Calorie In Calorie Out
lesstjm
Posts: 15 Member
I believe in the title. When I track my food I loose the weight. From time to time I watch the videos on Nutrionfacts.org and this one peaked my interest.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/is-skipping-breakfast-better-for-weight-loss/?utm_source=NutritionFacts.org&utm_campaign=0604a66fc7-RSS_VIDEO_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_40f9e497d1-0604a66fc7-23948021&mc_cid=0604a66fc7&mc_eid=8ee4073d1b
New research is saying calories eaten in the morning cause less weight gain then later in the day. They are not equal. If you look at comments under the video there are more videos to come.
I just thought it was interesting and thought I would put it out here. Not endorsing it. yet????
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/is-skipping-breakfast-better-for-weight-loss/?utm_source=NutritionFacts.org&utm_campaign=0604a66fc7-RSS_VIDEO_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_40f9e497d1-0604a66fc7-23948021&mc_cid=0604a66fc7&mc_eid=8ee4073d1b
New research is saying calories eaten in the morning cause less weight gain then later in the day. They are not equal. If you look at comments under the video there are more videos to come.
I just thought it was interesting and thought I would put it out here. Not endorsing it. yet????
5
Replies
-
"Recent breakthroughs in the field of chronobiology— the study of our body’s natural rhythms—have unsettled an even more sacred cow of nutrition dogma: the concept that a calorie is a calorie. It’s not just what we eat, but when we eat. Same number of calories, different weight loss, depending on meal timing."
Why doesn't he mention what "breakthroughs" he is referring to?14 -
You can't have it both ways, though.
If you believe it's about calories, then it really doesn't matter what time of day you eat or how you break it up.
::shrug::13 -
I watched that video, and most of the difference was due to increased activity by those eating in the mornings. There was a small amount supposedly unaccounted for, but I'd have to have a lot more information to believe calories simply don't count as much when eating earlier (likely when it's light, if it's supposed to be about circadian rhythms) vs. later.9
-
I'm so much more peppy and bouncy in the morning before I eat...and rather a slug after eating lunch and/or dinner...so that doesn't seem to fit with how I actually feel.
However, I know there have been some studies with diabetics that find a lower A1C with a breakfast/lunch IF protocol compared to a lunch/dinner IF protocol, so maybe it's blood sugar related.1 -
Here's the thing:
Let's just assume that eating more in the morning and less at night results in my burning a whopping 250 more calories per day** vs. eating more at night, regardless of whether the effect is metabolic or energy-level/activity related. (** That would be likely to be much greater than the actual effect, at least in what I've read so far.)
Let's further assume that I find it easy to skip or lowball breakfast, and save calories for later in the day, maybe even a big meal right before bed. (This is true for many people, from what I've read here).
So, if I force myself to eat breakfast, but I still crave that big evening meal with my family, and am not very good at watching other people eat yummy things while I have a tiny portion, what will happen? I think the odds are decent that I'll have compliance problems, and pretty easily slip often enough and far enough to eat back that 250-calorie benefit.
Clearly, this is an extreme example, in many ways. But the core of it is the idea - which I personally believe to be true - that practicality and happy compliance are typically much bigger factors in real-world individual weight loss/management success than technically-true "metabolic" effects, which tend to be numerically relatively small. (I think this is especially true in a calorie counting context, where decisions can be more explicit/conscious.)
Interesting? Sure. Worth knowing about and considering, when making up one's own personal success toolkit? Sure. The thing everyone should do, to lose more weight? Nah. Know thyself, and all that jazz.
Just my opinion.27 -
So, if I force myself to eat breakfast, but I still crave that big evening meal with my family, and am not very good at watching other people eat yummy things while I have a tiny portion, what will happen? I think the odds are decent that I'll have compliance problems, and pretty easily slip often enough and far enough to eat back that 250-calorie benefit.
This is actually consistent with the videos (this was part 2).
The first was about the idea that breakfast was important to weight loss, and went through studies that showed that people who normally did not eat breakfast tended to eat more overall (on average) if they ate breakfast, and that people who were told to skip breakfast for a study tended to eat more for lunch and dinner than otherwise (on average), but not enough to make up for the missing breakfast calories. It ended with: "so, does this mean you should avoid breakfast? Tune in next time..."
The second part showed a study where people (on average) lost the same amount of weight, breakfast or no, despite the people eating breakfast eating more (on average).
So the conclusion, IMO, is that it's best to go with one's natural tendency to be a breakfast eater or not.9 -
So, if I force myself to eat breakfast, but I still crave that big evening meal with my family, and am not very good at watching other people eat yummy things while I have a tiny portion, what will happen? I think the odds are decent that I'll have compliance problems, and pretty easily slip often enough and far enough to eat back that 250-calorie benefit.
