eating first thing in the morning..

Options
2»

Replies

  • kittuk86
    kittuk86 Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    Caffeine is the worst thing that you can feed your body first thing in the morning.. its a stimulant which jolts you out of the slumber which we mistake as "being awake". it increases
    1) blood pressure
    2) heart rate
    3) makes the body feel "stressed" or "kicked"

    stress -> biggest enemy of a good digestive system & fat burning process.. N

    Straight from the mouth of a professional..m not making it up.. lol

    I would think that Drano or maybe a meth pipe would be the worst thing you can put in your mouth in the morning, but caffeine? I'm starting to doubt that the author of this book really has done any research. Any facts to back up that assertion, or does she just lay it out there and let it lie?

    http://bodytechnician.com/caffeine.html
    http://brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/alcohol,_tobacco,_&_other_drugs/caffeine.php#2
  • ElizabethRoad
    ElizabethRoad Posts: 5,138 Member
    Options
    A massage therapy site, and a page from Brown University that says, "While caffeine is mildly addictive, it has not been shown to have a direct link with any serious health risks."
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    Caffeine is the worst thing that you can feed your body first thing in the morning.. its a stimulant which jolts you out of the slumber which we mistake as "being awake". it increases
    1) blood pressure
    2) heart rate
    3) makes the body feel "stressed" or "kicked"

    stress -> biggest enemy of a good digestive system & fat burning process.. N

    Straight from the mouth of a professional..m not making it up.. lol

    I would think that Drano or maybe a meth pipe would be the worst thing you can put in your mouth in the morning, but caffeine? I'm starting to doubt that the author of this book really has done any research. Any facts to back up that assertion, or does she just lay it out there and let it lie?

    http://bodytechnician.com/caffeine.html
    http://brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/alcohol,_tobacco,_&_other_drugs/caffeine.php#2

    how about some actual peer reviewed science?

    Belza et al. The effect of caffeine, green tea and tyrosine on thermogenesis and energy intake. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2009) 63, 57–64; doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602901; published online 19 September 2007

    http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v63/n1/abs/1602901a.html

    "Results:


    Caffeine induced a thermogenic response of 6% above baseline value (72±25 kJ per 4 h, mean±s.e.) compared to placebo (P<0.0001). The thermogenic responses to GTE and tyrosine were not significantly different from placebo. Tyrosine tended to increase 4-h respiratory quotient by 1% compared to placebo (0.01±0.005, P=0.05). Ad libitum EI was not significantly different between treatments but was reduced by 8% (−403±183 kJ), 8% (−400±335 kJ) and 3% (−151±377 kJ) compared to placebo after intake of tyrosine, GTE and caffeine, respectively. No significant difference in haemodynamics was observed between treatments."
  • kittuk86
    kittuk86 Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    A massage therapy site, and a page from Brown University that says, "While caffeine is mildly addictive, it has not been shown to have a direct link with any serious health risks."

    **sigh** who said there are serious health risks??
  • Kymmu
    Kymmu Posts: 1,650 Member
    Options
    I agree with those who don't eat breakfast. I like to think I will use up my excess fat till later in the day when I'm actually hungry.
    It can be quite late in the day before I am, depending upon what I ate the night before.
    I always eat well at night.
    I do IF , this is an easy way to go about it, and feel great!
  • ElizabethRoad
    ElizabethRoad Posts: 5,138 Member
    Options
    A massage therapy site, and a page from Brown University that says, "While caffeine is mildly addictive, it has not been shown to have a direct link with any serious health risks."

    **sigh** who said there are serious health risks??
    **sigh** That link doesn't back up anything you're saying. It says there can be some minor negative effects if you overdo it.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    Astorino et al. Effect of acute caffeine ingestion on EPOC after intense resistance training. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2011 Mar;51(1):11-7.

    CONCLUSION:

    Caffeine ingestion in individuals regularly completing rigorous resistance training significantly increases EPOC and energy expenditure pre-and post-exercise

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21297558
  • kittuk86
    kittuk86 Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    Caffeine is the worst thing that you can feed your body first thing in the morning.. its a stimulant which jolts you out of the slumber which we mistake as "being awake". it increases
    1) blood pressure
    2) heart rate
    3) makes the body feel "stressed" or "kicked"

    stress -> biggest enemy of a good digestive system & fat burning process.. N

    Straight from the mouth of a professional..m not making it up.. lol

    I would think that Drano or maybe a meth pipe would be the worst thing you can put in your mouth in the morning, but caffeine? I'm starting to doubt that the author of this book really has done any research. Any facts to back up that assertion, or does she just lay it out there and let it lie?

    http://bodytechnician.com/caffeine.html
    http://brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/alcohol,_tobacco,_&_other_drugs/caffeine.php#2

    how about some actual peer reviewed science?

