Big breakfast 'aids weight loss' | Hacker News Reader

Big breakfast 'aids weight loss'

news.bbc.co.uk

15 pointsswombat21 comments

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?

Totally agree. I actually did do what the article suggests, since I had been thinking it might work for a number of years before. I had always put off "front-loading my day", as I put it, because I had a stressful job and couldn't afford to be having diet-induced hunger pangs in that job.

But, since I work from home now, I was able to try it properly, and it worked really well. I had as big a breakfast as I could stomach (which isn't that big in the morning), and severely cut back on lunch and dinner. I tracked my weight and body fat % throughout this. Result? I lost about 10kg in 3 months, and 4.5% of body fat %.

And the best part: I felt very clear and energetic throughout the day - no diet-induced slow-downs at all, just the opposite of what I'd expected.

Now, I can't guarantee this was entirely due to a big breakfast, but it makes sense.

Yes this makes logical sense... First thing in the morning you've probably not eaten for 12 hours, that is literally why it is called "break fast". A high-quality, nutrient-dense breakfast is vital. Coffee and a pastry doesn't cut it for me any more. A big bowl of porridge with a handful of berries and a little maple syrup is just about perfect for me, a few simple carbs to kickstart my metabolism and complex carbs to power me 'til lunchtime.

When I have the opportunity I like to make it the old-fashioned way, soak the oats in warm water and a drop of vinegar overnight, then heat it up slowly in the morning, add a pinch of salt and a little butter (NOT margarine or "spread" or any of that modern rubbish). Yum.

I seem to have a ridiculously fast metabolism, so weight loss is luckily not something I have to worry about. (for now?) However, I have experimented with my diet a little, and for me, breakfast is basically essential. I can't function properly for the rest of the day if I don't have a proper breakfast, I end up being lethargic and unable to concentrate for the rest of the day. If I skip breakfast completely, I just end up snacking to avoid getting "the shakes" though, so that might be an extreme case.

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.

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)

Well, "big" is relative... Let's say I am targetting 2400 calories a day (YMMV), that is 6 meals of 400 calories. If I had 600 calories at breakfast and 200 mid-morning (this corresponds to say, a pot of yoghurt and an apple) I'm still operating within "normal" bounds. The aim here is to keep your energy supply as level as possible. If you have a spike in energy, your body will react by storing it as fat. If you have a dip, unfortunately your body won't immediately turn to fat, it will react by slowing your overall metabolism and you'll feel tired and lethargic. Remember that for your body fat is a precious resource to be be hoarded as much as possible. Eating a small dinner is a relative thing because traditionally (in the West at least) the evening meal is large, 400-500 calories of good food is plenty. In the evenings, because you are not going to eat all night, slow-digesting foods are best.

Diets fail because they are unnatural, similarly people get fat in the first place because they way they are eating is unnatural. Basically I am advocating using high-quality modern ingredients to replicate the nutrition preferred by our ancestors, not "as a diet" but as a lifestyle. If someone does this, in the right quantities for their metabolism (this can be determined as you say, experimentally), they can't help but be basically healthy. We're all the same species, after all.

Thank you, this is very helpful.

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.

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.

I'll check him out :-)

Oh, humans can go without food for days and then eat a whole lot of stuff in a short time.

Continuous food supply is a very recent comfort.

Yes, of course we can, but the result of doing that will be to optimize your body for doing that. Slow metabolism, lots of fat. Great for survival, not so great for the beach ;-)

You want your biggest meal to be in the morning. It kickstarts your metabolism and your productivity should improve.

The best information out there probably comes from "The Abs Diet" people at Men's Health. Note that they hate the word diet and this is more like a guideline. Also, consult with a nutritionist if you want specific needs (you can get free consultations through work, school, church, etc).

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.

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)

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...

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.

What goes into a 600-calorie breakfast? Sausages?

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.

Somebody must be from Britain ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com