This is actually consistent with the videos (this was part 2).
(snip good recap)
So the conclusion, IMO, is that it's best to go with one's natural tendency to be a breakfast eater or not.
You uncovered my guilty secret: I did the lazy thing, and didn't watch the video, just commented on the OP.
4 -
So, if I force myself to eat breakfast, but I still crave that big evening meal with my family, and am not very good at watching other people eat yummy things while I have a tiny portion, what will happen? I think the odds are decent that I'll have compliance problems, and pretty easily slip often enough and far enough to eat back that 250-calorie benefit.
This is actually consistent with the videos (this was part 2).
(snip good recap)
So the conclusion, IMO, is that it's best to go with one's natural tendency to be a breakfast eater or not.
You uncovered my guilty secret: I did the lazy thing, and didn't watch the video, just commented on the OP.
SHAME!
I may watch the video tomorrow. This kind of stuff only catches my attention because I am interested in body rhythms if they offer an explanation for why my reactive hypoglycemia is more of an issue in the morning. That has never made a lot of sense to me.
It has also perplexed me that if I eat breakfast and even if I eat a macro profile that is safe for me I am much hungrier the rest of the day. That is an annoying "feature" to have on vacation.3 -
CI/CO is true in a lab, lol! But not in a living human. Too many variables in play. Dr Greger lists factors other than straight CI/CO influencing weight loss (or gain) known to research in "How Not to Diet." He truly separates the hype from the facts ad only using peer reviewed double blind studies.2
-
FoodBodyChanges wrote: »CI/CO is true in a lab, lol! But not in a living human. Too many variables in play. Dr Greger lists factors other than straight CI/CO influencing weight loss (or gain) known to research in "How Not to Diet." He truly separates the hype from the facts ad only using peer reviewed double blind studies.
I would love to hear how to not lose weight without having to eat more. It would save me a lot of time, money and chewing when I have to maintain my weight in a month. So do tell14 -
FoodBodyChanges wrote: »CI/CO is true in a lab, lol! But not in a living human. Too many variables in play. Dr Greger lists factors other than straight CI/CO influencing weight loss (or gain) known to research in "How Not to Diet." He truly separates the hype from the facts ad only using peer reviewed double blind studies.
I'm not a living human, apparently.
And I'll bet Gregor doesn't much prove things using "only peer reviewed double blind studies". Double blind nutritional studies in humans - especially free-living ones - are a little on the rare side. People have an inconvenient way of knowing what they're eating.21 -
One person I know doesn't eat after 6 p.m. Another starts her day off with a big meal, medium lunch and very light dinner. Both swear that's how they keep their weight down. Neither counts calories and both exercise and keep busy.
If I didn't eat after dinner, I'd probably save myself 3-400 calories a day so it only stands to reason that eventually I'd lose weight due to less calories. I'm not sure I agree with either way of thinking truthfully. I think it's more the way people are made up, chemically, metabolically; physically....if they hold themselves 100% accountable to all numbers involved. I just don't see how a study can be completely accurate that is based on so many individual factors.
So, all in all, if something works for you then do it.
3 -
I think eating time means little for weight loss IF you are calorie counting. If you are eating ad librium, it might matter. People eat more at night for multiple reasons imho. People will eat mindlessly sometimes when they watch t.v. Sleep is important as well. If you are sleep deprived, people tend to eat more. People also tend to gravitate to higher calorie foods when tired. Jmho...10
-
As Ann mentions, I've seen a couple of studies that have breakfast eaters with a small advantage, probably due to having higher NEAT after fueling early on.
The effect is small.
Way smaller than the +1 breakfast Calories the breakfast would cost me since I would still eat most of my calories in the evening.
Whatever it takes to hit your caloric goals. First and foremost.
Then you can optimize till the cows come home.
So is it worth trying having breakfast if you normally don't?
Absolutely. You won't know if it suits you till you try!
And it is also worth having a smaller one and trying to not have any if an early breakfast isn't helping you hit your goals!!!4 -
Here is the study in question: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969247/
It states hypotheses, objectives, and plan. I could not find any mention of actual results. Unless I'm missing something, the video is jumping to conclusions that weren't there yet. If anyone knows if they published the results yet let me know.
