151–160 of 189 posts
Well, magical or not, I do not want to be hungry until lunch.
The author doesn't get hungry before lunch. Maybe that seems weird to you, but it doesn't to me. I don't get hungry until lunch, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bodies don't always cooperate, if you are going to exercise strenuously in a given day you had better eat some kind of breakfast whether your body feels like it or not. I've done many multi-day hikes and a 24 mile one-day hike. I can confirm that eating breakfast before setting out in the morning is absolutely crucial. Like the old saying goes, an army marches on its stomach. I'm normally not hungry in the morning,…
> I've done many multi-day hikes, and a 24 mile one-day hike. I can confirm that eating breakfast before setting out in the morning is absolutely crucial. Like the old saying go, an army marches on its stomach. Shockingly, people are different. I much prefer a snack on the trail to breakfast before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anybody is telling you to eat when you are not hungry, check to see if they are selling something.
This is the kind of thing that sounds right but makes absolutely no sense at all Exactly because the sense of hunger is not correlated with the exact need to eat is that we have obesity. Eating only when hungry sounds like a good idea but then you get (usually fat) people complaining they are hungry all the time. An average adult will spend around 12h (and probably more) physiologically fine without food, until its g…
In terms of "consume" in general, there is an intense commercial pressure to get you to "consume" more. Oddly you don't see ads pressuring you to eat lunch or eat dinner, although Taco Bell used to advertise "fourthmeal" for a while.
'What made breakfast into a distinct meal dominated by cold cereal? Ad campaigns like the one that coined the phrase "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" in 1944.' http://priceonomics.com/how-breakfast-became-a-thing/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anybody is telling you to eat when you are not hungry, check to see if they are selling something.
This is the kind of thing that sounds right but makes absolutely no sense at all Exactly because the sense of hunger is not correlated with the exact need to eat is that we have obesity. Eating only when hungry sounds like a good idea but then you get (usually fat) people complaining they are hungry all the time. An average adult will spend around 12h (and probably more) physiologically fine without food, until its g…
The disconnect between hunger and the need to eat may be an artifact of the separation of flavor from nutrition in modern, engineered "foods". To me it seems that hunger must have evolved as a fundamental signal to do or not do exactly what it's about (eat) but that it's been disrupted by modern developments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, just because breakfast is a compound word doesn't mean it must exactly match the two words it is composed of. Spearmint isn't mint leaves tied to a spear, Carhop doesn't involve jumping in any way, and understand doesn't involve standing anywhere let alone under anything.
He's completely right, the origin of "breakfast" is ending your nightly fast. It's been in use since at least the 15th century, prior to that (Old English) morgenmete was used; morning meal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The fact that research shows that breakfast is actually beneficial for children is hand-waved away because 'reasons'. As a casual observer of this topic, it seems like breakfast is necessary for humans who want to grow: kids and people adding muscle mass. If you want to lose weight or maintain breakfast can probably be skipped.
>people adding muscle mass. There is a very large following of Intermittent Fasting in the bodybuilding community. Tens/hundreds of thousands of consistent weightlifters who do not eat breakfast or lunch and put on impressive mass. Your body doesn't care about daily fluctuations, calories in/calories out, count your macros. Fin. So I disagree with your casual conclusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any scientific evidence that carbs are bad? It seems to be true on the internet, but I would prefer to see some proper peer reviewed studies.
Carbs aren't bad, they're just calorie-rich, hard on the pancreas and less satisfying than not-carbs, so you eat more of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is fairly amusing. Or not. The effect of caffeine as an appetite suppressant is nowhere close to letting you skip a meal (that's what we are talking about when saying breakfast, not 5 corn flakes with a sip of milk). A lot of people take their tea/coffee without sugar and the calorie content of a table spoon of milk is negligible.
>The effect of caffeine as an appetite suppressant is nowhere close to letting you skip a meal I don't know what you mean by saying caffeine doesn't let someone skip a meal, no one is asking permission. Most can skip a meal with or without caffeine, but the caffeine would only help curb hunger pains in those few hours before lunch. I am not suggesting caffeine has some magical properties (though we all know it does).…
That is for a Cafe Misto, which is half-milk. Most people do not put nearly that much milk or cream in their coffee.