I call BS on the breakfast gospel

[Wildcard]

This is not about low carb, but when did it become gospel that

BREAKFAST IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MEAL OF THE DAY! ???

and when did it become gospel that

SIX MEALS A DAY ARE BETTER THAN TWO MEALS A DAY ???



There are many examples of thin people/ groups/ nations, where the norm is two or three meals a day, and there are many thin people who dont eat breakfast and have not done so for their adult life.

So, where are people getting the idea that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, and has this proven true in YOUR case???

[penelope]

When I eat breakfast I do not have the afternoon binge mode happening.

[lizwhip]

Hi Dude,

Don't get all upset, nobody will try to force you to eat breakfast if you don't want to.

Liz

[FionaMcB]

Hi, Welcome to the Forums!

The word "gospel" is a Greek word that means 'good news.' Well, the good news here is that you don't have to eat breakfast. Your metabolism may slow down, because it thinks it's going to starve, but no one here will put a gun to your head to make you eat. There are no breakfast police or any other police, just a lot of people who have lost the weight they want to, or are on their way.

I have a much nicer time with this when I don't try to re-invent what Dr. Atkins invented, and follow the program.

Best of luck to you!

[Wildcard]

I just think that people are jumping off the cliff because everybody else is doing it.

Sometimes this is adviceable, but we should think about it first and not just blindly accept it.

Penelope,
I find the opposite to be true in my case. When I eat breakfast, I still eat the same size lunch and dinner.

[dazzlin182]

mostly i eat breakfast cuz i workout before work - need feeding and its important for me cuz i dont want to be snackin wrong stuff or eating more than i should

but - on weekends where sleeping till late is vital - i skip breakfast and usually if i was at home all day - i wouldn't worry much about breakfast as i could eat small snacks

[gary]

As an avid science reader many times I read Science News when eating breakfast - now typically during the week - Flaxomeal or carbsense hot cereals.

While there is not an abundance of scientific studies supporting breakfast there is some scientific data that does support a claim that eating breafast may sharpen your mind. Particularly with school children test scores may be higher. I say "may" because more studies are needed.

This site talks about it:

http://www.adksportsfitness.com/back_issues/august2001/articles/nutrition.html

[Kristine]

when did it become gospel that

BREAKFAST IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MEAL OF THE DAY! ???

Probably about the same time the "calories in/calories out" concept became gospel, and throngs of dieters concluded that it would be a good idea to skip breakfast.

Yes, it has proven true in my case. I used to work early mornings and skipped breakfast if I slept in. It was not pleasant!

and when did it become gospel that

SIX MEALS A DAY ARE BETTER THAN TWO MEALS A DAY ???

Probably when people figured out that blood sugar levels had something to do with mood, hunger, and weight gain/loss.

[gary]

I myself do not eat 6 meals a day. I can't personally locate a study with an internet search that supports 6 meals a day over 3. There are articles like the link I provided that state there are studies that support 6 meals a day as being better.

Both of my posts Breakfast and 6 meals - there appear to be studies supporting the ideas but more work is needed to make them "gospels"

From the link:

Question:
I've heard many experts say you should eat 5-6 smaller meals a day as opposed to 2 or 3 large meals a day. Is this true?
Answer:
The answer is an emphatic "yes". To improve your body, to look better, feel better, and improve your health, you must get in the habit of feeding your body more often. Numerous studies have shown that eating often helps accelerate the metabolism, so you burn more calories. When you consume5-6 nutritious, smaller meals a day, the food is more efficiently absorbed and processed by your body than the typical American diet of three square meals a day.

By eating every few hours, you will have more energy, less hunger pains and cravings. Above all, you will be creating a metabolic environment that supports fat loss and muscle gains, allowing you to transform your body in the shortest amount of time.


http://www.health-fitness-tips.com/newsletters/t57-gym-search.htm

[tcastro]

If I don't eat breakfast, I notice that I have less energy in the morning and am generally less productive.

I think one thing to remember is there is a difference between a diet for weight loss and a regular diet. There are people that are thin and in good health that only eat 2-3 times per day. However, those people probably aren't trying to lose weight and they're probably not exercising much. While on any weight loss diet, you should be exercising and your body simply requires more food every day while you're doing it. At the moment I eat 4-5 times per day and exercise for 60-90min or more per day. Once I hit my goal weight and body fat %, I'll be eating 2-3 times per day and only doing 30min of exercise per day.

[mps]

I was under the assumption that when most people eat breakfast and small frequent meals they would feel so much better that they would 'know' it was the best thing to do.
I first read about it's potential benifits: stable blood sugar, constant supply of nutrients for growing muscle, increased metabolism etc... and it all made sense.
Then I tried it... and I felt great compared to going hours between meals. I feel like I have more energy, and less hunger. My muscles seemed to grow faster also. When you wake up in the morning your body is feeding off itself... including muscle.
I'm not saying it's normal in all primitive cultures... but I know it makes sense from a muscle building standpoint, and it seems to work for me. I try to eat every 3 or 4 hours. When my mood changes for the worse before a meal... I know I've gone too long.
If you feal better eating only a couple meals per day... I don't think that is what the average person experiences, but you should do what's right for your body. Unless you are trying to build muscle, in which case you should eat frequently, otherwise your body may be forced to catabolize your own muscle to get the nutrients it needs.
On the other hand, I read that animals that are forced to repeatedly fast for periods of time are less likely to get diabetes. My opinion: If it's a fact then it's a fact. But that doesn't mean there are not better ways to avoid diabetes. (Like not eating refined carbohydrates)

[nets33]

I eat breakfast and I eat six small meals a day... sometimes seven if I'm up late night....

It's been the best thing that I've ever done! I'm never hungry and I've been less inclined to binge and overeat. This has been a lifestyle change for me - one that is working very well.

The thing to remember is that what works for one person may not work for others. There is no one diet plan that works for everyone. If it did there wouldn't be the abundance of diet plans out there... even on this board you'll find 10+ different lo-carb diets.

It's all a matter of determining what works best for your body. I've tried 3 meals a day and was constantly standing at the fridge putting food to mouth because I was hungry. Now I'm never hungry! Go figure... :)

Kiks

[ItsTheWooo]

This is not about low carb, but when did it become gospel that

BREAKFAST IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MEAL OF THE DAY! ???

and when did it become gospel that

SIX MEALS A DAY ARE BETTER THAN TWO MEALS A DAY ???



There are many examples of thin people/ groups/ nations, where the norm is two or three meals a day, and there are many thin people who dont eat breakfast and have not done so for their adult life.

So, where are people getting the idea that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, and has this proven true in YOUR case???

Even though it might not be necessary to eat breakfast if you want to lose weight, it has been demonstrated that it gives you an edge. Eating your biggest meal first thing in the morning has been demonstrated to a) increase metabolic rate and b) prevent excessive eating later in the day.

[LondonIan]

I never eat breakfast, can't stomach it...except last year when I lost a lot on LC, when I ate my bacon and eggs religiously ('cos it was gospel). OK, I'm concvinced, I'm going to start eating breakfast again.

[Vanity3]

For me, eating the right foods in the morning, give me the boost I need. Now especially since I'm working out more often, I"m hungry more often so eating the 6 small meals is great for me. Again, Wildcard you don't have to do what everyone else does, every individual is just that, an individual and what works for me may not work for you.