This is interesting to me. I do wholeheartedly believe in calories in and calories out, but I'm not against the idea that certain mechanisms can affect either side of the equation outside of behavioral influences. I will not change the way I consume food because sustainability is the most important part of weight management regardless of any other details, but it would be interesting to see if in addition to behavioral factors (higher activity level in breakfast eaters, for example) there are biological factors as well. It won't mean much in terms of weight management for those who count calories, and I suspect the effect (if any) won't be drastic enough to be used for weight management in general, but it's interesting to know nonetheless.5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Here is the study in question: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969247/
It states hypotheses, objectives, and plan. I could not find any mention of actual results. Unless I'm missing something, the video is jumping to conclusions that weren't there yet. If anyone knows if they published the results yet let me know.
This is interesting to me. I do wholeheartedly believe in calories in and calories out, but I'm not against the idea that certain mechanisms can affect either side of the equation outside of behavioral influences. I will not change the way I consume food because sustainability is the most important part of weight management regardless of any other details, but it would be interesting to see if in addition to behavioral factors (higher activity level in breakfast eaters, for example) there are biological factors as well. It won't mean much in terms of weight management for those who count calories, and I suspect the effect (if any) won't be drastic enough to be used for weight management in general, but it's interesting to know nonetheless.
it looks like they tried to do a metaanalysis rather than a research study - This report briefly discusses the current research linking meal timing, circadian rhythms and metabolism; highlights the research gaps; and provides an overview of the studies being undertaken as part of the Medical Research Council-funded Big Breakfast Study.1 -
Well...I eat a good sized (500 calorie) breakfast. And a big dinner. I have a small snack midday. Sometimes I eat after dinner. Sometimes I don't. Since we're adding our N=1 results, and since that appears to be all we've got (thx @amusedmonkey ) then I'll just keep adding up the numbers in my little handy dandy food diary and not worry too much whether I'm getting the zoomies by eating a big breakfast.
Hey, maybe that's why I eat 500 calories more per day than all the calculators say I should. So I guess I've validated his theory? Hm. I didn't see that coming. Breakfast for the win.4 -
So, if I force myself to eat breakfast, but I still crave that big evening meal with my family, and am not very good at watching other people eat yummy things while I have a tiny portion, what will happen? I think the odds are decent that I'll have compliance problems, and pretty easily slip often enough and far enough to eat back that 250-calorie benefit.
This is actually consistent with the videos (this was part 2).
(snip good recap)
So the conclusion, IMO, is that it's best to go with one's natural tendency to be a breakfast eater or not.
You uncovered my guilty secret: I did the lazy thing, and didn't watch the video, just commented on the OP.
SHAME!
I may watch the video tomorrow. This kind of stuff only catches my attention because I am interested in body rhythms if they offer an explanation for why my reactive hypoglycemia is more of an issue in the morning. That has never made a lot of sense to me.
It has also perplexed me that if I eat breakfast and even if I eat a macro profile that is safe for me I am much hungrier the rest of the day. That is an annoying "feature" to have on vacation.
If so, you should watch the one right before, which is part one.
I think circadian rhythms are interesting, although I find it hard to believe it matters that much just because I don't see the mechanism and because for me it was so easy to lose (at a faster rate than predicted) eating dinner at 9 most nights. Plus my work schedule is such that eating dinner late is hard to avoid. But although I think it's important to realize that personal schedule and ease matters most for sustainability (and that when one eats can't prevent a loss), I am open to the possibility that there is some circadian effect.
I find the differences between people with respect to breakfast interesting, and I think it's why any one size fits all advice about breakfast (or eating patterns generally) is going to be wrong. I'm actually doing a personal experiment this week of not eating breakfast (since I'm not doing pre-work workouts this week), and I do find that I naturally eat a bit less, and I'm not that hungry (I didn't eat breakfast for years when I was in my 20s and early 30s), but I think I'm going to start eating breakfast again anyway. For me (not for anyone else), it is just enjoyable to eat breakfast, fits my morning routine, and makes it easier to get in more veg/fruit and protein (this is partly because I hate snacking and three meals tend to give me about the cals I like at each most days). I don't find I am more or less hungry leading up to lunch when I eat breakfast or don't, absent a workout, but I do tend to be really hungry by mid-morning if I workout and then don't eat breakfast afterwards.0 -
So, if I force myself to eat breakfast, but I still crave that big evening meal with my family, and am not very good at watching other people eat yummy things while I have a tiny portion, what will happen? I think the odds are decent that I'll have compliance problems, and pretty easily slip often enough and far enough to eat back that 250-calorie benefit.
This is actually consistent with the videos (this was part 2).
(snip good recap)
So the conclusion, IMO, is that it's best to go with one's natural tendency to be a breakfast eater or not.
You uncovered my guilty secret: I did the lazy thing, and didn't watch the video, just commented on the OP.
