I am trying to build up a list of yummy, healthy and quick breakfast ideas. This morning I had Date and Oat slice for breakfast with some sunflower seeds. It is (the slice) kept in the fridge and is a nice cool breakfast and healthy snack as well.
Coffee with double cream.
I am trying to build up a list of yummy, healthy and quick breakfast ideas. This morning I had Date and Oat slice for breakfast with some sunflower seeds. It is (the slice) kept in the fridge and is a nice cool breakfast and healthy snack as well.
Dates are high in sugar. Granola is healthy e.g. with a probiotic yogurt.
Dates are high in sugar. Granola is healthy e.g. with a probiotic yogurt.
Both high in carbs.
Both high in carbs.
Granola has fats, carbohydrates and proteins (e.g. nuts). Carbohydrates give you energy - needed to start the day.
I tend to start the day with poached organic egg on sourdough toast with baby plum tomatoes. Eggs are an excellent source of protein.
Granola has fats, carbohydrates and proteins (e.g. nuts). Carbohydrates give you energy - needed to start the day.
Anything you eat gives you energy - measured in K calories. I keep reading that carbohydrates are necessary and I keep asking for the studies. There is a huge amount of evidence that carbohydrates are not necessary. Many hunter-gatherer peoples eat very few - some eat none.
Anything you eat gives you energy - measured in K calories. I keep reading that carbohydrates are necessary and I keep asking for the studies. There is a huge amount of evidence that carbohydrates are not necessary. Many hunter-gatherer peoples eat very few - some eat none.
The experience of eating is not just about what is necessary! There is also the enjoyment factor.
Fine. But:
I am trying to build up a list of yummy, healthy and quick breakfast ideas. This morning I had Date and Oat slice for breakfast with some sunflower seeds. It is (the slice) kept in the fridge and is a nice cool breakfast and healthy snack as well.
'Healthy snack' does not therefore follow.
Fine. But:
'Healthy snack' does not therefore follow.
Neither does your suggestion of coffee and cream! 
It's OK ... I know you were joking! 
Neither does your suggestion of coffee and cream!
It's OK ... I know you were joking!
I wasn't, actually. It's my daily breakfast.
I wasn't, actually. It's my daily breakfast.
.... ?? ... that's a breakfast idea? Breakfast is food!
It's how I break my night's fast most days. If I'm having brunch I have more of course. Eggs, bacon etc.
I guess Ounce1967 either isn't in the UK or got up very early!:) 5.23am and s/he's already had breakfast.
Fridge oats! I love fridge oats. Get a mason jar and half fill it with oats. Pour in milk of your choice, I like hemp milk or coconut milk. Then add whatever you want, blueberries, bananas, flax seed, chia seeds, raspberries, vanilla essence, honey, syrup. I mix mine up at that point so all the flavours mush together, but some people wait till they open it. Put the lid on the jar, bung it in the fridge overnight, eat for breakfast. They do taste great, but I also like it because if I'm running late I can just grab the jar out the fridge and eat it when I get to work. They keep for 3 days too so you can make 3 at a time. 🙂
I like gruel with honey. I CBA to prepare or eat anything substantial. They say breakfast like a king, have lunch like a prince and eat dinner like a pauper. I tend to eat a big dinner at 7pm and another dinner at 9.30pm which probably explains why I am morbidly obese.
I like gruel with honey. I CBA to prepare or eat anything substantial. They say breakfast like a king, have lunch like a prince and eat dinner like a pauper. I tend to eat a big dinner at 7pm and another dinner at 9.30pm which probably explains why I am morbidly obese.
So you dine regally twice at dinner! I am curious why you have another main meal so close together....are you hungry again or is it just habit?
I tend to just eat twice (brunch and evening meal) but portion size is my downfall + snacks!
They say breakfast like a king, have lunch like a prince and eat dinner like a pauper.