[GrlyGrl]

I support breakfast! :)

[tomsej]

This is not about low carb, but when did it become gospel that

BREAKFAST IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MEAL OF THE DAY! ???

and when did it become gospel that

SIX MEALS A DAY ARE BETTER THAN TWO MEALS A DAY ???

There are many examples of thin people/ groups/ nations, where the norm is two or three meals a day, and there are many thin people who dont eat breakfast and have not done so for their adult life.

So, where are people getting the idea that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, and has this proven true in YOUR case???

If you go to bed at 11pm and wake at 6am, that is 7 hours witout eating. If you skip breakfast, and eat at 10am on a coffee break, that is 10 hours without food. Personally, I would be vomiting and dizzy going 10 hours without food. Why would you want to be hungry?

Please give me at least 5 EXAMPLES of cultures that have 2 meals a day, since you know of so many. Are these people healthy? My bet is that they ARE STARVING.

Obviously, you have never done physical labour if you are asking this question. I used to work in the tobacco fields and I would have 3 eggs, 6 slices of bacon and 3 peices of toast for breakfast. I had a snack at 10pm with coffee but was ravinous at lunch. Usually 3 sandwiches, a thermos of chunky soup and two pieces of fruit. At the end of the day I was so exhausted that I usually only had some clear both or a bowl of soup with egg noodles.

By the way, I did this for 8 years in the summer and each summer I lost 20-30lbs. I should have eaten more!

I would like to see your scientific studies or at least links to them showing that 2 meals a day is better.

Currently, I eat 3 meals a day, however, if I am hungry in the afternoon or in the everning, I have a snack. I never eat LESS than three meals a day; if I go more than 4-5 hours without food, I get dizzy spells and nausea.

I don't know what you are getting on about GOSPEL, but generally, what is wrong with eating when you are hungry?

Note however, if you are a bodybuilder, you MUST spread your protein out. I have read in a number of boday building magazines that 45-50g protein is all your body can absorb at one time. If you are training seriously, you MUST split it into AT LEAST 6 meals a day. (300/50 = 6).

If I only atre 2 meals a day and needed to get my required 155g protein, I would not be able to get it absorbed. At 78gP or 11+ ounces of meat, I would be wasting 4 ounces of meat due to lack of absorbtion.

You need to do a little more research into digestion and basic macro-nutrient absorbtion before you make comments like the ones you have. I bet in those 2 meal a day cultures, they still carry nuts and seeds in their pockets for snacks.

Tom.

[TheCaveman]

This is not about low carb, but when did it become gospel that

BREAKFAST IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MEAL OF THE DAY! ???

and when did it become gospel that

SIX MEALS A DAY ARE BETTER THAN TWO MEALS A DAY ???


Any low-carb diet book will tell you why. Wildcard, these questions aren't really controversial, and the rest of us have read good, solid reasoning behind them. In BOOKS. There's some interesting stuff in books, I say.

The answers to the two questions you ask here are scientifically based, so I'll spare you the details.

Cheers!

[LondonIan]

Now, now. Play nice.

[featherz]

I eat breakfast every day no matter what. I can't function without it, no matter what kind of eating plan I am on. If it doesn't include breakfast,I don't do it.

Recently switched to the six small meals as well and have found it to work out much better for me. Keeps me from getting hungry!

[LondonIan]

Hobbits themselves eat around six or seven meals a day, which include:
Breakfast, Second Breakfast, Elevenses, Luncheon, Afternoon Tea, Dinner, Supper as well as multiple snacks!............

[Squintz]

Im going to have to agree that breakfast is very important. Not just any breakfast tho. One with vitamins and good nutrients. It is very important for children to get breakfast every morning because it makes them smarter. My child is a perfect example, we did everything by the book with her from breast feeding to feeding her 3 meals a day plus healthy snacks in between meals when she wants them. She is the brightest 3yr old i know. She is actually my step daughter. Dont get me wrong here...She gets her share of junk food but the girl also eats more vegies and fruits than any other adult i know. Having nutrients all day long is important in my opinion. Not so much for adults but more for kids who are learning. My son who is breast feeding is only 5 month old and can already say Dadda with meaning. He has yet to say mamma but i think his fast learning comes from his mom breast feeding him and giving him all the nutrients and vitamins he needs. He is also siting up and army crawling, rolling over and laughing. I would never raise my kids any other way.

[AFwife]

I have to eat breakfast. And not just an Atkins shake for breakfast it has to be a full meal otherwise I get dizzy and see blurry.

I have 3 meals a day sometimes 6 depends on how hungry I am. But breakfast is a must for me.

:)

[simplydawn]

<nodding>

For me..adding a regular morning meal to my life has brought an improved control of my blood sugars, mood swings, and cravings. I am not hungry all day long, and feeling unfulfilled or unsatisfied. I dont always eat a big breakfast, sometimes, its just a 4 oz low carb yogurt..or like this morning, cause I knew I was going to be working out and working on clients doing chair massages, I had a low carb soft taco w/egg and cheese... its now 1:20 pm.. that was at 645 am.. and I am saying for the third post, that i am hungry and need to eat.. so..I dont do the 6 mini meals..thats kind of annoying to me.. but if it works for others, amen to that for them :)

[sunspine17]

I actually think it depends on the person. I've never been a breakfast person and when I do eat breakfast it "turns on" my appetite. It also makes me feel sluggish sometimes. Once I start eating I find it hard to stop! I have however been forcing myself to eat breakfast for much of the last year (and having a hard time with it) because it is what we are "supposed" to do.

But then I read CAD. Every time we eat it triggers an insulin response which in an insulin resistant person can be bad news. I find the more often I eat the more I have cravings and can't control my appetite, likely due to raised insulin levels. Snacking leads to more snacking. That in turn leads to crabbiness, tiredness, and massive carb cravings for me. When I eat small frequent meals I even find myself going out of ketosis (keep in mind I eat all pure LC foods-- no junk. And I'm not raising my overall daily caloric intake, just breaking it up throughout the day). I do much better eating 2 larger meals per day with no snacking.

I'm actually thinking about stopping eating breakfast again. I have for short periods and I personally feel much better eating twice a day. I don't think there is one true "gospel" that fits everyone, it likely depends on the person. Being anti-breakfast may be against the norm but for you personally it may be the best thing. You are the person who knows your body best.

For my kids though-- without a doubt they get a good breakfast with lots of protein. Their bodies have different demands than ours. Growing kids are a whole different story!

[Paris]

I never used to eat breakfast before I began WW and I found that was the one thing that really helped me control my appetite with lcal/hcarb eating. It became a habit and I continue to utilize the breakfast strategy now that I am living low carb.

I do admit that lately I am eating more of a brunch than breakfast after my coffee, but it's better than skipping the morning meal altogether IMO.

[bcbeauty]

After not having eaten the previous 7 or so hours because of sleeping...I'd say your body would be needing a fuel top up! It's common sense.

Hobbits themselves eat around six or seven meals a day, which include:
Breakfast, Second Breakfast, Elevenses, Luncheon, Afternoon Tea, Dinner, Supper as well as multiple snacks!
OOOh I'd be quite the chubby hobbit!!!

............

[Wildcard]

my boss, who lost 40lbs in 2 months, said that he always went to bed slightly hungry because it prevented the stomach from expanding overnight and causing him to have hunger pangs the next day.

I agree with him that eating all the time causes the stomach to expand and increase cravings, and I know many people who will have breakfast and then get so hungry that they will need another meal within 3 or 4 hours.