SHAME!
I may watch the video tomorrow. This kind of stuff only catches my attention because I am interested in body rhythms if they offer an explanation for why my reactive hypoglycemia is more of an issue in the morning. That has never made a lot of sense to me.
It has also perplexed me that if I eat breakfast and even if I eat a macro profile that is safe for me I am much hungrier the rest of the day. That is an annoying "feature" to have on vacation.
If so, you should watch the one right before, which is part one.
I think circadian rhythms are interesting, although I find it hard to believe it matters that much just because I don't see the mechanism and because for me it was so easy to lose (at a faster rate than predicted) eating dinner at 9 most nights. Plus my work schedule is such that eating dinner late is hard to avoid. But although I think it's important to realize that personal schedule and ease matters most for sustainability (and that when one eats can't prevent a loss), I am open to the possibility that there is some circadian effect.
I find the differences between people with respect to breakfast interesting, and I think it's why any one size fits all advice about breakfast (or eating patterns generally) is going to be wrong. I'm actually doing a personal experiment this week of not eating breakfast (since I'm not doing pre-work workouts this week), and I do find that I naturally eat a bit less, and I'm not that hungry (I didn't eat breakfast for years when I was in my 20s and early 30s), but I think I'm going to start eating breakfast again anyway. For me (not for anyone else), it is just enjoyable to eat breakfast, fits my morning routine, and makes it easier to get in more veg/fruit and protein (this is partly because I hate snacking and three meals tend to give me about the cals I like at each most days). I don't find I am more or less hungry leading up to lunch when I eat breakfast or don't, absent a workout, but I do tend to be really hungry by mid-morning if I workout and then don't eat breakfast afterwards.
I am interested in what they do to insulin response which has nothing to do with weight loss.
I watched the video. It was missing any meat to explain the claims that calories do not count as much in the morning.
I do not think 6 weeks is long enough to allow for people to adapt to skipping breakfast. If you take a person very accustomed to eating breakfast and tell them to skip it, it should not really be a surprise their NEAT would drop. You look at that same person in a few months and I am willing to bet their NEAT would already be climbing back to near where it was.2 -
So, if I force myself to eat breakfast, but I still crave that big evening meal with my family, and am not very good at watching other people eat yummy things while I have a tiny portion, what will happen? I think the odds are decent that I'll have compliance problems, and pretty easily slip often enough and far enough to eat back that 250-calorie benefit.
This is actually consistent with the videos (this was part 2).
(snip good recap)
So the conclusion, IMO, is that it's best to go with one's natural tendency to be a breakfast eater or not.
You uncovered my guilty secret: I did the lazy thing, and didn't watch the video, just commented on the OP.
SHAME!
I may watch the video tomorrow. This kind of stuff only catches my attention because I am interested in body rhythms if they offer an explanation for why my reactive hypoglycemia is more of an issue in the morning. That has never made a lot of sense to me.
It has also perplexed me that if I eat breakfast and even if I eat a macro profile that is safe for me I am much hungrier the rest of the day. That is an annoying "feature" to have on vacation.
If so, you should watch the one right before, which is part one.
I think circadian rhythms are interesting, although I find it hard to believe it matters that much just because I don't see the mechanism and because for me it was so easy to lose (at a faster rate than predicted) eating dinner at 9 most nights. Plus my work schedule is such that eating dinner late is hard to avoid. But although I think it's important to realize that personal schedule and ease matters most for sustainability (and that when one eats can't prevent a loss), I am open to the possibility that there is some circadian effect.
I find the differences between people with respect to breakfast interesting, and I think it's why any one size fits all advice about breakfast (or eating patterns generally) is going to be wrong. I'm actually doing a personal experiment this week of not eating breakfast (since I'm not doing pre-work workouts this week), and I do find that I naturally eat a bit less, and I'm not that hungry (I didn't eat breakfast for years when I was in my 20s and early 30s), but I think I'm going to start eating breakfast again anyway. For me (not for anyone else), it is just enjoyable to eat breakfast, fits my morning routine, and makes it easier to get in more veg/fruit and protein (this is partly because I hate snacking and three meals tend to give me about the cals I like at each most days). I don't find I am more or less hungry leading up to lunch when I eat breakfast or don't, absent a workout, but I do tend to be really hungry by mid-morning if I workout and then don't eat breakfast afterwards.
I am interested in what they do to insulin response which has nothing to do with weight loss.
I watched the video. It was missing any meat to explain the claims that calories do not count as much in the morning.