'They' do say this, whoever 'they' are. But since there is no reason to do what 'they' say and since I can see no good reason to have a great deal when I've just got up, I shall continue to ignore 'them'.
'They' do say this, whoever 'they' are. But since there is no reason to do what 'they' say and since I can see no good reason to have a great deal when I've just got up, I shall continue to ignore 'them'.
To breakfast like a king, have lunch like a prince and eat dinner like a pauper makes sense to me though. Whilst I am not privy to know how these people dine, the overall gist of it of eating less in the evening makes metabolic sense since we are more likely to burn food off more easily at the start of the day than at the end (when it slows down).
I don't think it makes much sense to eat a lot first thing in the morning, either. The idea of a big breakfast was something farmers had - after getting up at (or, in lambing time, before) dawn, and working for several hours before breakfast.
Your metabolic argument only makes any sense if you are trying to lose weight - and only then if you are right about burning off calories earlier. This is disputed and I have found no studies on it, one way or the other.
Until the last hundred years or so, it was commonplace to have a light meal during the night - on top of any other meals taken during the daytime. But then, before refined carbohydrates, people ate many more calories anyway.
In rural Wales (and probably many rural areas elsewhere) the main meal is in the middle of the day.
I don't think it makes much sense to eat a lot first thing in the morning, either. The idea of a big breakfast was something farmers had - after getting up at (or, in lambing time, before) dawn, and working for several hours before breakfast.
Your metabolic argument only makes any sense if you are trying to lose weight - and only then if you are right about burning off calories earlier. This is disputed and I have found no studies on it, one way or the other.
Until the last hundred years or so, it was commonplace to have a light meal during the night - on top of any other meals taken during the daytime. But then, before refined carbohydrates, people ate many more calories anyway.
In rural Wales (and probably many rural areas elsewhere) the main meal is in the middle of the day.
Well I agree not to eat a LOT at breakfast, I just meant by comparison to what is eaten later, i.e. just a bit more. Who knows how a king eats! Certainly not myself.
It is not my metabolic argument but one that I have read many times i.e. that metabolism is highest around midday. So Wales knows a thing or two!
...I could go on and paste more confirming data for this!
Well I agree not to eat a LOT at breakfast, I just meant by comparison to what is eaten later, i.e. just a bit more. Who knows how a king eats! Certainly not myself.
It is not my metabolic argument but one that I have read many times i.e. that metabolism is highest around midday. So Wales knows a thing or two!
...I could go on and paste more confirming data for this!
None of which seems to be more than people pushing their own theories. A bit like the (incorrect) notion that we need to drink 2 litres of water a day (or, indeed, that we need carbohydrates to be healthy) - it gets repeated so often that most people don't question it.
None of which seems to be more than people pushing their own theories. A bit like the (incorrect) notion that we need to drink 2 litres of water a day (or, indeed, that we need carbohydrates to be healthy) - it gets repeated so often that most people don't question it.
"Their own theories" ??? 
- it is just one statement. It makes sense to me i.e. logically - winding down etc.
You posted two links. Therefore, 'theories'. The opposite theory is that when you have fasted all night you are in a mild state of ketosis and are, therefore, unlikely to be hungry (which, I guess, depends a lot on when you last ate the night before and how much carbohydrate was in what you ate). Then, after you have worked up an appetite, you can eat later.
'Logic', being a method of arguing from premises to conclusions, doesn't have a lot to do with it. I'm guessing you mean 'common sense' - something that is often discovered to be wrong when the science gets to studying it. Particularly with food.
You posted two links. Therefore, 'theories'. The opposite theory is that when you have fasted all night you are in a mild state of ketosis and are, therefore, unlikely to be hungry (which, I guess, depends a lot on when you last ate the night before and how much carbohydrate was in what you ate). Then, after you have worked up an appetite, you can eat later.
'Logic', being a method of arguing from premises to conclusions, doesn't have a lot to do with it. I'm guessing you mean 'common sense' - something that is often discovered to be wrong when the science gets to studying it. Particularly with food.
