Non processed, easy breakfast

I love fruit and nuts. A banana, some blueberries, etc. and some raw almonds or filberts. Yum!

Eggs!!
Eggs keep me going. If I have some oatmeal and an egg or two in the morning i'm good for a long time!

Eggs and veggies? Side of fruit?

egg white omlette with lots of veg in... if you have time to cook. I love porridge too, filling and dont think id class it as processed, but i maybe a dumb *kitten* lol x

Cavemen didn't eat lean meat, they ate the more calorie dense fatty portions.

Eggs.

I eat a couple of eggs every morning with whatever veggies I have on hand and sometimes a bit meat that is leftover from dinner. But there is no rule that you must eat "breakfast-y" first thing in the morning, either. How about leftovers from the night before for breakfast? Or a can of tuna with some olive oil on a bed of lettuce? Or some soup if you like something warm in the morning?

I make my own "McMuffin":

1) Cook one strip of extra-lean turkey bacon over medium-high heat (about 2 minutes per side)

2) Take 1 large egg white and place it into a small microwavable bowl sprayed with olive oil spray or other non-stick cooking spray (your lookng for one about the same size as the muffin). Microwave 30 seconds. Continue to microwave in 15-second intervals until it is just set completely.

3) Toast a light mutligrain or whole wheat English muffin (pick one with 8+ g fiber). Split the muffin in half; on the bottom place 1 slice of fat-free American cheese, the egg white and bacon. Top with muffin.

This takes maybe 5 minutes to make. 183 calories, 17 g Protein, 25 g Carbohydrates, 5 g fat (2 g saturated), 8 g fiber

Great ideas, Eggs seem to be the consensus, I am a grab and go kinda girl but i guess waking up ten mins earlier wont hurt. Unfortunatly Oatmeal is out, not in the plan and niether is cheese .

I actually eat egg white omelets a lot. I usually make them the night before. Then in the AM I just nuke them to warm them up again. They really do turn out great. I was surprised when I first did it. :happy:

How about Kashi TLC trail mix bars? Costco has them in the family-sized econo-buckets. The only processing that I can see is essentially mechanical-- pressing good ingredients into a convenient bar form... sort of an "on-the-go caveman" food. I inhale these things... I'm pretty down on most granola-y foods, but these are legitimately awesome.

I'm going to agree with the others who have said "eggs". I hard boil a couple and peel them the night before and I'm out the door, usually with a piece of whole wheat toast or english muffin. I read somewhere recently that studies have proven that people who eat whole organic eggs stay fuller longer and loose 65% more weight than their non egg eating counterparts.

On my days off I fry them up with a bit of butter ... yum!

I'm not on Paleo or anything but I am adhering to a whole dairy, lean meat (mostly chicken for me, I don't care for fish so much) no preservatives/additives self imposed "diet". And by no preservatives/additives I mean no HFCS or other ingredients that I can't pronounce. lol!

Hope this was helpful.

P.s. I agree, some people do tend to be more smart *kitten*/sarcastic and mean than helpful. I'm taking a risk even posting my response as I am usually attacked and told how stupid I am and that I shouldn't post and responses until I "educate myself".

Cavemen didn't eat lean meat, they ate the more calorie dense fatty portions.

Hmmm, your posts tend to be of a more smart assed nature rather then helpful btw. It was more to say no gound beef, processed bacon and what not.

I apologize, I post on other forums that are a bit more hard-edged, and I forget that the custom of this forum is a bit different.

The point I was attempting to get across was that a "cave man diet" is based on the faulty assumptions that (1) we know how cavemen ate, (2) all cavemen ate the same and (3) a caveman's diet is optimal.

Cavemen didn't eat lean meat, they ate the more calorie dense fatty portions.

Hmmm, your posts tend to be of a more smart assed nature rather then helpful btw. It was more to say no gound beef, processed bacon and what not.

I apologize, I post on other forums that are a bit more hard-edged, and I forget that the custom of this forum is a bit different.

The point I was attempting to get across was that a "cave man diet" is based on the faulty assumptions that (1) we know how cavemen ate, (2) all cavemen ate the same and (3) a caveman's diet is optimal.

I don't want to get into a debate here, but after doing a lot of reading about the "paleo" diet, I don't know that those are really the assumptions. Perhaps it was at first, but I believe things have become more nuanced. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I'd say that the general assumption is that "looking to evolutionary clues as well as ancestral diets might be a good place to start when forming research questions about what diet is optimal for human health." I've never seen anyone claim that all paleolithic people ate the same or that we know exactly what they ate, but we do know what they probably DIDN'T eat, and so that is where people have looked first for foods that might be leading to chronic disease. The question as to whether a diet that reduces/eliminates "neolithic" foods is optimal remains open, I'd say.

I really like this quote by Cordain about "paleo" being a guiding framework (www.cathletics.com/articles/downloads/proteinDebate.pdf)

The study of human nutrition remains an immature science because it lacks a universally acknowledged unifying paradigm (11). Without an overarching and guiding template, it is not surprising that there is such seeming chaos, disagreement and confusion in the discipline. The renowned Russian geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (12). Indeed, nothing in nutrition seems to make sense because most nutritionists have little or no formal training in evolutionary theory, much less human evolution. Nutritionists face the same problem as anyone who is not using an evolutionary model to evaluate biology: fragmented information and no coherent way to interpret the data.

I don't want to get into a debate here, but after doing a lot of reading about the "paleo" diet, I don't know that those are really the assumptions. Perhaps it was at first, but I believe things have become more nuanced. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I'd say that the general assumption is that "looking to evolutionary clues as well as ancestral diets might be a good place to start when forming research questions about what diet is optimal for human health." I've never seen anyone claim that all paleolithic people ate the same or that we know exactly what they ate, but we do know what they probably DIDN'T eat, and so that is where people have looked first for foods that might be leading to chronic disease. The question as to whether a diet that reduces/eliminates "neolithic" foods is optimal remains open, I'd say.

I really like this quote by Cordain about "paleo" being a guiding framework (www.cathletics.com/articles/downloads/proteinDebate.pdf)

The study of human nutrition remains an immature science because it lacks a universally acknowledged unifying paradigm (11). Without an overarching and guiding template, it is not surprising that there is such seeming chaos, disagreement and confusion in the discipline. The renowned Russian geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (12). Indeed, nothing in nutrition seems to make sense because most nutritionists have little or no formal training in evolutionary theory, much less human evolution. Nutritionists face the same problem as anyone who is not using an evolutionary model to evaluate biology: fragmented information and no coherent way to interpret the data.

It's a nice enough theory, but the effect is that you end up excluding foods that are perfectly healthy, and demonizing others that don't negatively affect one's health when taken on moderation.