I do not think 6 weeks is long enough to allow for people to adapt to skipping breakfast. If you take a person very accustomed to eating breakfast and tell them to skip it, it should not really be a surprise their NEAT would drop. You look at that same person in a few months and I am willing to bet their NEAT would already be climbing back to near where it was.
Maybe.
One thing that struck me with both the videos is that there are likely differences between people, just based on what I see on MFP. I believe that there are people who are much more hungry if they skip breakfast, and so would do worse if they tried to force themselves to eat breakfast (whatever the results on average--and the results seemed to even out anyway). I also wouldn't be surprised if for those people activity didn't change breakfast or not. But if that's true (and I think we both think it is), I don't see why it isn't also possible that there are people who feel much more hungry if they don't have breakfast and react to missing breakfast by feeling less energetic and that that also isn't merely a result of habit.
Obviously studies would need to be carried out, but I find the idea that anyone could adjust to not eating breakfast (in terms of unplanned activity in the morning eventually being the same) but some cannot adjust to eating it to not really make sense.1 -
So, if I force myself to eat breakfast, but I still crave that big evening meal with my family, and am not very good at watching other people eat yummy things while I have a tiny portion, what will happen? I think the odds are decent that I'll have compliance problems, and pretty easily slip often enough and far enough to eat back that 250-calorie benefit.
This is actually consistent with the videos (this was part 2).
(snip good recap)
So the conclusion, IMO, is that it's best to go with one's natural tendency to be a breakfast eater or not.
You uncovered my guilty secret: I did the lazy thing, and didn't watch the video, just commented on the OP.
SHAME!
I may watch the video tomorrow. This kind of stuff only catches my attention because I am interested in body rhythms if they offer an explanation for why my reactive hypoglycemia is more of an issue in the morning. That has never made a lot of sense to me.
It has also perplexed me that if I eat breakfast and even if I eat a macro profile that is safe for me I am much hungrier the rest of the day. That is an annoying "feature" to have on vacation.
If so, you should watch the one right before, which is part one.
I think circadian rhythms are interesting, although I find it hard to believe it matters that much just because I don't see the mechanism and because for me it was so easy to lose (at a faster rate than predicted) eating dinner at 9 most nights. Plus my work schedule is such that eating dinner late is hard to avoid. But although I think it's important to realize that personal schedule and ease matters most for sustainability (and that when one eats can't prevent a loss), I am open to the possibility that there is some circadian effect.
I find the differences between people with respect to breakfast interesting, and I think it's why any one size fits all advice about breakfast (or eating patterns generally) is going to be wrong. I'm actually doing a personal experiment this week of not eating breakfast (since I'm not doing pre-work workouts this week), and I do find that I naturally eat a bit less, and I'm not that hungry (I didn't eat breakfast for years when I was in my 20s and early 30s), but I think I'm going to start eating breakfast again anyway. For me (not for anyone else), it is just enjoyable to eat breakfast, fits my morning routine, and makes it easier to get in more veg/fruit and protein (this is partly because I hate snacking and three meals tend to give me about the cals I like at each most days). I don't find I am more or less hungry leading up to lunch when I eat breakfast or don't, absent a workout, but I do tend to be really hungry by mid-morning if I workout and then don't eat breakfast afterwards.
I am interested in what they do to insulin response which has nothing to do with weight loss.
I watched the video. It was missing any meat to explain the claims that calories do not count as much in the morning.
I do not think 6 weeks is long enough to allow for people to adapt to skipping breakfast. If you take a person very accustomed to eating breakfast and tell them to skip it, it should not really be a surprise their NEAT would drop. You look at that same person in a few months and I am willing to bet their NEAT would already be climbing back to near where it was.
Maybe.
One thing that struck me with both the videos is that there are likely differences between people, just based on what I see on MFP. I believe that there are people who are much more hungry if they skip breakfast, and so would do worse if they tried to force themselves to eat breakfast (whatever the results on average--and the results seemed to even out anyway). I also wouldn't be surprised if for those people activity didn't change breakfast or not. But if that's true (and I think we both think it is), I don't see why it isn't also possible that there are people who feel much more hungry if they don't have breakfast and react to missing breakfast by feeling less energetic and that that also isn't merely a result of habit.
Obviously studies would need to be carried out, but I find the idea that anyone could adjust to not eating breakfast (in terms of unplanned activity in the morning eventually being the same) but some cannot adjust to eating it to not really make sense.
You are right. Not just anyone can suddenly decide to skip breakfast. I should have worded my post better. I meant that anyone able to easily sustain it would most likely adjust and their NEAT would climb. I am very active in the morning and I have not eaten since lunch yesterday.2 -
So, if I force myself to eat breakfast, but I still crave that big evening meal with my family, and am not very good at watching other people eat yummy things while I have a tiny portion, what will happen? I think the odds are decent that I'll have compliance problems, and pretty easily slip often enough and far enough to eat back that 250-calorie benefit.
