Eating breakfast is making me hungrier

Skipping a meal...to me that would be anytime you are awake and you wait over 4 -5 hours to eat AND unless you have a medical condition that would effect you skipping meals (like diabetes) than do whatever ...my main focus as a dietitian is diabetes and dialysis nutrition so my main CEUs are focused on that and I'm way beyond what I need for the past 5 years for CEUs. As you can see as I have posted before that I don't mind learning updated research.

I was orginally taught that eatting more frequently does help you to lose weight and help with burning energy, however I did some more research and found what you were talking about as far as for weight loss in itself to be true in some of the studies (calories in calories out); however eatting frequently does help with satiety for "some" people, which makes it a little easier for "some" people to stay within their calorie goal and essentially easier to lose weight. However, like I mentioned before skipping breakfast AND /OR meals are not necessarily the most healthy for some people with medical conditions and in a lot of those cases I wouldn't recommend skipping meals. Any dietitian will tell you that being a registered dietitian is an ongoing learning process especially since research is constantly changing. Thanks :happy:

What does "skipping meals" mean, other than not conforming to a cultural norm?

What is normal? Is it 3 meals a day? 6? At what point am I "skipping" a meal? What about midnight snack?

Your info seems old, have you considered some "continuing education"?

1st of all I was responding to a post to someone to help someone out with a question they had out of being nice, cause I love helping people that is why I chose my career 2. I am perfectly able to help people with weight loss as it is a big part of what I do (just not my main focus) and plenty of my patients have been successful at their weight loss plans that were individualized to their specific lifestyle / needs 3. I am always up to learning updated information / research so to the person that pointed it out thanks for prodding me to do more research in that area that I haven't researched in a while, as I normally focus on diabetes and dialysis the past 5 years 4. I am human just like you and everyone else AND we all are not perfect.

Skipping a meal...to me that would be anytime you are awake and you wait over 4 -5 hours to eat AND unless you have a medical condition that would effect you skipping meals (like diabetes) than do whatever ...my main focus as a dietitian is diabetes and dialysis nutrition so my main CEUs are focused on that and I'm way beyond what I need for the past 5 years for CEUs. As you can see as I have posted before that I don't mind learning updated research.

I was orginally taught that eatting more frequently does help you to lose weight and help with burning energy, however I did some more research and found what you were talking about as far as for weight loss in itself to be true in some of the studies (calories in calories out); however eatting frequently does help with satiety for "some" people, which makes it a little easier for "some" people to stay within their calorie goal and essentially easier to lose weight. However, like I mentioned before skipping breakfast AND /OR meals are not necessarily the most healthy for some people with medical conditions and in a lot of those cases I wouldn't recommend skipping meals. Any dietitian will tell you that being a registered dietitian is an ongoing learning process especially since research is constantly changing. Thanks :happy:

What does "skipping meals" mean, other than not conforming to a cultural norm?

What is normal? Is it 3 meals a day? 6? At what point am I "skipping" a meal? What about midnight snack?

Your info seems old, have you considered some "continuing education"?

Again, the idea of "how often one should eat" is the one in question. So simply stating that not eating every 4-5 hours is "skipping a meal" is assuming the answer whilst exploring the question. You are starting with a conclusion, or rather, a cultural habit, and working from there.





In the future, when commenting on aspects of diet not directly concerning stuff you actually know about, it might be a good idea not to rely on the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

From wiki (not an authority, i know):

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
[1][2][3]
In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is an logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather absolute argument for establishing facts.

1st of all I was responding to a post to someone to help someone out with a question they had out of being nice, cause I love helping people that is why I chose my career 2. I am perfectly able to help people with weight loss as it is a big part of what I do (just not my main focus) and plenty of my patients have been successful at their weight loss plans that were individualized to their specific lifestyle / needs 3. I am always up to learning updated information / research so to the person that pointed it out thanks for prodding me to do more research in that area that I haven't researched in a while, as I normally focus on diabetes and dialysis the past 5 years 4. I am human just like you and everyone else AND we all are not perfect.

Skipping a meal...to me that would be anytime you are awake and you wait over 4 -5 hours to eat AND unless you have a medical condition that would effect you skipping meals (like diabetes) than do whatever ...my main focus as a dietitian is diabetes and dialysis nutrition so my main CEUs are focused on that and I'm way beyond what I need for the past 5 years for CEUs. As you can see as I have posted before that I don't mind learning updated research.

I was orginally taught that eatting more frequently does help you to lose weight and help with burning energy, however I did some more research and found what you were talking about as far as for weight loss in itself to be true in some of the studies (calories in calories out); however eatting frequently does help with satiety for "some" people, which makes it a little easier for "some" people to stay within their calorie goal and essentially easier to lose weight. However, like I mentioned before skipping breakfast AND /OR meals are not necessarily the most healthy for some people with medical conditions and in a lot of those cases I wouldn't recommend skipping meals. Any dietitian will tell you that being a registered dietitian is an ongoing learning process especially since research is constantly changing. Thanks :happy:

What does "skipping meals" mean, other than not conforming to a cultural norm?

What is normal? Is it 3 meals a day? 6? At what point am I "skipping" a meal? What about midnight snack?

Your info seems old, have you considered some "continuing education"?

Again, the idea of "how often one should eat" is the one in question. So simply stating that not eating every 4-5 hours is "skipping a meal" is assuming the answer whilst exploring the question. You are starting with a conclusion, or rather, a cultural habit, and working from there.





In the future, when commenting on aspects of diet not directly concerning stuff you actually know about, it might be a good idea not to rely on the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

From wiki (not an authority, i know):

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
[1][2][3]
In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is an logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather absolute argument for establishing facts.

Your motives haven't been attacked, merely your logic. Now you seem to have moved on to the "straw man" approach with a side of ad hominem, by implying your motives have been questioned and defending yourself, when in fact you haven't been attacked base on your motives. Is that your intent? Because that would also be illogical. I wouldn't do the same to you, so you can be free to clarify that nobody has questioned your motives, merely your competence, and that was only because you used a classic appeal to authority featuring you as the authority. We realize you are trying to help, but results matter.


Let's be clear for the record. Thermogenesis was NEVER shown or implied to be greater from higher frequency eating, given the same caloric intake. No study, ever, implied or proved that. Yes, many "experts", having misread some studies, concluded erroneously that since eating more increases energy required to process food, eating more OFTEN must result in less efficient processing, therefore could help lose more weight with the same intake. However, there was never any basis for that conclusion, and when it was tested in a countrolled setting on mice, it proved to be a dead end. Since repeating a falsehood can give it an aura of truth, this silliness became "fact" in the minds of some "experts" who relied on other "experts" instead of the source material.


So even ten years ago, there was no basis for this idea that eating many small meals burns more calories than one big one. Actually, I can do a simple, imprecise test by wearing a heart rate monitor and eating 2500 calories in one sitting. It jumps up and stays up for quite some time!

That said, because I am gaining more than I am spending when I eat, thermogenesis really doesn't matter. The whole concept reminds me of a reverse version of the line from catch-22 about losing money on every transaction but making up for it in volume.


This is why I tend to scoff at your whole profession. Clearly a bunch of amateurs on the Internet have done a better job on the theoretical and practical side here.

If I skip breakfast, my portions are huge at lunch and I'm more likely to eat junk. Whereas if I eat breakfast and simply graze through the day, my portions are smaller and i'm less likely to eat the first thing in front of me.

Then you should keep doing that. I do better on leangains style IF, so I should keep doing that.