Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Eating breakfast = burning fat? How? Please explain your theory.
Yeah I have no idea how they arrived at that conclusion. Yes your body is primed for burning fat upon waking up in the morning(because it is just getting into the true fasted state), but that changes the moment you start shoveling energy down your gullet. The body switches over to glucose metabolism and moves quickly away from stored fat oxidation when you do that.
From a weight loss and medical aspect, you need to give your body some fuel, whether you feel hungry or not. It doesn't need to be much, just throw down something that is not just a bunch of sugar.
I will add my own opinion, which is, unless you have a health or weight problem, if you don't want to eat in the morning, keep doing what you're doing.
After a 24 hour fast you still have ~57% of your glycogen stores in your liver remaining, and obviously also have stored energy in your fat cells. You don't have to constantly fuel your body via food, we wouldn't have survived as a species if that were the case.
After a 24 hour fast you still have ~57% of your glycogen stores in your liver remaining, and obviously also have stored energy in your fat cells. You don't have to constantly fuel your body via food, we wouldn't have survived as a species if that were the case.
True. If youre skin and bones then yes youll probably need to fuel yourself but if youve got an ample amount of fat on you then theres really no need.
True. If youre skin and bones then yes youll probably need to fuel yourself but if youve got an ample amount of fat on you then theres really no need.
If you go by that theory, then a person who is 100 pounds overweight simply needs to stop eating anything at all for a couple of months, and they can easily live off their existing fat while it burns off - because you don't need to fuel yourself if you have an ample amount of fat, and it takes around that long of TRUE fasting to burn through 100 pounds of fat.
I'm guessing you don't really mean that. But that's what you're implying with your statement. You might want to check some actual science and reconsider your claim.
If you go by that theory, then a person who is 100 pounds overweight simply needs to stop eating anything at all for a couple of months, and they can easily live off their existing fat while it burns off - because you don't need to fuel yourself if you have an ample amount of fat, and it takes around that long of TRUE fasting to burn through 100 pounds of fat.
I'm guessing you don't really mean that. But that's what you're implying with your statement. You might want to check some actual science and reconsider your claim.
We were talking about intermittent fasting, not straight up starvation for a couple months.
So then, you agree with me that this statement by pythonis:
is false.
It's not false in the context of which we were speaking. You can't just change the context of something in order to claim it is false. We were talking about shorter fasts (16-24 hours), you brought up not eating for months at a time. Little bit of a difference there, don't ya think?
Even still, it is technically true that a very obese person can live a long time off stored energy without eating anything. They need to drink water too obviously or they will be dead in a week or less, and obviously their lean body mass will be decimated, but they would last longer then a lean person, for sure. That is the entire function and purpose for body fat, to survive periods of no food.
Anyone who stops eating after suppertime and doesn't eat again until they get up in the morning, is "fasting" for 16 hours. It's not even called fasting. It's called "eating normally."
There's no need or reason to give it a special label. Eat your breakfast some time between 8 and 10 am. Have lunch, somewhere around lunchtime - which is generally between 11:30 and 2PM. Have supper, which is around suppertime - usually between 4:30 and 6pm. Then stop eating until breakfast the next morning. It's called breakfast, because - you are breaking your fast. The fast of approximately 14-16 hours from the last time you ate, which shouldn't be too close to bedtime because it's unhealthy to eat too close to bedtime.
People who eat healthy, are already doing this. People who are overweight are also already doing this. People who are especially thin are already doing this.
There is nothing inherently special about eating this way. It is a normal way for people to eat.
Anyone who stops eating after suppertime and doesn't eat again until they get up in the morning, is "fasting" for 16 hours. It's not even called fasting. It's called "eating normally."
There's no need or reason to give it a special label. Eat your breakfast some time between 8 and 10 am. Have lunch, somewhere around lunchtime - which is generally between 11:30 and 2PM. Have supper, which is around suppertime - usually between 4:30 and 6pm. Then stop eating until breakfast the next morning. It's called breakfast, because - you are breaking your fast. The fast of approximately 14-16 hours from the last time you ate, which shouldn't be too close to bedtime because it's unhealthy to eat too close to bedtime.
People who eat healthy, are already doing this. People who are overweight are also already doing this. People who are especially thin are already doing this.
There is nothing inherently special about eating this way. It is a normal way for people to eat.
Most people don't eat dinner at 4:30, or even 6 for that matter. I'd say the window for dinner is more like 6-9pm, with most falling around 8. And they usually don't refrain from taking in any more calories until they go to bed, most will be snacking on something, especially if they eat dinner in the middle of the afternoon, lol. Fasting means zero calories in, even 50 will cut the benefits of fasting off.
Most people do not fast for 16 hours a day. They finish eating sometime around when they go to sleep, sleep for maybe 8 hours then wake up and eat. You are just making crap up now instead of admitting your random hatred towards fasting is unfounded. You have literally nothing left to stand on so now you switch gears and claim everyone fasts every day so it is normal and not special. Gotta love it.
BTW, I've done a 180 on the matter. After reading the research and doing IF (intermittent fasting) myself resulting in rapid weight loss without muscle loss (10 lbs lost in 2 weeks without losing any upper body strength) and still feeling great and not getting sick, I believe you can skip breakfast or otherwise intermittently fast successfully. It takes discipline (not making up the calories) and eating a diet high in fat and protein to satiate the appetite prior to fasting but it can be done. If you begin fasting with a meal high in starches, I believe it will be difficult to impossible to succeed at IF. Fasting can also unravel your genetic makeup nicely and give your body some nice randomized experiences (similar to how you change up workouts to keep your body guessing and building muscle) instead of being a robot and eating 3 squares because people in white coats told you to do so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Eating breakfast = burning fat? How? Please explain your theory.