This is actually consistent with the videos (this was part 2).
(snip good recap)
So the conclusion, IMO, is that it's best to go with one's natural tendency to be a breakfast eater or not.
You uncovered my guilty secret: I did the lazy thing, and didn't watch the video, just commented on the OP.
SHAME!
I may watch the video tomorrow. This kind of stuff only catches my attention because I am interested in body rhythms if they offer an explanation for why my reactive hypoglycemia is more of an issue in the morning. That has never made a lot of sense to me.
It has also perplexed me that if I eat breakfast and even if I eat a macro profile that is safe for me I am much hungrier the rest of the day. That is an annoying "feature" to have on vacation.
If so, you should watch the one right before, which is part one.
I think circadian rhythms are interesting, although I find it hard to believe it matters that much just because I don't see the mechanism and because for me it was so easy to lose (at a faster rate than predicted) eating dinner at 9 most nights. Plus my work schedule is such that eating dinner late is hard to avoid. But although I think it's important to realize that personal schedule and ease matters most for sustainability (and that when one eats can't prevent a loss), I am open to the possibility that there is some circadian effect.
I find the differences between people with respect to breakfast interesting, and I think it's why any one size fits all advice about breakfast (or eating patterns generally) is going to be wrong. I'm actually doing a personal experiment this week of not eating breakfast (since I'm not doing pre-work workouts this week), and I do find that I naturally eat a bit less, and I'm not that hungry (I didn't eat breakfast for years when I was in my 20s and early 30s), but I think I'm going to start eating breakfast again anyway. For me (not for anyone else), it is just enjoyable to eat breakfast, fits my morning routine, and makes it easier to get in more veg/fruit and protein (this is partly because I hate snacking and three meals tend to give me about the cals I like at each most days). I don't find I am more or less hungry leading up to lunch when I eat breakfast or don't, absent a workout, but I do tend to be really hungry by mid-morning if I workout and then don't eat breakfast afterwards.
I am interested in what they do to insulin response which has nothing to do with weight loss.
I watched the video. It was missing any meat to explain the claims that calories do not count as much in the morning.
I do not think 6 weeks is long enough to allow for people to adapt to skipping breakfast. If you take a person very accustomed to eating breakfast and tell them to skip it, it should not really be a surprise their NEAT would drop. You look at that same person in a few months and I am willing to bet their NEAT would already be climbing back to near where it was.
Maybe.
One thing that struck me with both the videos is that there are likely differences between people, just based on what I see on MFP. I believe that there are people who are much more hungry if they skip breakfast, and so would do worse if they tried to force themselves to eat breakfast (whatever the results on average--and the results seemed to even out anyway). I also wouldn't be surprised if for those people activity didn't change breakfast or not. But if that's true (and I think we both think it is), I don't see why it isn't also possible that there are people who feel much more hungry if they don't have breakfast and react to missing breakfast by feeling less energetic and that that also isn't merely a result of habit.
Obviously studies would need to be carried out, but I find the idea that anyone could adjust to not eating breakfast (in terms of unplanned activity in the morning eventually being the same) but some cannot adjust to eating it to not really make sense.
(What follows is intended as an extension from the theme in conversational play here, not as any form of disagreement.)
I think it's important to keep in mind that in many aspects of human biology and behavior, probably including the timing and exact effects of circadian rhythms, there is a statistical distribution of individual humans around the means (averages) that are usually the core of "big picture" research findings.
Not everyone is average. Presumably some of these phenomena are quite narrow (small standard deviation, in a possibly slightly less than truly literal sense), with not much variation from individual to individual, and others more widely ranging.
Speculating wildly and from a position of near-total scientific ignorance on that theme, I'd expect the circadian rhythms to differ from person to person, and possibly quite a lot. (Human origins going back long enough - but not all the way - involved populations of people adapting to a huge range of weather, day-length, etc.; and now over the past 1000 or two years, we've been stirring those genetics together at increasing rates through increased human mobility and interbreeding of people of vastly different origins).
I'd also expect, just on general principles, that some people would be more sensitive in a biochemical sense to certain aspects of those rhythms, i.e., some individuals' genetics or circumstances might be more likely to override the circadian tendencies toward certain behavior, kind of (analogy) like some people are more strongly influenced behaviorally by probably-somewhat-hardwired tendencies to dislike bitter tastes. (Me, I like bitter ales. Lotta people think they taste like medicine (poison) ). I'm thinking differences in intra-body production of relevant biochemicals, or sensitivity of receptors to those chemicals, and that sort of thing. (Expression of biochemicals and sensitivity of receptors is certainly a consideration in other realms of human biology and behavior.)