The 2 links were saying the same thing = ONE understanding!
Yes common sense...picky picky!! 
The 2 links were saying the same thing = ONE understanding!
Yes common sense...picky picky!!
You said, 'one statement' - who exactly is being picky? As for 'common sense', as I said I do not think it is a reliable guide to what is correct.
Is it 'picky' to suggest that common sense and logic are different? Logic is a very misused word. (Personally, I blame Star Trek! ;))
You said, 'one statement' - who exactly is being picky? As for 'common sense', as I said I do not think it is a reliable guide to what is correct.
Is it 'picky' to suggest that common sense and logic are different? Logic is a very misused word. (Personally, I blame Star Trek! ;))
It just felt pedantic that's all.
I'm guessing you mean 'common sense' - something that is often discovered to be wrong when the science gets to studying it. Particularly with food.
Or in some cases is proved wrong by science, who themselves are then proved wrong. 😀
Or in some cases is proved wrong by science, who themselves are then proved wrong. 😀
If it's 'themselves' then I suppose you are talking about scientists rather than science. Science is what is. Scientists, being human, make mistakes.
This is the second time recently that you've stated that science is sometimes proved (I assume by more scientists) wrong. Is there something in particular that you are thinking of?
Well, science isn't "what is", it's a body of practice (so not "scientists" per se, but "the scientific body"), aimed at proving things. A lot of it is based on theories and conjecture, and then year and years (in many cases) of study go in to proving whether those things are right or wrong, often leading to (dis-)proving parts of things and leading to further theories and conjecture and so the process continues.
There's nothing in particular I'm referring to, though there are plenty of examples throughout history where 'science' has stated something, only to be proven wrong later on. I have a whole book on scientific blunders, as well as many books on long proven science and theories etc., so don't get me wrong, I've nothing against science, just against those who claim that science is all proven facts and anything else is bunkum. Much of science wouldn't exist without certain scientists taking a leap of faith and proposing theories that were initially rubbished in the scientific community. Even things that Einstein proposed remained unproven for many year (even his theories on gravity have only recently been observed to be potentially proven).
What you stated:
something that is often discovered to be wrong when the science gets to studying it. Particularly with food.
was a good example. Science is always changing it's mind about food. One minute things are good for you, the next minute they're bad for you, then they're good again etc. Likewise we were told that we needed our 5-a-day and then more recently they said that it's not right, it should be more like 10-a-day. If science was 'fact' then they would have room to change their minds about things. All it does is prove that their 'facts' are unproven.
I've nothing against science, just against those who claim that science is all proven facts and anything else is bunkum.
Having read your post, I don't think we are really in disagreement. And I would never claim that 'science is all proven facts'. Science is a process from idea to hypothesis to theory. Theories are valid so long as there is no evidence against them. So there are not 'proven facts', there are theories that have a high probability of being right. Therefore science is not saying things are so. However, scientists often do, as do scientific (and not so scientific) journalists.
Science is always changing it's mind about food. One minute things are good for you, the next minute they're bad for you, then they're good again etc. Likewise we were told that we needed our 5-a-day and then more recently they said that it's not right, it should be more like 10-a-day. If science was 'fact' then they would have room to change their minds about things. All it does is prove that their 'facts' are unproven.
In the case of food, it's not always scientists. Take the 5-a-day thing. The studies showed that people who ate a lot of vegetables had fewer incidents of cancer. That's the science. Most of the rest was politicians doing. Those of us who are fascinated by the science and politics of food (yes, I'm a nerd;)) have known for years that the study set no recommended amount, but observed that it seemed to be 'the more the better'. Other countries set higher amounts. In the UK it was decided that any number over 5 would simply put people off (I know some people who claim that 5 is impossible!). The idea was that they could increase the recommendations later.
The fact that low-fat eating has been recommended for years is politics. The science points clearly to low-carb, high-fat being healthier.