carbs after my first meal.

    Good luck!
  • neverstray
    neverstray Posts: 3,845 Member
    Options
    When I don't work, my eating is very different. I eat breakfast at around 10 or 11. I eat lunch around 3 or 4, and I have a light dinner around 7. I eat light snacks in between if I need it. I believe that is my natural eating pattern. So, call those meals whatever you want.,
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    Options
    I choose to eat breakfast because (as someone already stated) I want to begin burning calories first thing in the morning. I would rather have my metabolism running in high gear, than slowing down because I have not eaten...

    eating breakfast or skipping breakfast does not affect your metabolism ( it takes days of under eating or over eating) and you are constantly burning calories (if you are alive)
  • SusanLovesToEat
    SusanLovesToEat Posts: 218 Member
    Options
    It is just that your metabolism will start when you start eating food. Because of thermogenesis you will burn more or less calories a day, according to what or if you ate.

    So, if you skip breakfast you will burn less, so you'll need less calories a day, which can be a difference of 200-300. But if you don't get more hungry during the day because you didn't have breakfast, I guess it is not that bad.

    This doesn't seem to jive with the current research on the benefits of intermittent fasting.

    [BTW-I don't eat breakfast-never have, ever. If I get hungry before lunch at 1pm then I eat a piece of fruit.]
  • Hendrix7
    Hendrix7 Posts: 1,903 Member
    Options
    It is just that your metabolism will start when you start eating food. Because of thermogenesis you will burn more or less calories a day, according to what or if you ate.

    So, if you skip breakfast you will burn less, so you'll need less calories a day, which can be a difference of 200-300. But if you don't get more hungry during the day because you didn't have breakfast, I guess it is not that bad.
    I do not believe this whatsoever.

    Well, then try measuring your metabolism with Fitmate. There is a difference in restmetabolism if you ate or didn't.

    No.

    Outside of your anecdotal evidence present anything that shows that metabolic rate is improved with higher meal frequency or more specifically eating as soon as you wake up.

    There is none.

    As has already been said you can "break fast" at any time of the day be it 6am, 9am, 1pm or whatever, provided you eat the same amount there will be no difference. the thermic effect of the food you would have eaten for breakfast is simply delayed until later.
  • altacosturabeth
    altacosturabeth Posts: 62 Member
    Options
    I'd just like to add my little opinion on the whole metabolism thing here! I've not really read all that much about metabolism but I figured it worked something like this;

    Say, my diet consisted of 24 eggs a day (obviously, totally hypothetical) it wouldn't make all that much of a difference if I ate 2 of those eggs every hour (until they ran out) or whether I ate all 24 of those eggs at 2pm in the afternoon. I'd still be getting the 24 eggs, I'd just either be eating them all at once (possibly making my metabolism work a little quicker?) or having gaps in between eating them (possibly making my metabolism not work as quickly as I would if I ate all the eggs at once, but it's still working).

    I'm probably completely wrong here but that's just what my brain has told me to think! I'll add I'm awful at any kind of scientific work which is why I've probably got it all wrong :')
  • Nina2503
    Nina2503 Posts: 172 Member
    Options
    For me it is, if I dont eat breakfast by 10am I was running to the chocolate machine.
  • Nurturegirl
    Nurturegirl Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    I don't know if skipping breakfast is bad but I would struggle without it in the morning. My last meal is normally around 6.00pm, so by 7.00 am I definitely feel hungry. If I skipped breakfast, I would definitely end up having a sugary or fatty quick fix at work.
  • skylark94
    skylark94 Posts: 2,036 Member
    Options
    I only eat breakfast (or any other meal for that matter) when I am hungry.
  • Nvertommen
    Nvertommen Posts: 27
    Options
    It is just that your metabolism will start when you start eating food. Because of thermogenesis you will burn more or less calories a day, according to what or if you ate.

    So, if you skip breakfast you will burn less, so you'll need less calories a day, which can be a difference of 200-300. But if you don't get more hungry during the day because you didn't have breakfast, I guess it is not that bad.
    I do not believe this whatsoever.

    Well, then try measuring your metabolism with Fitmate. There is a difference in restmetabolism if you ate or didn't.

    No.

    Outside of your anecdotal evidence present anything that shows that metabolic rate is improved with higher meal frequency or more specifically eating as soon as you wake up.

    There is none.

    As has already been said you can "break fast" at any time of the day be it 6am, 9am, 1pm or whatever, provided you eat the same amount there will be no difference. the thermic effect of the food you would have eaten for breakfast is simply delayed until later.

    http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/244/1/E45.short

    So, after a meal the EE increases with 14-16%. Quite a lot. You are saying there is no difference in burning 14-16% all day long because after every meal you will, or having the EE like this after one huge meal? You think one huge meal takes 24hrs to process?
  • Nvertommen
    Nvertommen Posts: 27
    Options
    In other words: to keep yourself warm in the house, you use heating. So if you put it a bit higher all day long, or just put it REALLY high for a couple of hours, doesnt have a difference, you will feel as warm/cold as you do all day?
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member
    Options

    http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/244/1/E45.short

    So, after a meal the EE increases with 14-16%. Quite a lot. You are saying there is no difference in burning 14-16% all day long because after every meal you will, or having the EE like this after one huge meal? You think one huge meal takes 24hrs to process?

    If calories are kept equal it makes little to no difference:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

    Really, the question is "does eating breakfast cause you to eat more overall during the day than not eating it?" There is no magic in eating in the morning, not eating in the evening, purposefully skipping meals etc other than that which promotes dietary adherence.

    It's quite simple: find the way which keeps you at a calorie deficit the easiest and stick to it.

    Job done.

Categories