Thread: Breakfast like a King???

The world we live in is filled with urban myths, and often it is hard to know what to believe.

For example : a major urban myth about health was the old one about drinking 8 glasses of water a day for health. We now know that is nonsense, and we only need to drink enough to slake our thirst.

However, there is an old saw I want to ask about. We have been told repeatedly that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Or we must 'Breakfast like a king!'

However, many cultures habitually consume light breakfasts, or none at all. The French, for example, seem pretty healthy as a bunch, and eat light breakfasts.

Does anyone have any better evidence? That is : objective, empirically derived data on the topic?? Proper clinical trials or long term epidemiological studies???

This might be relevant:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

They concluded that earlier studies finding an effect of meal frequency on weight gain (or loss) had more to do with changes in appetite or food intake, not from a direct impact on metabolic rate. For example, early observational studies found that people who skipped breakfast were heavier and this still resonates today with the idea that skipping breakfast makes you fatter. However, the review points out that this may be confusing cause and effect: people often start skipping meals to lose weight.

I don't think it matters how much you eat in regards of why we should eat break fast. I think its just to get your metabolism going. Its kinda like letting your engine warm up on cold mornings. What matters isn't how much gas you put in it just matters that you do it.

Don't know about that. Personally I like heavy meals in the afternoon, instead of the evening. Of course in the evening, generally, you have more time for your digestive system to digest, but then, most people experience a dip after lunch time anyway, related to digesting (More accidents happen during this time). But of course a strategy of eating evening meals at noon is best carried out when you work at home or anything alike, like farmers.

@3 By heavy meals I mean a lot of meat and potatoes, or somthing alike. Meals like this certainly give me an energy boost, while sandwiches and stuff, even with eggs pale in comparison. My personal experience would certainly place heavier meals earlier in the day, but of course that is not a scientific observation.

Since my childhood days I very rarely missed breakfast, it nearly always consists of a fry up. I am not over weight, but I might add that I am very active. So I urge everyone, the next time that you go to Mc Donalds " Go Large " you know it makes sense.

Another myth is that you should eat several times per days or fewer times per day to either:

1) Gain weight
2) Lose weight

While the truth is the ONLY thing that matters is your total calorie inntake over a day.

If you eat 5000 calories in one meal only or 5000 calories divided on 6 meals it will have the same result.

Originally Posted by Raziell

While the truth is the ONLY thing that matters is your total calorie inntake over a day.

If you eat 5000 calories in one meal only or 5000 calories divided on 6 meals it will have the same result.

I tend to disagree with this. Do you have a reference or something I could explore further to learn more? My sense is that timing of meals is hugely important as it will signal to the body whether or not food resources are scarce or abundant, and will trigger systems which will convert a higher percentage of that food to fat during those times when scarcity is sensed.

If you have information or a reference suggesting otherwise, kindly please share it here so I can review it to correct my (potential) misunderstanding.

How about this one?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.P ubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&log$=citatio nsensor

Originally Posted by Harold14370

How about this one?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.P ubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&log$=citatio nsensor

While I'd like to see one with a larger sample, that is a perfect response to my request. Thanks, Harold. I guess my thinking about scarcity and abundance applies only to overall available food energy, not when/how that energy is consumed within a given day.

Thanks to both of you for teaching me something new/correcting a misconception.

Was about to find one but Harold saved the day

I can say though that eating all the calories for a single day in one meal is NOT reccomendable. Having started bodybuilding i thought 1 meal a day was gonna be a great idea but that you painfully have to force down alot at once then go around hungry the rest of the day... not very practical >.<

No single clear cut answer to my original question here, but the overall message seems to be that the 'breakfast like a king' idea is, in fact, an urban myth.

Can I take it that the pattern of meals each day can be flexible, according to individual needs? Without any positive or negative effect on overall weight gain or health?

I could be wrong on this, but I think I remember hearing about a study that people who eat more frequently tend to consume less calories...something about not eating all day makes you so hungry that you consume a lot of calories in one sitting, while if you eat all day you are never really full but never really starving either. I'll look for the link when I have more time and I'll post it if I find it.

double post

Originally Posted by skeptic

No single clear cut answer to my original question here, but the overall message seems to be that the 'breakfast like a king' idea is, in fact, an urban myth.

Can I take it that the pattern of meals each day can be flexible, according to individual needs? Without any positive or negative effect on overall weight gain or health?

I believe that is the case. You might want to read about Martin Berkhan's approach to intermittent fasting.

http://avidityfitness.net/2008/01/12...artin-berkhan/
http://leangains.blogspot.com/2007/0...t-fasting.html

Originally Posted by Raziell

Another myth is that you should eat several times per days or fewer times per day to either:

1) Gain weight
2) Lose weight

While the truth is the ONLY thing that matters is your total calorie inntake over a day.

If you eat 5000 calories in one meal only or 5000 calories divided on 6 meals it will have the same result.

I'm surprised by that, admittedly because it contradicts a family myth. Before I continue, I wanna point out I am not approaching the issue with the usual "How can I consume more, while gaining less from it", rather I'm looking at how to most efficiently extract nutrition from limited food resources.

Part of my family was starving once: the kids were always hungry and thin of course. These kids adapted by eating slowly. They didn't gobble or attempt to stuff their bellies when they could, as one might expect. They chewed thoroughly, methodically. They spread their food out: Eat half the apple now, the rest an hour later - that kinda thing. Even now those who survived treat their food in this absurdly conservative fashion. It's like watching cows ruminate.

I thought that a survival behaviour, reasoning food digests most thoroughly when spread out, as opposed to one full meal passing through the small intestine in bulk.

True / False ?

Pong,
That sounds good to me, increasing the surface area of food before it goes through the digestive system, a small amount of food at a time ensuring maximum exposure to gastric juices. Well that is my theory.

Yet the studies linked above say meal pattern makes little or zero difference. :?

If the starvation behaviour of thorough mastication is effective though, I wonder what would happen if inverted? North Americans who want to consume more without growing fat, could chew our food less..? A good experiment might involve copious rice: chewed or un-chewed grains.

Or simply eat the rice raw.

Humans have the shortest alimentary canal for our size of any primate, by a very large margin! It appears to be an evolutionary adaptation to cooking of food. Cooked food digests very easily and requires less gut.

There is a movement of nutters who go around telling everyone they must eat only raw food. These weirdo's practise what they preach. And the result is a bunch of really, really skinny people. We are not adapted to getting enough calories or nutrients from uncooked food. Eat only raw stuff (including meat) and you will lose weight.

Yes, that does ring a bell, I read somewhere that man learning to cook food, thus getting more nutrients per pound of food, was an evolutionary leap forward or something.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Humans have the shortest alimentary canal for our size of any primate, by a very large margin! It appears to be an evolutionary adaptation to cooking of food. Cooked food digests very easily and requires less gut.

That is also a trait of carnivores and scavengers. The simpler explanation might be that we became more omnivorous than any other primate. Indeed humans relish a wider range of foods than any other species, no doubt to our great advantage. LOL name one animal that can digest every pizza topping imaginable, never mind one that that would. We are truly remarkable in this way.

I'm not denying the advantage of cooking. Another advantage there - especially for opportunistic omnivores - is that cooking kills bacteria. That turkey leg you've been saving for a week.

Originally Posted by Pong

I thought that a survival behaviour, reasoning food digests most thoroughly when spread out, as opposed to one full meal passing through the small intestine in bulk.

Perhaps it is more about gaining the most satisfaction from the food rather than digesting more of the food?

Studies suggest that people who eat slower feel fuller and eat less:
link