

Big breakfast 'aids weight loss' - swombat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7460729.stm

======
nonrecursive
I actually just finished eating a big (for me) breakfast down the street, and
while I was walking home I thought about how health science is full of
contradictory claims. Wasn't there an article on the front page a couple weeks
ago about how skipping your breakfast is the healthiest thing to do, or could
be? With no two articles giving the same advice, it seems like there's no
point in reading them.

During my walk I concluded that the only way to really figure out what works
best is to just experiment. Come up with a list of metrics you care about (#1
on my list: alertness) and record them, along with what food you eat and other
data that might impact your metrics (exercise, social time, whether what
you've done that day is tedious or exciting). Considering that everyone's body
and lifestyle is different, this approach makes the most sense to me.

I'm sure other folks have done something like this before. Does anyone know of
a tool that will help? Have any of you tried something like this, and how'd it
work out?

~~~
gaius
Well, no, how to eat healthily is pretty much known these days. Eat 5-6 small
meals throughout the day, every 3 hours or so, avoid refined/simple carbs, aim
to get your calories from 40% carbs, 30% protein, 30% fat, all from a variety
of sources, aim for 25g fibre a day. This is right because it's what humans
evolved doing. The _difficult_ part is doing it in the modern world. Like if
you're in a hurry in the morning, you might skip breakfast, or grab a pastry
(white flour, white sugar) at Starbucks. Or if you're tired or stressed in the
evening, you might order a pizza.

But the more processed food is, the more profitable it is too, so it's hard to
live as you were meant, but it is possible.

~~~
nonrecursive
Doesn't "5-6 small meals throughout the day" contradict the suggestions in
this article, which other folks here have concurred worked for them? Would the
people who got good results from eating a large breakfast and then eating
smaller lunches and dinners have done better using your suggestions? Is
"conducive to weight loss among the obese" too narrow a criterion for a
healthy diet? Are your suggestions appropriate for different lifestyles? Is a
diet that worked in circumstances that I'm not in actually best for me?

I'm not actually asking you all these questions, they're just meant to
illustrate my continued warines and weariness over varied and contradictory
health advice. (But if you knew the answers that would be awesome)

~~~
gaius
Also - 3 meals a day is not natural. It is an artefact of needing to fit
eating into a "working day". Some cultures go for 2 meals a day which is even
worse. Our ancestors ate when they were hungry, and stopped when they were
full.

~~~
nonrecursive
By the way, have you read or seen The Road to Wellville? Hilarious satire of
obsession with health. T.C. Boyle in general makes for a good read. A lot of
his stories are written from the perspective of humans being just another
animal, with often ridiculous behaviors and compulsions.

~~~
gaius
I'll check him out :-)

------
Tamerlin
This does actually work. Continuous starvation actually conditions the body to
store additional fat. A good breakfast also helps to provide fuel to your
brain, which burns a lot of glucose.

Eating regularly conditions your body to burn what takes in, because it
doesn't have to save for later, so instead of storing calories in fat, it
builds other things like muscle.

One of my friends went on a plan to lose one pound per week or thereabouts
while he was training for a long, difficult bike tour in the French Alps, and
calculated that he would have to consume around 4100 calories per day.

------
ryanmahoski
It would be a mistake to view this study solely in terms of breakfast calorie
counts. The researcher allotted macronutrients differently for each group, not
just with breakfast [1] [2] but, more importantly, in the daily totals:

Control: 1,085 calories ~ 17g carbs, 51g protein, 78g fat

Test: 1,240 calories ~ 97g carbs, 93g protein, 46g fat

Since fat contains ~9 calories per gram (versus 4 for protein and carbs) and
since ~3 percent of fat calories go toward energy conversion (versus 25 for
protein and carbs), we should expect Control to burn their calories ~2x more
efficiently than Test. So while Control ingested fewer calories than Test,
over time Test kicked their butts on weight loss because when Test burned a
calorie it burned lots of additional calories. [3]

[1] Test ate 610 calories for breakfast: 58g carbs, 47g protein, 22g fat

[2] Control ate 290 calories for breakfast: 7g carbs, 12g protein, ? fat

[3] I'm ignoring some other factors e.g. enzymes (such as liprotein lypase and
hormone sensitive lypase which store and release stuff like fatty acids)

------
rtf
My diet principles:

1\. Eat a variety, particularly with respect to fruits, nuts, and vegetables.
If you can't get them in natural forms then at least go for processed
combinations. Uniformity of diet is a symptom of agricultural society and
should be avoided.

2\. Make eating a priority after you wake up. Eat a few hours before bed so
that you wake up when you're hungry.

3\. Rely on protein to make a meal filling - in whatever form it takes, milk,
soy, whey, meat, fish...

------
steveplace
My take on food is efficiency. If it tastes good, that's a plus, but if it is
nutritious I couldn't care less.

With that disclaimer... the super breakfast (Variant of the breakfast by Tim
Ferris).

1) Microwaved egg whites with salt and flaxseed, topped with salsa

2) Fresh Spinach with salt, pepper, olive oil

3) Grapefruit

4) Fat Free Cottage Cheese

One hour later follow up with protein shake.

------
sethg
What goes into a 600-calorie breakfast? Sausages?

~~~
gaius
Off the top of my head, a bowl of porridge with fruit + 2 slices of toast with
marmalade would be about 600 calories.

Also note that a glass of OJ is probably 100 calories.

~~~
steveplace
Somebody must be from Britain ;)