After 9 weeks of doing it and 26 lbs, I can go 18 hours without food and not have hunger pangs. Is this a sign of metabolic slow down, maybe, but my heart numbers also went from 160/69/82 (systolic, diastolic, bpm) to 130/79/79. Which means I went from serious risk of heart problems(and Im only 24) to a very normal range for my height (6-5).

[arc]

Six years ago, I started eating only when I was physically hungry (stomach growl with a blood sugar drop) and dropped 40 pounds (and have kept it off). I very rarely get hungry before 9 am (I'm at work at 5:30) and usually it's more like 11 - 12. I'm alert, feel great and have my eating under control. If I eat early "just because", I'm sick to my stomach and I fight the munchies all day. That's just the way I am.

Some people are morning eaters and some people aren't. My youngest son is always hungry first thing in the morning and eats a big breakfast. He tends to not eat much at night. My oldest son picks at his breakfast but tends to eat more in the afternoon. Both are thin, good students and don't have behavior problems. We've taught them to listen to their bodies and they are doing fine.

The point of all of this is that we are all different and you need to do what works best for you. If there is anything low-carb folks should know, is that nothing works for everyone. If you don't need breakfast or a bunch of meals, don't do it. If you do, go for it. Just don't assume we are all the same.

[Wildcard]

Six years ago, I started eating only when I was physically hungry (stomach growl with a blood sugar drop) and dropped 40 pounds (and have kept it off). I very rarely get hungry before 9 am (I'm at work at 5:30) and usually it's more like 11 - 12. I'm alert, feel great and have my eating under control. If I eat early "just because", I'm sick to my stomach and I fight the munchies all day. That's just the way I am.

Some people are morning eaters and some people aren't. My youngest son is always hungry first thing in the morning and eats a big breakfast. He tends to not eat much at night. My oldest son picks at his breakfast but tends to eat more in the afternoon. Both are thin, good students and don't have behavior problems. We've taught them to listen to their bodies and they are doing fine.

The point of all of this is that we are all different and you need to do what works best for you. If there is anything low-carb folks should know, is that nothing works for everyone. If you don't need breakfast or a bunch of meals, don't do it. If you do, go for it. Just don't assume we are all the same.

To that I say AMEN!

[tomsej]

WildCard,

There are lots of people who have been hungry and gone on starvation type diets who have caused irrperable damage to their thyroid.

You may not feel hunger; even the people on hunger strikes stop getting hungry after 3 days or so.

What you do to your own body is your own business. Just becasue 3-6 meals a day doesn't work for you does not mean you need to get your shorts in a knot.

Pretty well everyone said that they eat when they are hungry. I would agree that the spacing of eating to at least every 4 hours is much easier on the digestive system. This also depends on the "degestive load" of the food you are eating. With fruit only, 2 hours is okay; non-starchy vegetables about 3 hours. For meats and cheese and eggs, 4 hours is best. If you are interested in this type of info, I would suggest researching "food combining".

The basic theory is you eat fruits alone, meat with non-starch veggies and then starchy veggies on their own.

Since you have lost weight, that is great. You know what works for you - therefore keeping it off should not be a problem, right?

Tom.

[Ghuldeen]

I think it depends on the individual. If your body gets used to eating breakfast, the more likely it is to demand breakfast. Your body is very prone to forming habits like waking up at a certain time, eating at a certain time.

As for Wilcard's assertion:

"I agree with him that eating all the time causes the stomach to expand and increase cravings, and I know many people who will have breakfast and then get so hungry that they will need another meal within 3 or 4 hours. "

I disagree. Having many smaller meals is not going to expand your stomach. Gorging on huge meals will expand your stomach.

My motto is if it's hungry, feed it. What we learn in this WOE is what the correct things are to feed it with.

[Nancy LC]

Oh there's lots of "common wisdom" out there that everyone just more or less accepts as true because everyone else just more or less accepts it as true.

[Wildcard]

Oh there's lots of "common wisdom" out there that everyone just more or less accepts as true because everyone else just more or less accepts it as true.


That is exactly right. It could not have been said better.

I wonder how long breakfast will be common wisdom though. I mean, high-carb/low fat was common wisdom for ages and see where it got us.

[ItsTheWooo]

my boss, who lost 40lbs in 2 months, said that he always went to bed slightly hungry because it prevented the stomach from expanding overnight and causing him to have hunger pangs the next day.

I agree with him that eating all the time causes the stomach to expand and increase cravings, and I know many people who will have breakfast and then get so hungry that they will need another meal within 3 or 4 hours.

After 9 weeks of doing it and 26 lbs, I can go 18 hours without food and not have hunger pangs. Is this a sign of metabolic slow down, maybe, but my heart numbers also went from 160/69/82 (systolic, diastolic, bpm) to 130/79/79. Which means I went from serious risk of heart problems(and Im only 24) to a very normal range for my height (6-5).

Insulin is the master metabolic hormone. Its presence or absence and general disposition in your body determines hunger, among many other complex metabolic processes. There are two things which positively affect insulin release: eating energy in general, and eating too many carbs. Energy triggers insulin for obvious reasons; insulin is an anabolic hormone which allows the body to make use of energy, therefore if all other things are equal eating more energy translates into producing more insulin.

Carbs, due to their simple molecular nature & the design of our metabolic system, are a risk factor for rapid insulin release independent of total caloric content. Our bodies are capable of digesting carbs much more rapidly than fat or protein, therefore eating most of your energy from carbs translates to flooding your body with energy in a short peroid of time. As expected, carb-related rapid floods of energy require floods of insulin. Carbs can mimic the effects of a high calorie diet even when calories aren't that high, especially for insulin resistant people. Because of this, eating a high calorie diet & a high carb diet are both risk factors for developing insulin resistance with hyperinsulinemia & complications of such.

Calorie & carb intake promotes anabolism (tissue building). The type of anabolism which occurs depends entirely on lifestyle. If you are very active and live healthfully, muscle will be built and energy output increased. If you are sedentary, fat will be built. Because eating energy & carbs promotes insulin release to facilitate anabolism, it therefore is logical to believe that restriction of energy & carbs reduces insulin levels, thereby putting the body in a catabolic (tissue wasting) state. Getting the body in a catabolic state is the ultimate objective of diets. The traditional way of forcing your body into a hypoinsulinemic, glucagon dominant, catabolic state is via caloric restriction. This is of course, effective, however controlling for carbs in addition to calories is also helpful. Calories ultimately determine whether or not catabolism occurs, but carbs also are a factor. Eating less carbs allows you become catabolic more easily, but ultimately catabolism can only be triggered by depriving your body of energy.

The reason hunger goes away eventually with prolonged fasting/dieting has nothing to do with stomach size or any of those theories. It is because eating less calories and less carbs results in a normalizing of insulin & increasing sensitivity. This then results in your body elevating glucagon & more easily becoming catabolic (breaking down your own tissues for energy synthesis). You are basically taking your body out of the purely anabolic state triggered by the calories & carbs, and instead you are forcing it to become catabolic. When your body is more sensitive to catabolism due to prolonged restriction, it puts up much less of a fight for food and is more comfortable with breaking down its own fat and protein for energy. This is why hunger is very very intense the first few days of starvation, but it mostly goes away after awhile. The same thing happens when you go on a LC diet; hunger for carbs is overwhelming, but eventually your body adapts and appetite is diminished.
It is also why on low carb we can lose weight without hunger. Reducing carbs makes the body better at burning its own fat (and if necessary protein). Appetite is diminished on low carb because your body is very good at deriving energy from its fat instead.