I'd further expect that developmental or psychological events in a person's life could have such a strong influence as to override a certain amount of inborn biochemistry. (To exaggerate, if mama berated or beat the baby person for wanting food in the morning and locked them out of the house without breakfast routinely through childhood, it could make them overwhelmingly, non-negotiably attracted to "eating breakfast is necessary" in rebellion, or to "never eat breakfast" in order to "be a good grown-up baby", in ways that would behaviorally totally outweigh any subtle biological circadian tendencies. Who cares if it's the equivalent of placebo/nocebo effect - and it might be more than that: It's going to be pretty unavoidable adult truth, for some, I think.)
Given a distribution of tendencies across the population, the generic research results, though sound, may still not be the fully accurate guide for each and every individual, because there is underlying variation within the population, and - if nothing else - there are outliers.
TL;DR: Most human characteristics are discussed in the big picture in terms of the population averages/tendencies. Often, individuals exhibit a statistical distribution around that average, which may be a narrow distribution, or a wide one. (Sometimes the nature of the distribution is quite unclear.) It seems like this (the distribution) would make certain types of quite sound population research somewhat less meaningful for some individuals.
. . . (Ann T. looks dazed, shakes head, wide-eyed) . . . whooo, that was weird. 4 -
Given a distribution of tendencies across the population, the generic research results, though sound, may still not be the fully accurate guide for each and every individual, because there is underlying variation within the population, and - if nothing else - there are outliers.
TL;DR: Most human characteristics are discussed in the big picture in terms of the population averages/tendencies. Often, individuals exhibit a statistical distribution around that average, which may be a narrow distribution, or a wide one. (Sometimes the nature of the distribution is quite unclear.) It seems like this (the distribution) would make certain types of quite sound population research somewhat less meaningful for some individuals.
Yep, agree--that's a good way of stating the point I was also trying to make.
It's also why I repeated "(on average)" a few times when I was recapping the studies that were discussed (assuming they were discussed correctly).
To follow my own train of thought stemming from the discussion, I actually haven't noticed this as much on MFP as I used to, but it's why I think it's really counterproductive to try to decide what you do for weightloss or maintenance based on a few studies. Not only is the actual effect of whatever it is likely to be quite small (as you point out well whenever that kind of thing comes up, Ann), but it is of course likely to be outweighed by the benefits of doing what is most workable for your own lifestyle.
I get annoyed when people insist that eating by 6 (or whatnot) is important, even if there is some circadian rhythm effect (which I tend to suspect would be more about light than one set time anyway, and eating before dark this time of year would be rather difficult for almost everyone). First, I find it odd that people assume everyone can finish work and get home by 6, let alone cook by then. Second, I think valuing other things may be important. I personally like eating at home, and like cooking dinner (which is the most social meal often). This means I cannot eat by 6 or do IF without giving up something important to me (dinner or breakfast at home). Even if there were some tiny benefit, having an eating pattern that I like and that works for me is much more important, and likely overall more beneficial, and I think loading all these rules on people as to what is good or bad for weight loss is not helpful. Like I said before, I lost faster than predicted despite eating at 9 pm most nights.
(This is not a slam on the original post or the existence of these kinds of studies, which I find interesting, but to the misuse of studies in general as prescriptive advice about how one must lose weight.)3 -
Very interesting-thanks for the share! :-)0
-
So, if I force myself to eat breakfast, but I still crave that big evening meal with my family, and am not very good at watching other people eat yummy things while I have a tiny portion, what will happen? I think the odds are decent that I'll have compliance problems, and pretty easily slip often enough and far enough to eat back that 250-calorie benefit.
This is actually consistent with the videos (this was part 2).
(snip good recap)
So the conclusion, IMO, is that it's best to go with one's natural tendency to be a breakfast eater or not.
You uncovered my guilty secret: I did the lazy thing, and didn't watch the video, just commented on the OP.
SHAME!
I may watch the video tomorrow. This kind of stuff only catches my attention because I am interested in body rhythms if they offer an explanation for why my reactive hypoglycemia is more of an issue in the morning. That has never made a lot of sense to me.
It has also perplexed me that if I eat breakfast and even if I eat a macro profile that is safe for me I am much hungrier the rest of the day. That is an annoying "feature" to have on vacation.
If so, you should watch the one right before, which is part one.