    Belza et al. The effect of caffeine, green tea and tyrosine on thermogenesis and energy intake. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2009) 63, 57–64; doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602901; published online 19 September 2007

    http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v63/n1/abs/1602901a.html

    "Results:


    Caffeine induced a thermogenic response of 6% above baseline value (72±25 kJ per 4 h, mean±s.e.) compared to placebo (P<0.0001). The thermogenic responses to GTE and tyrosine were not significantly different from placebo. Tyrosine tended to increase 4-h respiratory quotient by 1% compared to placebo (0.01±0.005, P=0.05). Ad libitum EI was not significantly different between treatments but was reduced by 8% (−403±183 kJ), 8% (−400±335 kJ) and 3% (−151±377 kJ) compared to placebo after intake of tyrosine, GTE and caffeine, respectively. No significant difference in haemodynamics was observed between treatments."

    Thank you for your efforts but.. I didnt understand a word & wont try too.. I said before & i say it again - to each its own! Nobody's forcing anyone to eat /drink anything.. if people can take back something good from the post, great. else chuck it.
  • teagin2002
    teagin2002 Posts: 1,901 Member
    Options
    I am a morning eater; meaning I eat my biggest mean in the morning.
    4 fried eggs, in pure olive oil.
    stir fry of onion, garlic, broccoli, mushroom, green pepper, kalamata olives, and sometimesmarinated artichoke hearts.
    1 tbs low fat sour cream and fresh diced tomato and chopped cilantro on top.

    Then a 16 oz coffee with 8 oz whole milk and 8 oz coffee, 1 tsp brown sugar and 1 tsp stevia.

    This is what I eat every morning, and I love it!

    for lunch I eat lighter, like stir fry with chicken or a couple of salmon patties with a large salad on the side and 2 tbs ranch, Cesar or blue cheese dressing.

    For dinner I usually have 3 or 4 scoops of why protein heated, an apple or another fruit, and a raw vegetable with a dip.

    If I don't eat breakfast I feel yucky and lazy all day.
  • crystalinda
    crystalinda Posts: 151 Member
    Options
    Do we know what book she's reading yet?
  • kittuk86
    kittuk86 Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    Do we know what book she's reading yet?

    I have mentioned the name & author in one of the replies..
    if it helps -
    author name: rujuta diwekar
    Book: Don't lose your mind, lose your weight
  • teagin2002
    teagin2002 Posts: 1,901 Member
    Options
    I agree with Kittuk86 about the breakfast stuff, I can't function properly with out a big beautiful breakfast. I have become addicted to coffee, and even though I know it isn't the best thing for me in the amount I drink 8oz, probably 6oz would be better, I don't care it makes me happy.

    Thank you for posting!
  • jskaggs1971
    jskaggs1971 Posts: 371 Member
    Options
    Thank you for your efforts but.. I didnt understand a word & wont try too.. I said before & i say it again - to each its own! Nobody's forcing anyone to eat /drink anything.. if people can take back something good from the post, great. else chuck it.

    Lack of understanding on the part of an individual does not trump controlled scientific study. For you, personally, that's fine -- do whatever you want to with your body. For the author of that book, though, I find it to be a much bigger problem.
  • SergeantSunshine_reused
    Options
    Thank you for your efforts but.. I didnt understand a word & wont try too.. I said before & i say it again - to each its own! Nobody's forcing anyone to eat /drink anything.. if people can take back something good from the post, great. else chuck it.

    Lack of understanding on the part of an individual does not trump controlled scientific study. For you, personally, that's fine -- do whatever you want to with your body. For the author of that book, though, I find it to be a much bigger problem.

    Couldn't agree more
  • babyblake11
    babyblake11 Posts: 1,107 Member
    Options
    ok.. This is from a book I am reading & its really changing the way I think.. so just want to share with you guys..here goes,

    Eating First thing in the morning will lead to an:

    1) Inc in blood sugar & energy levels, which will lead to
    2) Increase in metabolic rate & fat burning and
    3) Decrease Acidity, bloating and will
    4) reduce chances of overeating later and
    5) Stabilize blood sugar levels throughout the day WHICH MEANS
    LESS CHANCES OF GETTING FAT

    Anybody still sees reasons to not eat breakfast - solid food, not tea/coffee????

    1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".


    Truth

    Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.

    Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.

    A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.

    B) Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.

    C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.

    What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.

    However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.

    Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.

    The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:

    "Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".

    Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.

    Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.

    Origin

    Seeing how conclusive and clear research is on the topic of meal frequency, you might wonder why it is that some people, quite often RDs in fact, keep repeating the myth of "stoking the metabolic fire" by eating small meals on a frequent basis. My best guess is that they've somehow misunderstood TEF. After all, they're technically right to say you keep your metabolism humming along by eating frequently. They just missed that critical part where it was explained that TEF is proportional to the calories consumed in each meal.

    Another guess is that they base the advice on some epidemiological studies that found an inverse correlation between high meal frequency and body weight in the population. What that means is that researchers may look at the dietary pattern of thousands individuals and find that those who eat more frequently tend to weigh less than those who eat less frequently. It's important to point out that these studies are uncontrolled in terms of calorie intake and are done on Average Joes (i.e. normal people who do not count calories and just eat spontaneously like most people).

    There's a saying that goes "correlation does not imply causation" and this warrants further explanation since it explains many other dietary myths and fallacies. Just because there's a connection between low meal frequencies and higher body weights, doesn't mean that low meal frequencies cause weight gain. Those studies likely show that people who tend to eat less frequently have:

    * Dysregulated eating patterns; the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently.

    * Another feasible explanation for the association between low meal frequencies and higher body weight is that meal skipping is often used as a weight loss strategy. People who are overweight are more likely to be on a diet and eat fewer meals.

    The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism.


    2. Myth: Eat smaller meals more often for hunger control.



    Truth


    Given the importance of finding the most favorable meal pattern for hunger and appetite control, there's a surprising scarcity of studies on the topic. The most widely cited study is one where obese males were fed 33% of their daily calorie requirement ("pre-load") in either one single meal or five meals before being allowed to eat ad libitum five hours later (meaning as much as they desired).

    A: One single meal was consumed. 5 hours later they were free to eat as much as they desired, "buffet"-style.

    B: Same setup as above. However, the single meal was now split into five smaller meals, which were consumed every hour leading up to the ad libitum meal.

    The results showed that subjects undergoing "A" ate 27% more calories when given the ad libitum meal. The same setup was used by the same researchers on lean males and showed similar results. However, upon closer scrutiny it's clear how little real world application those results have. The macrocomposition of the pre-load was 70% carbs, 15% fat and 15% protein; given as pasta, ice cream and orange juice. The situation created was highly artificial and abnormal. Who sits around nibbling on pasta and ice cream, sipping orange juice, every hour leading up to a regular meal?

    The latest research, performed under conditions that more closely resemble a real-world scenario, shows the opposite result. In this study, three high-protein meals lead to greater fullness and appetite control when compared to six high-protein meals. You can read my summary of the study here: Three Meals Superior for Appetite Control.

    There's no doubt that meal frequency is highly individual. However, absolute statements claiming smaller meals are superior for hunger and appetite control are untrue and are based on studies using methods that greatly differed from real-world meal patterns. Current research with a normal meal pattern and protein intakes that are closer to what can be seen in a typical non-retarded diet, suggests superior appetite control when eating fewer and larger meals.


    Origin


    This myth might have originated from the limited data from studies on meal frequencies and appetite control. It's also likely that it's another case of mistaking correlation for causation from studies and meal frequencies and higher body weights; if people who eat more often weigh less, then it must mean they can control their hunger better, etc.


    3. Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.


    Truth


    According to legions of diet and health "experts," eating small meals every so often will help you avoid hunger pangs, provide you with stable energy throughout the day and keep you mentally sharp. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, blood sugar is extremely well-regulated and maintained within a tight range in healthy people. It does not swing wildly up and down like a chimpanzee on meth and it doesn't plummet from going a few hours without food. Or even a full day without food. Or a week without food for that matter.

    People seem to believe they will suffer severe hunger and mental impairment from not eating every so often. Consider for a second the evolutionary consequences for survival if this was true. Given that regular periods of fasting, even famine, was a natural part of our past, do you think we'd be here today if we were unable to function when obtaining food was most critical? I have seen healthy young males, bodybuilders nonetheless, complain of lethargy and mental haze if they didn't get to eat for a few hours. It's completely absurd. But I digress...

    Maintaining blood sugar is of very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways that will make it happen even under extreme conditions. If you were to fast for 23 hrs and then go for a 90 min run at 70-75% VO2max, your blood sugar after the run would be identical to the same run performed in the fed state. It would take no less than three days or 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state; and this is temporary, as your brain adapts to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting, or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range no measure of cognitive performance is negatively affected.

    For more on blood sugar, read my review of Eat Stop Eat Expanded Edition, which includes a relevant excerpt. Also, keep in mind that the above cited studies are all performed under conditions that are much more extreme than the fasting protocol I, or Brad Pilon, recommends.

    What about blood sugar and hunger? Blood sugar is one of many short-term feedback mechanisms used to regulate hunger and the notion which exists to say that low blood sugar may cause hunger is correct. Low just means lower range. This is subject to numerous confounders, such as your habitual diet, energy intake and genetics. Most importantly perhaps, it's subject to entrained meal patterns, regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. In essence, this means that blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar issues and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it serves to explain why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.

    Origin


    Not sure how people came to believe that skipping a meal would dumb them down. There is some truth to blood sugar and hunger, but this is often taken out of context. There's no need to eat regularly to "maintain" blood sugar as it maintains itself just fine and adapts to whatever meal pattern you choose.

    7. Myth: Skipping breakfast is bad and will make you fat.


    Truth


    Breakfast skipping is associated with higher body weights in the population. The explanation is similar to that of lower meal frequencies and higher body weights. Breakfast skippers have dysregulated eating habits and show a higher disregard for health. People who skip breakfast are also more likely to be dieting, thus by default they are also likely to be heavier than non-dieters. Keep in mind that most people who resort to breakfast skipping are not the type that sit around and read about nutrition. They are like most people dieting in a haphazard manner. The type to go on a 800 calorie-crash diet and then rebound, gaining all the weight (and then some) back.

    Sometimes, an argument is made for eating breakfast as we are more insulin sensitive in the morning. This is true; you are always more insulin sensitive after an overnight fast. Or rather, you are always the most insulin sensitive during the first meal of the day. Insulin sensitivity is increased after glycogen depletion. If you haven't eaten in 8-10 hours, liver glycogen is modestly depleted. This is what increases insulin sensitivity - not some magical time period during the morning hours. Same thing with weight training. Insulin sensitivity is increased as long as muscle glycogen stores aren't full. It doesn't disappear if you omit carbs after your workout.

    Origin


    First of all, we have the large scale epidemiological studies showing an association with breakfast skipping and higher body weights in the population. One researcher from that study, commenting on the association with breakfast skipping or food choices for breakfast, said:

    "These groups appear to represent people 'on the run,' eating only candy or soda, or grabbing a glass of milk or a piece of cheese. Their higher BMI would appear to
    support the notion that 'dysregulated' eating patterns are associated with obesity, instead of or in addition to total energy intake per se."

    Kellogg's and clueless RDs love to cite them over and over again, so people are lead to believe that breakfast has unique metabolic and health-related benefits. In reality, these studies just show breakfast eaters maintain better dietary habits overall.

    Other studies frequently cited claiming that breakfast is beneficial for insulin sensitivity are all marred with methodological flaws and largely uncontrolled in design.

    In one widely cited study, subjects were entrusted to eat most meals in free-living conditions. The breakfast skipping group ate more and gained weight, which affected health parameters negatively.

    From the abstract: "Reported energy intake was significantly lower in the EB period (P=0.001), and resting energy expenditure did not differ significantly between the 2 periods." EB = eating breakfast. In essence, people who ate breakfast could control their energy intake better for the rest of the day. They didn't gain any weight but the breakfast skipping group did. Fat gain always affects insulin sensitivity and other health parameters negatively. Thus what people took this to mean is that breakfast is healthy and improves insulin sensitivity. Which isn't at all what the study showed.
  • nicehormones
    nicehormones Posts: 503 Member
    Options
    I never miss breakfast. Most of my life, I didn't eat in the morning because I wasn't hungry. I need fuel to start my day now, and I can eat so much better throughout the day. I've heard that if you are hungry upon waking, your metabolism is more fired up..
  • Naomi113
    Naomi113 Posts: 270 Member
    Options
    hahaha what in interesting topic.. I hardly ever eat breakfast as i feel so sick when i do i have tried so many thing, oats, toast, milk, fruit, smoothies, bran etc and alll felt the same i was gana be sick... So this was a good read for me I won't stress to much on eating breakfast now.. I usually eat after I have a great work out...

    Thanks for all the info guys & gals
  • ktsdad
    ktsdad Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    My doctor told me not to eat breakfast until I'm hungry. Then he said to eat a quarter cup of nuts or something high protein to get to lunch. This is because I am overweight and trying to lose. If you are simply maintaining, breakfast skipping or not is not as big a deal. His opinion is that if you are going for calorie deficit, eating when not hungry is a waste of calories that you could use to satisfy hunger later.
  • mideon_696
    mideon_696 Posts: 770 Member
    Options
    Hrm, maybe I should start eating breakfast???

    Or not. :)