In short, both energy & carb restriction are conducive to putting your body in a catabolic state. High energy or high carb intake are not conducive to eliciting catabolism. People eating too many carbs OR too many calories tend to have problems losing weight without forcing their body to do a lot of work to compensate. A high energy WITH high carb intake is a recipe for ridiculously rapid anabolism. If you are going to eat high cal & high carb, better hope you are doing some serious lifting & running, or else have fun shopping in the plus size shops :). Hope this helps.

[sunspine17]

Woo, that's EXACTLY what I meant to say! :lol: You always explain things so well and obviously retain a lot of the detail in what you read. All I can remember after reading countless books is "I don't do well eating often because of . . . uhhh . . . some kind of insulin thing. I can't remember all the details-- just trust me on this one."

[ItsTheWooo]

One more thing; I don't mean to sound as if I am stupidly simplifying the intensely complex energy regulating systems of the body as being determined by nothing more than calories & carbs. Though controlling for energy intake and carbs are crucial variables for triggering catabolism and seeing positive fat-loss results, there is more involved than restriction.

You must also make sure you do not create caloric deficits which are so extreme and rapid so as to trip your body's anti-starvation response mechanism. When you decrease anabolism to the point where the body is too rapidly catabolic, this causes leptin levels to plummet. Leptin regulates metabolism and body weight by negative feedback; when the body perceives inadequate leptin this signals that body fat stores are dangerously low. It then proceeds to adapt by slashing metabolic rates (hypothyroidism) and increasing the rate at which catabolism from muscle occurs relative to fat. This translates into what is known as "hitting the wall"... you can't lose any more fat, you feel miserable, and despite your best efforts to prevent it you are losing muscle mass.

Theoretically you can always reduce your size by starving yourself. This will always result in body fat loss, because in absence of energy your body cannot possibly be anabolic. The anabolic hormones have nothing to work on without external energy. Your body has no choice but to make insulin plummet & glucagon rise so as to synthesize energy out of body fat & protein.

However, your results will always be better if instead of doing something extreme like starving yourself, you go on a well designed low carb portion restricted diet (or cyclical diet if you want to build muscle in addition to lose fat). Starvation diets waste a higher percentage of muscle to fat when compared to intelligently designed eating plans. Starvation mode plays havoc with your hunger, body composition, and metabolism. It's just not worth it in the long run for short term rapid loss.

If you want to see the best results, you will NOT get them on the kind of diet you are following. Less is not always more. Do some research on the way the human endocrine system responds to various environmental variables. I wish I could help you out more, but ultimately it is up to you to educate yourself on how best to achieve your fitness goals. We can point you in the right direction, but it is ultimately in your hands to make yourself healthy. I wish you luck!

[ItsTheWooo]

Woo, that's EXACTLY what I meant to say! :lol: You always explain things so well and obviously retain a lot of the detail in what you read. All I can remember after reading countless books is "I don't do well eating often because of . . . uhhh . . . some kind of insulin thing. I can't remember all the details-- just trust me on this one."

Thanks for the complement :).
I'm glad you find my posts informative.

[sunspine17]

Less may not always be more, however, if you make sure you eat an adequate amount of calories in your 2-3 meals is necessarily a harm? Skipping a meal does not always mean that one is also eating starvation level calories.

[ItsTheWooo]

Less may not always be more, however, if you make sure you eat an adequate amount of calories in your 2-3 meals is necessarily a harm? Skipping a meal does not always mean that one is also eating starvation level calories.

As long as you eat enough calories, I don't see the harm in concentrating those calories in 2 or 3 meals instead of 4 or 5. Just make sure each meal has adequate protein. Ideally several small meals is better at preserving metabolic integrity than 2 or 3 big ones, but if you truly believe that eating less often helps you burn fat better by controlling hormones, I don't see the problem. If this works for you, go for it :).

[Lisa N]

Some things to think about in regards to eating breakfast or not:
http://atkins.com/Archive/2003/2/25-556205.html
http://atkins.com/Archive/2003/3/12-470554.html

[Kristine]

After 9 weeks of doing it and 26 lbs, I can go 18 hours without food and not have hunger pangs.

This is the normal reaction to starvation that keeps anorexics going. The feeling is similar for healthy LCers in ketosis, but the difference is that we're treating our bodies with the respect and nutrition that it deserves.

Is there any particular reason why you're trying to get us to validate this as a good weight loss plan for you? Because it's probably not going to happen. We have a rule against personal attacks at this forum, but we also tend to be low on the BS and if you're lying to yourself or doing something dangerous, you're going to get some tough luvin'. For the sake of your health I strongly urge you to take the good advice you've already been given repeatedly, and do this the safe way. If you can't, please seek help. Being a guy doesn't make you immune from eating disorders. The behaviour is addictive. :exclm:

[kyrie]

Eating breakfast and eating small meals is all about managing the whole blood sugar roller coaster.

Before Atkins, if I skipped breakfast, I would crash with terrible hypoglycemia around 10am. Also, if I didn't eat regular small meals, my blood sugar would get too low.

If I let my blood sugar get low, then I'd need to eat something really sugary to get it back up. However, if I ate something before the sugar got low, I'd be ok, and eat less overall. So that advice about breakfast and small meals helped me.

Now with Atkins, I'm not crashing all the time. I eat breakfast because I like the ritual of it, but I only eat the three meals now.

I don't see anything wrong with several meals, but I don't have the time. On Atkins, I do most of my own cooking (eating fast food is next to impossible), and I have only so many minutes a day that I want to be standing over a stove.

I remember, though, when I was on an archeological dig in Tunisia, we had four meals. We'd have breakfast when we got up (bread, yummy full-fat yogurt, coffee, cheese), and then work in the field from 6 to 10:30, when we'd come in for cas-crout (I know I'm spelling it wrong--it's French), which would be more bread and cheese, with fresh fruits, chocolates, lemonaid, and olives. Yes, high carb, but also high fat, so fairly balanced. It was very hot, and when my teacher said a bit of chocolate would help me, I believed her. Then, at 2, we'd pack it in for the day and have a hot lunch (couscous, lamb stew, tuna and egg dishes, fabulous stuff). We'd have dinner (American, since our cook had gone home by then) around 7, and to bed.... except for maybe the wine at the after-dark card games counts as a meal?

I only explain it in such detail because those were some fabulous, tasty meals. No weight gain, either, because I spent the whole summer hauling whellbarrows of rocks back and forth! Of course, we were still fatter than most of the locals, or even the Canadians on our team...

[LilaCotton]

Hobbits themselves eat around six or seven meals a day, which include:
Breakfast, Second Breakfast, Elevenses, Luncheon, Afternoon Tea, Dinner, Supper as well as multiple snacks!

This has always been a standing joke in our house. The bunch of us would make great hobbits! (Actually, that's why I chose my Hobbit name for my user ID. ;))

And this is a great topic! I have a few questions, though, maybe someone could help?

I noticed clear back when I was a kid (like over 30 years ago) that if I ate something sweet before I went to bed, I'd be ravenous when I woke up in the morning. Otherwise I wouldn't even really be hungry. I ate breakfast anyway, generally a bowl of cereal (you know, back then we didn't know any better ;)).

Of course, now I know that the reason I was starving after eating the sweet treat before bedtime was an insulin reaction, which makes perfect sense.