I think circadian rhythms are interesting, although I find it hard to believe it matters that much just because I don't see the mechanism and because for me it was so easy to lose (at a faster rate than predicted) eating dinner at 9 most nights. Plus my work schedule is such that eating dinner late is hard to avoid. But although I think it's important to realize that personal schedule and ease matters most for sustainability (and that when one eats can't prevent a loss), I am open to the possibility that there is some circadian effect.
I find the differences between people with respect to breakfast interesting, and I think it's why any one size fits all advice about breakfast (or eating patterns generally) is going to be wrong. I'm actually doing a personal experiment this week of not eating breakfast (since I'm not doing pre-work workouts this week), and I do find that I naturally eat a bit less, and I'm not that hungry (I didn't eat breakfast for years when I was in my 20s and early 30s), but I think I'm going to start eating breakfast again anyway. For me (not for anyone else), it is just enjoyable to eat breakfast, fits my morning routine, and makes it easier to get in more veg/fruit and protein (this is partly because I hate snacking and three meals tend to give me about the cals I like at each most days). I don't find I am more or less hungry leading up to lunch when I eat breakfast or don't, absent a workout, but I do tend to be really hungry by mid-morning if I workout and then don't eat breakfast afterwards.
I am interested in what they do to insulin response which has nothing to do with weight loss.
I watched the video. It was missing any meat to explain the claims that calories do not count as much in the morning.
I do not think 6 weeks is long enough to allow for people to adapt to skipping breakfast. If you take a person very accustomed to eating breakfast and tell them to skip it, it should not really be a surprise their NEAT would drop. You look at that same person in a few months and I am willing to bet their NEAT would already be climbing back to near where it was.
Maybe.
One thing that struck me with both the videos is that there are likely differences between people, just based on what I see on MFP. I believe that there are people who are much more hungry if they skip breakfast, and so would do worse if they tried to force themselves to eat breakfast (whatever the results on average--and the results seemed to even out anyway). I also wouldn't be surprised if for those people activity didn't change breakfast or not. But if that's true (and I think we both think it is), I don't see why it isn't also possible that there are people who feel much more hungry if they don't have breakfast and react to missing breakfast by feeling less energetic and that that also isn't merely a result of habit.
Obviously studies would need to be carried out, but I find the idea that anyone could adjust to not eating breakfast (in terms of unplanned activity in the morning eventually being the same) but some cannot adjust to eating it to not really make sense.
[Good stuff]
I think it's important to keep in mind that in many aspects of human biology and behavior, probably including the timing and exact effects of circadian rhythms, there is a statistical distribution of individual humans around the means (averages) that are usually the core of "big picture" research findings.
[More good stuff]
I'd further expect that developmental or psychological events in a person's life could have such a strong influence as to override a certain amount of inborn biochemistry.
(Off-topic but relevant)
This has been something I've been thinking about lately after a conversation about BMI (how it's not real because "averages") followed by talking about studies confirming keto is the best (despite all studies using "averages"). I don't usually engage with these topics in real, but sometimes they make me think.
Studies using means is by default like saying "results may vary", especially for something as complex and full of lurking variables as weight. A study may be a good reference point for general tendencies, and a starting point if you're not sure where to start, but it will never be as good as a plan that is tweaked for personal sustainability.
It's interesting how our beliefs color how we see these studies (I'm also guilty of this sometimes). So, back to the topic (kinda). Since I don't hold any strong beliefs about breakfast (I sometimes eat it and sometimes don't), I noticed how more open I am to observations that lean either way and how interested I am in learning more about it because "my way" doesn't feel "challenged".2 -
In for the early morning zoomies due to a good breakfast!
(top secret code phrase is: 8888 )
https://player.vimeo.com/video/383848489
5 -
I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science. Any breakthrough that is announced would need many duplicate studies and in general stand the course of time. Anyone can devise a 6 week study and seemingly proves that weight loss is increased or inhibited by certain criteria but unless it can be replicated over and over it does not make it true. It could easily mean there is a variable in the mix that is being overlooked or purposefully ignored so it can be used as clickbait fodder.
There are some interesting things but most of it deals with minute variations. It doesn't matter if you can burn fat at 3480 calorie per pound instead of 3500. It matters if you can stick to a plan long enough to burn the fat at any amount.8 -
I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS
drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!2 -
I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
But if you just stay the course, leptin is going to resettle.
The answer is already in the DNA. Dieters with AT just need to hang on for few months after hitting maintenance calories.
OR do the diet breaks thing.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
Now I've gotta go watch your zoomies video. Please tell me it's cats. It's gotta be cats.3 -
Skyler (in the video) says, "Once. I do your bidding ONCE." 2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions