[quote]yusef wrote:
Slow down guys - notice today he just posted another article entitled ‘5 reasons you SHOULD eat breakfast’
I guess the point is to weigh up the different advantages and disadvantages depending on your goals and make your own conclusions.[/quote]
I saw that. I’m sorry if I jumped the gun. I’ll admit I may have accepted “dogma” as fact. Question everything though.
Good discussion.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
After 7 years of being a trainer and meeting thousands of overweight people. 95% of the time at least, there is the fact that either A. most skip breakfast B. those who do eat breakfast load up on carbs
[/quote]
X2
I haven’t been a trainer for seven years, although I have witnessed this many times also.
No “study” will convince me I don’t need breakfast, I feel like death until I have a shake down me. Even a big breakfast with minimal protein (if I crashed round someone elses) I feel like death.
[quote]PublickStews wrote:
Absolutely agreed here. I’d guess that the reason the “eat every 3 hours” thing started was that bodybuilders need to consume massive amounts of calories, and doing it all in 3 squares a day is just plain impossible. At some point, that became dogma for EVERYONE, even people trying to maintain or lose fat. So if a short woman needs to eat 1200 calories a day, she needs to eat 6 x 200 calories to “stoke the metabolic fire, bro.” This is nonsense, of course. But yes, if you want to get big, eating breakfast and frequent meals is imperative.
That’s not to say I’ll ever give up eating breakfast. Breakfast is the only thing that motivates me to get out of bed. But I CAN say that I’ve experienced much greater fat loss, with much less hunger, by having 3 meals a day instead of 6.
[/quote]
I’m curious as to why you think the “stoke the metabolic fire” theory is bro-science. It is a fact that one’s metabolic rate will decline after a period of zero calories; I guess the question here is how long the period must be for that to happen. I don’t know the answer; do you have any data on this?
Also, to play devil’s advocate here, if we expand on the theory in question, it would suppose that maximal fat loss coould then be achieved by eating 1 huge meal a day and fasting the rest. I tend to doubt that is the best strategy.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
PublickStews wrote:
Absolutely agreed here. I’d guess that the reason the “eat every 3 hours” thing started was that bodybuilders need to consume massive amounts of calories, and doing it all in 3 squares a day is just plain impossible. At some point, that became dogma for EVERYONE, even people trying to maintain or lose fat. So if a short woman needs to eat 1200 calories a day, she needs to eat 6 x 200 calories to “stoke the metabolic fire, bro.” This is nonsense, of course. But yes, if you want to get big, eating breakfast and frequent meals is imperative.
That’s not to say I’ll ever give up eating breakfast. Breakfast is the only thing that motivates me to get out of bed. But I CAN say that I’ve experienced much greater fat loss, with much less hunger, by having 3 meals a day instead of 6.
I’m curious as to why you think the “stoke the metabolic fire” theory is bro-science. It is a fact that one’s metabolic rate will decline after a period of zero calories; I guess the question here is how long the period must be for that to happen. I don’t know the answer; do you have any data on this?
Also, to play devil’s advocate here, if we expand on the theory in question, it would suppose that maximal fat loss coould then be achieved by eating 1 huge meal a day and fasting the rest. I tend to doubt that is the best strategy.[/quote]
Although I don’t have the source to prove this, I believe that the post-prandial period, in which energy is expended digesting food, can last for much longer than 3 hours if the meal contains all macronutrients.
But aside from ‘How long’ it takes for one’s metabolism to slow, how significant would it be?
^^^^ Good point, goes hand-in-hand with the time question, as undoubtedly the slowdown accelerates as time passes.
Metabolic rate drops after any sort of dieting. I don’t see how that is unique to fasting.
It’s not, but what does that have to do with anything? I was asking how long one can fast before metabolism is adversely affected, because we all know metabolism decreases in a fast. Silverhydra then expounded on this by inquiring as to the significance of said slowdown. The fact that it also slows in a caloric deficit is true but irrelevant to the breakfast question.
Let me get straight to the point: you are contending that the positive metabolic effects of frequent eating are bro-science, and that the practice of eating breakfast fails to “stoke the metabolic fire”, so to speak. By inquiring as to when (and by how much) metabolism slows down, I am trying to discern if there is any logic to the skipping breakfast idea.
FE: if metabolism slows down by, say, 10% after 10 straight hours of no food, I think one would be hard-pressed to argue that eating breakfast and another meal 3 hours later, for a total of 1,000 kcals, would be less effective in terms of body comp than eating a 1,000 kcal “brunch”. Why? Because “breaking the fast” will reset metabolism, whereas extending it continues its decline.
But again I don’t have that data; as you consider the metabolism-stoking theory to be bunk, I thought perhaps you did.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
It’s not, but what does that have to do with anything? I was asking how long one can fast before metabolism is adversely affected, because we all know metabolism decreases in a fast. Silverhydra then expounded on this by inquiring as to the significance of said slowdown. The fact that it also slows in a caloric deficit is true but irrelevant to the breakfast question.
Let me get straight to the point: you are contending that the positive metabolic effects of frequent eating are bro-science, and that the practice of eating breakfast fails to “stoke the metabolic fire”, so to speak. By inquiring as to when (and by how much) metabolism slows down, I am trying to discern if there is any logic to the skipping breakfast idea.
FE: if metabolism slows down by, say, 10% after 10 straight hours of no food, I think one would be hard-pressed to argue that eating breakfast and another meal 3 hours later, for a total of 1,000 kcals, would be less effective in terms of body comp than eating a 1,000 kcal “brunch”. Why? Because “breaking the fast” will reset metabolism, whereas extending it continues its decline.
But again I don’t have that data; as you consider the metabolism-stoking theory to be bunk, I thought perhaps you did.
[/quote]
I can’t remember the study, but it was shown that the metabolism didn’t slow down after 72 hours of straight fasting, though there’s no need to do that…
EDIT
In fact in another study, it was shown that metabolism actually increased in the first 36 hours of fasting. Damn, I really need to find these studies again. I’m only recalling these numbers from memory so please don’t quote me on this.
[quote]yusef wrote:
TheDudeAbides wrote:
yusef wrote:
Slow down guys - notice today he just posted another article entitled ‘5 reasons you SHOULD eat breakfast’
I guess the point is to weigh up the different advantages and disadvantages depending on your goals and make your own conclusions.
I saw that. I’m sorry if I jumped the gun. I’ll admit I may have accepted “dogma” as fact. Question everything though.
Good discussion.
I bet it was actually you starting this thread that made him think ‘shit, better write the article in reverse, quick! Must… promote… free thought…’[/quote]
Haha, make sense. Did anyone else notice that the article just before it was about recipes for breakfast?
anybody read “the Warriro Diet” by Ori Hofmekler?
good read, and it’s all about eating next to nothing until later in the day.
Here’s the author’s stats:
[quote]Strength Stats.
Deadlift: 170kg
Box Squat: 142,5kg
Box Front Squat: 130kg
Bench Press: 100kg
Overhead Press: 65kg
All done raw, without belt, at 73kg/160lbs body-weight. Strength stats are still increasing. Follow Mehdiâ??s training log in Stronglifts.com Forum. Body fat hovers around 10-12% year-round. Height: 5’8".[/quote]
soooooo…
I can attest to part of the theory. If I skip breakfast (not something that happens often) I have zero appetite the rest of the day. Not only do I have more appetite when I eat in the morning, it’s proportional to how much I eat. The more I eat at breakfast, the hungrier I get through the day.
But, to the serious weight trainer, during the majority of their lifting career (not cutting), breakfast would be a good thing in this case.