When I was single I always ate breakfast--sometimes even cooked stuff, but back then it was usually a couple of pieces of toast before work, then some kind of snack at break-time with a decently healthy lunch (and yes, it was mostly protein and veggies), then some supper with meat, veggies and a small side of a starchy food.

After I got married and got pregnant for the first time, morning sickness did me in on breakfast. That was it--breakfast for me from that time on was moved to way later in the day--about 10 a.m., when I could look at food without wanting to run to the bathroom. Of course a lot of times I noticed when I ate the nausea was much, much better, so sometimes I did do a little breakfast, just not much.

Anyhow, time to get to my questions! Since that time I haven't been much of a breakfast eater, and the main reason is simply I am not hungry when I wake up first thing in the morning unless I eat something sweet before bed. Now obviously on Atkins I'm not eating anything that messes with my blood sugar, so when I wake up it's usually two hours before I'm really hungry. I've been trying to eat a little bit about an hour after I get up, but I really can't get up to a good breakfast until about noon (I usually get up around 9). Once I start eating, though, I eat practically all day--grazing here and there, having a little of this, a little of that, until supper time.

I'd like to be able to eat more in the morning, but I've also noticed that even if I eat a 500-calorie breakfast, I'm still wanting to munch the same amount the rest of the day, tapering off after supper, with a little snack later on. (I have also tried to quit the snack, and once in a while wake up sort of hungry, but not hungry enough to dig into breakfast.)

Now, my big question is: could my lack of eating breakfast be contributing to my lack of weight loss? I know I've always read it could slow down the metabolism, but then again, like mentioned, we never know whether or not what we read is right or just someone's assumptions.

[Of course it could be! Just reading the stuff on the Atkins site about breakfast. Guess I'll try again to start eating real food when I wake up in the morning and see if that helps.]

[watcher16]

I don´t eat breakfast, eat most day´s only at night, except for a couple of eggs and some yoghurt. The best I can do. The only scientific evidence I know of on this matter is supporting this kind of feeding. :)

[suzanneM]

I don't eat breakfast - just too hectic. I usually try to have something to eat as soon as I get to work, or I eat lunch very early. However, I'm not eating nearly enough and so I'm going to have to start having something ready once I get to work, every day.

I also have to start (again) eating many small meals throughout the day. It's gotten to the point where i have 2 small meals, and that's it. I don't want to hurt myself!

Wildcard, I also have looked at your journal, and it just looks, to me, like you are doing some pretty odd experimentation on yourself. I wish you the best but am concerned for what you are doing. It looks as if you are obsessed with it as well. Could be wrong, that's just how I read your journal & posts.

And this is going to sound really hard, but I don't mean it that way - if / when you damage your body with this odd pattern of eating, are you going to blame Atkins or low-carbing? It's just that quite often when people do this completely wrong and hurt themselves, all they can say is, "Atkins nearly killed me..."

[Wildcard]

ItstheWoo,

Those were some extremely informative posts. Thanks for the education. It also carries more credibility coming from you. Your stats are great.

[tomsej]

As long as you eat enough calories, I don't see the harm in concentrating those calories in 2 or 3 meals instead of 4 or 5.

ItsTheWooo,

I have to disagree, especially when looking at WildCards physical size. He may be able to EAT the macronutrients (carbohydrate, protein and fat) in the right quantities in TWO meals, but I can almost guarantee that his body will not properly ABSORB it.

I'm not going to say endocrinology is simple; it's not. But apart from insulin and glucagon response, you need to look at macronutrient absorbtion.

You may fool yourself into thinking you are eating enough, but your body is not a machine, it takes the nutrients it needs when it needs it and is not based on a clock setting.

Making nutrients BIOAVAILABLE to the villi in your stomach lining is why MANY meals are touted. This works as well with the absorbtion if micronutrients as well (vitamins and minerals).

I totally agree that there have been many threads started on this board "blaming" Atkins for their medical conditions when the people making the claims did not heed the warnings and follow the diet properly.

I do care what happens to people, that's why I have made my posts sound angry.

To WildCard: do you feel well eating the way you do? If you do then great, but just losing weight at the cost of your health will only cost you later.

Tom.

[Wildcard]

tomsej,

thanks for the warning. As I said, since I started eating like this, my heart numbers have gone from

160/69/82 to 130/79/79 (systolic,diastolic, bpm). I went from serious risk of heart problems to being normal for my size.

but this thread is not about me, its about the the herd mentality.

ps. the only fluid I take during my daily fast is H2O

[Lisa N]

As I said, since I started eating like this, my heart numbers have gone from

160/69/82 to 130/79/79 (systolic,diastolic, bpm). I went from serious risk of heart problems to being normal for my size.

Wildcard...where on earth did you get the idea that your blood pressure is the primary indication of risk factor for heart disease? Have you had any blood studies done? Cholesterol with fractions, c-reactive protein, homocysteine levels? I'd also like to point out that 130/79, while lower than before could still stand some improving, especially in the systolic range (most doctors like to see 120/70, especially in your age range).
High blood pressure can be an indication of underlying heart disease, but it can also be an indication of other problems such as kidney disease. High blood pressure does not cause heart attacks...it causes strokes as well as kidney damage and can damage other organs.
Also, with binging on high carb foods like pizza and frosted flakes you're certainly not reducing your cardiac risk there, either.
I'd hate to see you thinking that having a near-normal blood pressure is your "get out of having a heart attack free" card only to have one 10 years from now.
Something else to consider; if you are overweight and carry that weight mostly in your abdomen, have high blood pressure and high triglycerides, you might consider doing a little research on Metabolic Syndrome (also known as syndrome X) and insulin resistance.

[LondonIan]

but this thread is not about me, its about the the herd mentality.

When yuo are in a minority of one I guess it is easy to feel on the outside.

Most of us here are not exactly paid-up members of the herd mentality. We started LCing when it wa considered very much on the fringes.

Mostly people here IMHO fall into two types:

1. I'm not into the science. I just follow the books and it works for me, and
2. Show me the science, where the proof?

It was the science that converted me to changing my eating (even if I am less than perfect about it!).
Neither of these are likeley to have much time for what you are describing.
I have NO idea what you think you are doing or why. Explanations?

[Hellistile]

Hey, I just remembered something, duh! All diet gurus, be they vegans, low-carbers, high-carbers, low-fatters, high-fatters, low-protein, high-protein, all meat, no meat, agree on one thing. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day. lol This does not necessarily mean it is. All I know is that when I have a hearty breakfast (and especially when I was pregnant and had 7 course breakfasts), I feel like I can tackle Mount Everest. So why are we debating this?

[Wildcard]

londonian, the herd mentality I am referring to is not the mentality of low carbing, but the mentality of breakfast.

As someone said, people generally believe it because most other people generally believe it.

Anyhow, please read the conclusion in my journal and arrive at your conclusions on how I feel about low carbing.

[VickySail]

I used to skip breakfast almost religiously. It was the way I kept my weight down. THEN I read about gluco, gluconeo...

Gluconeogenesis: The process of making glucose (sugar) from its own breakdown products or from the breakdown products of lipids (fats) or proteins. Gluconeogenesis occurs mainly in cells of the liver or kidney.

This happens to all of us because we keep glucose out of our systems. It needs protein to happen, and our brains need it to function. We can't store protein overnight in our bodies. We excrete it. We should replenish it as soon as we can so the liver doesn't use our muscle reserves which it prefers first, over lipids/fat reserves. This is why LCers especially feel dizzy, foggy and shaky if they skip this yes, VERY important meal.

Moo.

Vicky

[Lisa N]

You make a very good point, Vicky. In order to keep our blood sugars stable and provide glucose for those cells that cannot function on ketone bodies, our body converts protein to glucose through gluconeogenesis. It can do this with either dietary protein (that which we eat) or our own muscle tissue. I'd like to keep as much muscle tissue as I can and providing my body with dietary protein at regular intervals (every 4-5 hours) is an important part of that.

[Dodger]

The word breakfast is easy to decipher. It is the meal that breaks you fast. It is any meal eaten after a period of no food. Usually this is in the morning after getting up, but it can be any time. If you first meal is at noon, then that is when you have breakfast.

[trishw1213]

Things become more difficult when what they say is good for us doesn't agree with what the body seems to want. I don't see the point in eating in the morning if I'm not hungry. I've tried to eat breakfast and it just makes me feel ill all morning. Even eating tiny amounts has the same effect. Then there's my husband who weighs 135 lbs. and only eats once a day-a gigantic meal at night (3000-5000 calories). Go figure. I guess we're all different.

[watcher16]

Any low-carb diet book will tell you why. Wildcard, these questions aren't really controversial, and the rest of us have read good, solid reasoning behind them. In BOOKS. There's some interesting stuff in books, I say.

The answers to the two questions you ask here are scientifically based, so I'll spare you the details.

Cheers!
The only scientific result I have learned about stated that eating late at night was NOT bad for you. In contrary to popular beliefs...

I did never use breakfast, after growing to fat tried to implement it, but only after starting skipping breakfast (and lunch btw) I started loosing weight. So indeed the gospel in the BOOKS seems like medieval medical opinions to me.

Just do what works for you

[Wildcard]

This article seems to believe that fasting could actually be beneficial in the long term

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030607/food.asp

[Wildcard]

Skipping Meals Might Offer Health Gains
Ben Harder

People assume that the ideal meal schedule spreads calorie intake over the course of the day: Never skip breakfast, keep your blood sugar on an even keel, and all that. But Mark Mattson, a neuroscientist at the National Institute on Aging in Baltimore, suspects that conventional wisdom may be due for an overhaul.


Skipping breakfast?



While many doctors encourage people to eat three square meals a day, there aren't data to indicate that it's important, he says.

In fact, says Mattson, "it may be healthy to have reduced meal frequency." In other words, skipping some meals—or occasionally fasting for the day—might be beneficial, even if overall calorie consumption remains unchanged.

Recent studies on lab animals seem to support that notion.

In one set of experiments, Mattson and his colleagues fed some mice on alternating days and forced them to fast on the days in between. They allowed other mice to eat daily. Both groups of animals were given unlimited access to food when they were permitted to eat. The mice that fasted intermittently gorged themselves when they could and so consumed as many calories on average—and gained as much weight during the 20-week study—as did their counterparts that ate daily.

Past studies have established that animals tend to age more slowly and live longer when they consistently consume fewer calories (SN: 11/25/00, p. 341: http://sciencenews.org/20001125/fob3.asp; 5/11/02, p. 291: http://sciencenews.org/20020511/fob2.asp). Researchers are still working to understand how calorie restriction slows aging, but they've observed that calorie-restricted animals have improved insulin sensitivity. In people, this change protects against diabetes.

Mattson and his colleagues observed better insulin sensitivity in the mice fed every other day than in those that ate daily.

"The [intermittently fed] mice are not calorie restricted, and yet we see changes in their physiology similar to those obtained with calorie restriction," Mattson told Science News Online.

Intermittent feeding also improved the animals' resistance to a neurotoxin that simulates Alzheimer's disease, the researchers report in the May 13 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In another study, Mattson and two other researchers gave rats unlimited access to food either daily or every other day. They studied the animals' heart rate, blood pressure, and other physiological measures for 6 months.

To test the rats under stressful conditions, the researchers periodically restrained them physically or made them swim through cold water. The researchers then analyzed the rats' blood for several hormones that drive the body's response to stress.

When resting, rats fed only on alternating days had lower heart rates and blood pressure and less circulating glucose and insulin in their blood than did the other rats. The sometimes-fasting rats also showed muted cardiovascular responses to stress, suggesting that they more readily adapt physiologically to such situations.

The results of the hormone tests were less clear, but the researchers conclude that intermittent feeding helps the animals adjust to periodic exposures to certain stresses. The scientists didn't investigate whether temporary intermittent fasting had short-term effects on the animals' memory and learning ability. They report their findings in the June Journal of Nutrition.

"A meal-skipping diet . . . is good for cells throughout the body" because it periodically reduces the amount of glucose from digested food available to cells, says Mattson. During those times, cells build their ability to take up glucose when it's available he hypothesizes.

Thus, the mild stress of temporarily having less glucose may help cells prepare to cope with major stresses later, Mattson says. In that sense, meal skipping may be analogous to exercise in how it improves physiology. In fact, says Mattson, "intermittent fasting reduces blood pressure [and] reduces heart rate similar to what's seen with regular exercise."

Hard to swallow

Nutrition researchers find Mattson's hypothesis intriguing but a little hard to swallow.

Some past animal studies have found health benefits associated with restricted eating times, says Arlan Richardson of the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio. However, they've also found that these animals eat fewer calories overall, which may explain the benefit.

If intermittent fasting turns out to improve longevity without calorie reduction, "that would be very exciting," says Richardson. But, he says, "I'd probably put dollars against it."

Mattson is quick to note that more research will be needed to determine whether his findings in animals also apply to people and whether they translate into long-term health gains. If they do, skipping meals—rather than going whole days without food—might be enough to derive some of the benefit, he says.

"I haven't eaten breakfast for the last 20 years, and I eat a pretty light lunch," Mattson says. If a person eases into the habit, "it's not that hard to maintain [after] a while."

The effects of temporary food deprivation may depend on the length of time over which calorie consumption averages out, Richardson comments. People who restrict their calorie intake for days or weeks at a time but overeat at other times—a practice commonly known as yo-yo dieting—suffer poorer health than they would if they constantly maintained the same average weight, he says.

Even if skipping meals carries potential benefits, behavioral aspects of eating may make the practice unhealthful. Some data indicate that people who skip meals as part of a weight-loss strategy actually end up consuming more calories because they binge at other times. In severe instances, this behavior can lead to the eating disorder bulimia.




References:

[black57]

I used to skip breakfast almost religiously. It was the way I kept my weight down. THEN I read about gluco, gluconeo...

Gluconeogenesis: The process of making glucose (sugar) from its own breakdown products or from the breakdown products of lipids (fats) or proteins. Gluconeogenesis occurs mainly in cells of the liver or kidney.

This happens to all of us because we keep glucose out of our systems. It needs protein to happen, and our brains need it to function. We can't store protein overnight in our bodies. We excrete it. We should replenish it as soon as we can so the liver doesn't use our muscle reserves which it prefers first, over lipids/fat reserves. This is why LCers especially feel dizzy, foggy and shaky if they skip this yes, VERY important meal.

Moo.

Vicky

To add to this, a diabetic must have breakfast or they will set themselves up for problems. Many, if not most, of us on these lc boards suffer from some sort of insulin resistance. I began losing weight once I began eating 3 times a day.

[Wildcard]

To add to this, a diabetic must have breakfast or they will set themselves up for problems. Many, if not most, of us on these lc boards suffer from some sort of insulin resistance. I began losing weight once I began eating 3 times a day.

according to the article, fasting actually reduces insulin resistance.

[Lisa N]

The mice that fasted intermittently gorged themselves when they could and so consumed as many calories on average—and gained as much weight during the 20-week study—as did their counterparts that ate daily.

Great if you're trying to maintain your weight. Not great if you are trying to lose (and maintain as much of your lean body mass as possible in the process). When your body has to tap into your lean body mass reserves for the process of gluconeogenesis repeatedly because protein is not coming in consistently for this process, you lose muscle (note the study made no mention of lean body mass composition of the mice who skipped meals and/or fasted compared to their non-fasting counterparts). No, thanks.

Mattson and his colleagues observed better insulin sensitivity in the mice fed every other day than in those that ate daily.

Low carbing already does this without having to skip meals or go hungry. It would be interesting to see them compare the effects on insulin sensitivity with a regular standard American diet where meals are skipped to that of low carb where low carb meals are eaten on a regular basis.

When resting, rats fed only on alternating days had lower heart rates and blood pressure and less circulating glucose and insulin in their blood than did the other rats.

Again, low carbing produces similar resuts without having to skip meals. So...why should I be skipping meals again?

The effects of temporary food deprivation may depend on the length of time over which calorie consumption averages out, Richardson comments. People who restrict their calorie intake for days or weeks at a time but overeat at other times—a practice commonly known as yo-yo dieting—suffer poorer health than they would if they constantly maintained the same average weight, he says.

Even if skipping meals carries potential benefits, behavioral aspects of eating may make the practice unhealthful. Some data indicate that people who skip meals as part of a weight-loss strategy actually end up consuming more calories because they binge at other times. In severe instances, this behavior can lead to the eating disorder bulimia.

So...as long as you don't wind up binging and your caloric intake balances out, you won't wind up gaining weight. BUT...as soon as you can't stand being hungry any more (or wind up having a hypoglycemic attack) and binge, you've undone any benefit AND if this behavior is continued over a period of time, it can lead to bulemia.

And this makes skipping meals or going for an entire day without eating on a regular basis a good thing how again? ;)

[Wildcard]

Great if you're trying to maintain your weight. Not great if you are trying to lose (and maintain as much of your lean body mass as possible in the process). When your body has to tap into your lean body mass reserves for the process of gluconeogenesis repeatedly because protein is not coming in consistently for this process, you lose muscle (note the study made no mention of lean body mass composition of the mice who skipped meals and/or fasted compared to their non-fasting counterparts). No, thanks.

I am sure, in fact I know , that humans can fast and still restrict caloric intake. as a matter of fact, there is a school of thought that believes fasting can make it easier to reduce total caloric intake.

I would like to see data that shows that muscle mass is used before fat. I would expect both to be burned with fat being burned at a faster rate. In my case, having gone from 282 lbs to 235lbs, and from 24% fat to 16% fat, a little math will show that while I lost 7.4% of my body muscle, I lost 44% of my body fat.

It would be interesting to see them compare the effects on insulin sensitivity with a regular standard American diet where meals are skipped to that of low carb where low carb meals are eaten on a regular basis.

that would be very interesting indeed.

[Lisa N]

I would like to see data that shows that muscle mass is used before fat. I would expect both to be burned with fat being burned at a faster rate. In my case, having gone from 282 lbs to 235lbs, and from 24% fat to 16% fat, a little math will show that while I lost 7.4% of my body muscle, I lost 44% of my body fat.



http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/1/11-918650.html

[Lisa N]

http://atkins.com/Archive/2003/3/12-470554.html

Hmmm...this might explain why I haven't had a cold in over 2 years (even though my kids have had plenty of them and are usually more than willing to share). I never skip breakfast anymore. ;)

[Wildcard]

According to the first link you posted, those guys fasted for 10 days straight. Neither I nor the link I posted refer to extended fasts. I fast for less than a day, and in the link I posted, the fast was for one day. I would hope that there would be differences in those two types of fasts.

Furthermore, are you trying to tell me that people on low carb diets lose ZERO muscle? It might be possible but I find it difficult to believe.

[Lisa N]

According to the first link you posted, those guys fasted for 10 days straight. Neither I nor the link I posted refer to extended fasts. I fast for less than a day

Really? According to this post: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?p=2462670#post2462670 you've been fasting for 17+ weeks and have fasted for as long as 100 days and at the time of that post, you were experiencing hypoglycemic episodes as a result of your fasting activities. I find it interesting that you maintain defending the practice of skipping meals on a regular basis (in fact, going most of the day eating nothing at all) even though you are suffering negative physical consequences as a result of it.


Furthermore, are you trying to tell me that people on low carb diets lose ZERO muscle?

No and nowhere have I said that, although repeated studies have shown that there is less loss of LBM on low carb (adequate protein) than with other weight loss methods: http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/12/10-930978.html http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/1/11-848672.html
It is normal and to be expected that as your total body mass decreases, some muscle loss will also occur as the body simply has to carry around less mass on a daily basis (in other words, it's not working as hard as it was) unless the person is actively working on maintaining or gaining LBM. For that purpose, adequate protein on a regular basis is required along with weight training. It's also important to distinguish between losing a small amount of LBM because the body no longer needs it and losing LBM because the body is using it for the purpose of gluconeogenesis/body maintainence due to a lack of dietary protein. Also, as has been posted before, the body can only absorb a certain amount of nutrients (including protein) at one time, so getting all your protein for the day at one time isn't going to cut it when you are either trying to keep the LBM you have or increase it.

[Wildcard]

Really? According to this post: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?p=2462670#post2462670 you've been fasting for 17+ weeks

I never fast for more than 24 hours straight. Those guys fasted for 10 days straight

The first link you posted said that those guys lost only 0.4 lbs of muscle of 14 lbs total loss. That is pretty close to ZERO muscle loss.

Anything worth doing has negative effects, just that the positives far overweigh the negatives. A person might experience low blood sugar symptoms on a fasting diet, but even successful WOEs like LC have negative side effects, including bad breath among other things.
[/QUOTE]

[Lisa N]

but even successful WOEs like LC have negative side effects, including bad breath among other things.

There are negative/unpleasant side effects (not all low carbers experience halitosis or constipation for that matter) and there there are consequences that potentially threaten your health and safety (hypoglycemic episodes). Last I checked, having a mild case of bad breath doesn't cause any physical harm and I'm not likely to pass out behind the wheel of my car because I have bad breath or constipation.
Repeated bouts of hypoglycemia also trigger the relase of stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline that impact other body systems in a negative way.
If you believe it's "worth it" to lose weight in that manner, that's your choice, but you'll probably have a hard time convincing others that it's a good [healthy] way to accomplish weight loss, including me.

The first link you posted said that those guys lost only 0.4 lbs of muscle of 14 lbs total loss. That is pretty close to ZERO muscle loss.

The numbers are what they are. I didn't perform the study, I just linked to the abstract of the results. Still, loss of LBM is significantly lower when there is adequate protein intake on a consistent basis than when there is not. Something else to consider is that when a lot of weight lost is LBM, if the weight is then regained, most of it is fat leaving the person with a higher BMI than before at the same higher weight unless steps are taken to rebuild LBM through regular, adequate protein intake and weight resistance excercises.

[black57]

Everyone loses muscle, fat and water when dieting. The reason muscle is lost is because weight is lost. You are not as heavy and less muscle is needed to hold you up. As I am typing this I see that this fact is already pointed out so this is just to emphasize that point.

[VickySail]

In my case, having gone from 282 lbs to 235lbs, and from 24% fat to 16% fat, a little math will show that while I lost 7.4% of my body muscle, I lost 44% of my body fat.

You have 16% body fat when you weigh 235 lbs? What method did you use to determine that. I would like to trade in my Tanita. :)

I see from your other thread that your perspective on breakfast will never change, since you're a religious faster, and as such, extremely unlikely to consider eating breakfast anyway. What exactly was the point of this thread if you're never going to be swayed regarding what the majority here consider proven health benefits of eating breakfast? Just curious as to your motives.

And I wonder about comparing low blood sugar symptoms with halitosis. Having bad breath usually doesn't cause me to get dizzy, shaky or nauseous, which can precede passing out in possibly dangerous situations.

Vicky

[Wildcard]

Vicky,

Listen, I am not saying that people should not eat breakfast. Breakfast works for some people and it does not work for some people. All I'm saying is that people who dont like to eat breakfast should not be coerced into doing so by the medical and diet establishments.

But if we are going to start a fight,
then read some of the negatives associated with a low carb diet.

Symptom (% of patients complaining)

Constipation (68%)
Headache (60%)
Halitosis (38%)
Muscle cramps (35%)
General weakness (25%)
Diarrhea (23%)
Rash (13%)

As it turns out, the low sugar symptoms I was experiencing might not have been low sugar at all. I think it was low blood pressure as a result of drinking far too much water for the paltry amout of salt I was consuming. I never thought I would see the day when I would have lbp and a resting heart rate of 63bpm

And about my body fat- believe it. It comes from running and swimming and cycling many times a week.

[DietSka]

some of the negatives associated with a low carb diet.

Symptom (% of patients complaining)

Constipation (68%)
Headache (60%)
Halitosis (38%)
Muscle cramps (35%)
General weakness (25%)
Diarrhea (23%)
Rash (13%)

That's from atkinsdietalert.com, a PETA sponsored site.

I rest my case. :lol:

[VickySail]

Wildcard,

I'm not averse to starting a fight over something worthwhile, but this ain't it. If you want people to bless your avoidance of what most of the dieting and bodybuilding community at large seems to believe is the best way to preserve muscle, increase metabolism and keep blood sugars level, then I don't think you're going to get it, no matter how long this thread gets.

I read your posts, I read your stats, I read your arguments, and they all seem to point in a general direction: I would be extremely worried about you if you were in any way dear to me, because it sure looks like you're going to do yourself metabolic damage if continued long term. I see things like:

1. Fasting for extraordinary amounts of time
2. Extreme amounts of exercise that can't help but use up lean muscle tissue if done during fasting.
3. Low minerals (if you're low on salt, you're likely low on potassium and magnesium)
4. Sugar or meal bingeing
5. Very low resting heart rate?


I'm no expert in nutrition, but these thing raise red flags. Has your doctor seen the whole picture, and if so, is he OK with this?

Up until I looked at your diet (and that last post) I was assuming you were low-carbing. Since you're not, what you do for breakfast really does not apply to the people low carbing here. There is no sugar in our system in the morning, so we must put some protein in, first thing. It will wreak havoc with our bodies if we do not. Since you are not in ketosis, it will not affect you, and therefore, you can fast with impunity. If a low carber tried that, it would not be a good thing. We'd literally eat our muscle mass if we tried to exercise without some protein stores to draw on, and would mess up our metabolism.

I also love the percentages of either constipation or diarrhea. I didn't know that if I weren't stopped up, I'm going all the time. The percentages add up to roughly 100% if you add the two. :lol:

Vicky

[Lisa N]

As it turns out, the low sugar symptoms I was experiencing might not have been low sugar at all. I think it was low blood pressure as a result of drinking far too much water for the paltry amout of salt I was consuming.

Nope. Symptoms of hypotension are: dizziness, blurred vision, lightheadedness, fainting, (rarely) palpitations.
Symptoms of hypoglycemia are: sweating, shakiness, dizziness, blurred vision, hunger, tingling hands or lips, slurred speach, headache. If left untreated, hypoglyemic attacks can lead to loss of consciousness.
See a doctor. Self-diagnosing ("I think it was...") can be dangerous.

As for your "reported symptoms" list, the survery was skewed in that PETA (aka Atkinsdietalert.org) only solicited (and reported) comments from those that actually experienced negative side effects from low carbing. If they had actually factored in ALL reponses, or did a random survey of low carbers, those results would have been drastically different. PETA is hardly an accurate OR unbiased source of information when it comes to low carbing. :lol:

And about my body fat- believe it. It comes from running and swimming and cycling many times a week.

BTW...you did know that overexercising coupled with insufficient intake to support that excercise does more harm than good, right? Going all day without eating and then excercising strenuously on top of it = bad idea. ;)

[Wildcard]

Wildcard,

If you want people to bless your avoidance of what most of the dieting and bodybuilding community at large seems to believe is the best way to preserve muscle, increase metabolism and keep blood sugars level, then I don't think you're going to get it, no matter how long this thread gets.


who needs the blessings of anybody when my body is having the time of its life.

[Saigo]

It's like deja vu all over again! :p

[VickySail]

OK, I've got it now. 24YO + education = immortal.

Since you've heard all the warnings from the others on this forum, I'm not gonna add any more, because it's pointless. Enjoy your thinning self, and I'm outa here.

Vicky

[black57]

I believe that when a person has lived a lifetime on a low carb diet, fasting does not become an issue...it is natural and necessary for survival. I recall reading in my history class that Native Americans commonly spent winters without a whole lot of food. The early settlers thought that they were too lazy to hunt for food.

[ItsTheWooo]

Skipping Meals Might Offer Health Gains
Ben Harder

People assume that the ideal meal schedule spreads calorie intake over the course of the day: Never skip breakfast, keep your blood sugar on an even keel, and all that. But Mark Mattson, a neuroscientist at the National Institute on Aging in Baltimore, suspects that conventional wisdom may be due for an overhaul.


<snip>
Methinks those mice basically were put on CAD.

Instead of eating lots of sugar all day, like the other mice, they ate a tremendous amount in one sitting.
If you are going to consume a relatively high sugar diet, like the sort fed to mice in a lab, it's of course better to eat less frequently. Your body produces less insulin when high-carb meal frequency is reduced, even if the same amount of carbs are consumed with less frequent meals (there is a physiologically valid explanation for this).

This isn't news to LCers.

Now the question is, is eating more frequently from a low carb diet bad for insulin sensitivity as well? I seriously doubt it. The benefits of meal condensation are relevant only to sugar. This is only relevant in a high carbohydrate context. If anything, skipping meals on a very low carbohydrate diet can be bad for your health. Low carbing puts your body in a state which makes catabolism very easy, unlike a high carb diet. By "easy", I mean your body has no problem shifting over to synthesizing muscle into glucose via gluconeogenesis and body fat into ketones via lipolysis without one iota of protest. On a higher carb diet, your body will beg and plead for food first, making meal initation more likely. Furthermore, it (muscle and fat from the body) is the only place for the body to get energy from during a fast on a LC diet. On a high carb diet, the body will consume glycogen first before attacking muscle.

For these reasons (your body gladly consumes itself and is unlikely to ask for food via hunger pangs, also your body has no stored sugar to draw from and goes straight for muscle in absence of dietary protein to fill sugar needs), going a long time without eating when carbs are very restricted is a recipe for muscle loss.