'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'.
Good for you Crowan. the adage about breakfasting like a king etc has been shown to be untrue. So 'they' were wrong.....for some people. Some people DO thrive best on that eating pattern - others may do best grazing throughout the day. Why should all out metabolisms be the same?
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!
I want to make sure I'm not hungry while I'm sleeping. 😀
It used to be widely believed that you needed to eat in the night. Have you read all the studies where the subjects have only natural light and sleep and wake as the feel the need? After a while they start waking in the night for a couple or three hours and then naturally go back to sleep. It explained bits in historical documents that had not been understood before - references to 'second sleep', for example. Have a look here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16964783
All very interesting. according to Lillian Beckwith ('A Rope In Case', and others in that series) this is a normal pattern in the Orkneys - go to sleep when it gets dark, sleep until about midnight, get up and all get together for dancing and merriment and then return to bed at about 3am. It means only one large room for the whole community is having to be lit and heated during that time.
So going the entire night without eating may not be a 'natural' thing for us to do.
It takes at least 2 hours for a meal to be digested so if eating just before sleeping then this would impair this process making weight control an issue. During sleep the body repairs itself (undergoes 'maintenance').
It appears to be a controversial issue
https://authoritynutrition.com/eating-before-bed/
It takes at least 2 hours for a meal to be digested so if eating just before sleeping then this would impair this process making weight control an issue. During sleep the body repairs itself (undergoes 'maintenance').
It appears to be a controversial issue
The main thing that leads to weight gain is what we eat. If our bodies were totally in balance (and I say 'were' because, with our modern diet, most of us are clearly not) then weight control wouldn't be needed. After all, people ate much more, in terms of calories, in the past. Since our calorie intake has gone down in the last century, the fact that weight is a problem for so many must be down to imbalance - either because of what we eat (most likely, since the 'modern diet' has spread worldwide) or environmental poisons.
The main thing that leads to weight gain is what we eat. If our bodies were totally in balance (and I say 'were' because, with our modern diet, most of us are clearly not) then weight control wouldn't be needed. After all, people ate much more, in terms of calories, in the past. Since our calorie intake has gone down in the last century, the fact that weight is a problem for so many must be down to imbalance - either because of what we eat (most likely, since the 'modern diet' has spread worldwide) or environmental poisons.
What we eat and the ability to digest it go hand in hand. Therefore anything impairing digestion will have a knockon effect. The link I gave provides evidence of weight gain eating late at night.
I agree that the modern diet has led to obesity (co-starring more take aways and transfats).
Can you elaborate on environmental poisons impacting on our weight. 
What we eat and the ability to digest it go hand in hand. Therefore anything impairing digestion will have a knockon effect. The link I gave provides evidence of weight gain eating late at night.
I agree that the modern diet has led to obesity (co-starring more take aways and transfats).
Can you elaborate on environmental poisons impacting on our weight.
No, but it does get said. I come down on the side of starchy carbohydrates - particularly refined ones - being the culprits.
Yes, I read the links you gave. The problem is that a lot of these studies are tinkering around the edges, studying effects on people who are already out of balance. Something went wrong with our entire way of eating - before take-aways and trans fats (although these can't help). Unless the studies can answer the question why do people who have been eating traditionally not only put on weight but also increase their likelihood of cancers, diabetes, stroke, heart disease and Alzheimer's when they swap to a modern diet then they are clearly missing something. Many groups of hunter-gathers, for example, eat heavily in the evenings.
No, but it does get said. I come down on the side of starchy carbohydrates - particularly refined ones - being the culprits.
Yes, I read the links you gave. The problem is that a lot of these studies are tinkering around the edges, studying effects on people who are already out of balance. Something went wrong with our entire way of eating - before take-aways and trans fats (although these can't help). Unless the studies can answer the question why do people who have been eating traditionally not only put on weight but also increase their likelihood of cancers, diabetes, stroke, heart disease and Alzheimer's when they swap to a modern diet then they are clearly missing something. Many groups of hunter-gathers, for example, eat heavily in the evenings.
I am inclined to agree with your regarding refined carbs e.g. white flour, white rice, white sugar. Eating refined carbs leads to carb cravings. Whole grains (e.g. brown rice) has its fiber content so is much less likely to contribute to obesity (if at all!)
Well, with hunter-gathers I think you will find that they eat lightly during the day (else it might impede on their ability to run fast etc) so eating heavily at night probably counter-balances out with calorie intake i.e. it would be inaccurate to suggest that there are no consequences for such indulgence for someone in our modern society (who is likely to be much less active).
Well, with hunter-gathers I think you will find that they eat lightly during the day (else it might impede on their ability to run fast etc) so eating heavily at night probably counter-balances out with calorie intake i.e. it would be inaccurate to suggest that there are no consequences for such indulgence for someone in our modern society (who is likely to be much less active).
Actually, (and this is mostly from studies of the bushmen, but also from Australian Aborigines, the Stefansson study of the Mackenzie River Inuit and Chagnon's study of the Yanamamo) hunter gatherers tend to graze through the day. The eating at night is a social event. And they tend to be noticeably less active that most of us. It's not a hard life. At least, it wasn't until modernity hit them.
Just read a book that reminded me of this thread. Has anyone else read Terence Kealey's "Breakfast is a Dangerous Meal"? He advocates missing out breakfast altogether.
Just read a book that reminded me of this thread. Has anyone else read Terence Kealey's "Breakfast is a Dangerous Meal"? He advocates missing out breakfast altogether.
That makes no sense logically. Fuel is needed for energy - missing breakfast is like running a tank on empty.
That makes no sense logically. Fuel is needed for energy - missing breakfast is like running a tank on empty.
By 'no sense logically' do you mean 'I haven't looked into the science, but I'm going to criticise it anyway'? People don't die of starvation if they miss a meal or two. Plenty of people fast for hours/days/weeks without 'running their tank on empty'. We are not cars, we are complex creatures with bodily systems that all work by homeostasis - why would food be any different? (And, of course, the studies show that it isn't any different.) Missing breakfast eliminates the insulin spike that eating breakfast causes.
I've been thinking about trying the intermittent fasting diet "16:8" The idea is that you fast for 16 hours with an 8 hour window for meals. I'd have something at 11am, with last food/meal at 7pm. I'm mentioning this because I don't believe in the breakfast myth - have never been particularly hungry in the morning and find that eating something often makes me want to eat more when I don't really need it! Everyone is different though, I think you have to find your own 'rhythm'.
I've been thinking about trying the intermittent fasting diet "16:8" The idea is that you fast for 16 hours with an 8 hour window for meals. I'd have something at 11am, with last food/meal at 7pm. I'm mentioning this because I don't believe in the breakfast myth - have never been particularly hungry in the morning and find that eating something often makes me want to eat more when I don't really need it! Everyone is different though, I think you have to find your own 'rhythm'.
If you want to look at the science behind fasting, a good book that covers it (lots of studies referenced) is Jason Fung's The Obesity Code. It's not just about obesity. He's a specialist in the liver and concerned about the number of patients presenting with fatty liver disease and diabetes. A lot of it is about insulin resistance.
By 'no sense logically' do you mean 'I haven't looked into the science, but I'm going to criticise it anyway'? People don't die of starvation if they miss a meal or two. Plenty of people fast for hours/days/weeks without 'running their tank on empty'. We are not cars, we are complex creatures with bodily systems that all work by homeostasis - why would food be any different? (And, of course, the studies show that it isn't any different.) Missing breakfast eliminates the insulin spike that eating breakfast causes.
Why do you resort to drama? I did not suggest that anyone would die of starvation in missing a meal. I thought you knew of my history of fasting (I have mentioned it on this forum enough times).
The insulin spike is surely related to what food is consumed, e.g. cereals and/or toast with marmalade/jam would probably produce this spike....I doubt that a boiled egg with a little buttered toast would do so, i.e. representing the macronutrients in balance.