LADYSTARWIND, aw, thanks. You made me blush. ;) I couldn't agree more regarding diabetes and average American's diet. For most people, diabetes (type 2, anyway) would be easily avoided if the causes of it were better understood by the general populace, and the patterns of most people's eating were compared to the way a diabetic is supposed to eat. I try to eat as if I were a diabetic, most of the time, and it has made me so much healthier than I used to be, even when I'm not cutting calories. Based on my family's history, there's a good chance that I will be diagnosed eventually, but I hope to avoid it or at least make it less likely.
SLASALLE, some time ago, I googled around on the topic of "intermittent fasting." I do not encourage it, personally, and most sources that do are rather shady, but (if I recall correctly) there is a small amount of seemingly reputable information on the topic if you look deeply enough. It works on the laws of averages, which are pretty much the core of what Spark does, too, it just encourage people to go much lower in calories some of the time.
That said, the vast majority of it is your standard pseudoscience, and doing it supposedly "safely" requires a lot more attention to detail than most people will actually contribute. I personally find it both easier and safer to just work toward a regular deficit rather than intentionally avoiding virtually all nourishment, even if the time period is not particularly extensive, simply because that has virtually no risk associated with it. I also try to avoid things that could be triggering toward anything similar to the disordered eating patterns I experienced long ago, but it is possible, of course, that not everyone would have the same reaction.
Edited by: BITTERQUILL at: 7/15/2013 (16:22)
Fitness Minutes: (73,102)
9,683 7/15/13 2:55 P
MEGHAN1984 - Where are you getting your info that "breakfast even needing to be eaten is a myth."
SparkPeople stays very current with the latest medical information. I've not seen that anywhere. In fact, I still see the recommendation that because our bodies have been sleeping for hours, we are in NEED of fuel within a few hours of getting up (see this thread, earlier than your post, I believe, by our own registered Dietician Becky).
I'm not certain that I agree with fasting, period. You make very general statements without any specific information or links to information to back it up. Can you give us anything more specific?
Fitness Minutes: (29,239)
1,989 7/15/13 2:44 P
BITTERQUILL: Totally agree with you!! Your posts are always full of level headed, great advice which I enjoy reading....my apologies to you and any other posters I might have riled...if I came across a little far-out-left-field!
I think I was triggered more than usual by having just read yet another article about the explosion of Diabetes. It is so sad that people don't care enough---or know enough(!)--about themselves and how our bodies work to take very simple steps to help prevent it. Even if they don't want to actually go to the effort to lose weight--but just eat somewhat healthier and more wisely--they can still avoid the worst case scenarios...!
"For some of us...Pre-Diabetics and Diabetics...it does indeed matter when those 1500 calories are eaten!! All at once would absolutely devastate my blood sugar.....!!"
Oh, absolutely. I live with a diabetic, so even though I don't have the same effects, I know quite well how it can affect a person. I didn't mention that I was speaking of an otherwise healthy person without such an issue, but to clarify, that's what I meant. Pretty much all generalizations regarding health and weight loss come with such a disclaimer.
But even so, I wasn't talking about blood sugar. In terms of *weight loss* all by itself (not satiation, mood, blood sugar etc) it doesn't really matter, at least not much, what time you eat or whether you eat in one large amount or several small amounts. "Calories in vs calories" out really is the gist of it. Why anyone (in this case we were just talking about some hypothetical person) would *want* to eat all their calories at once is beyond me, though. I feel like crud if I try to do that...but I don't lose weight any slower unless it causes me to overeat.
Edited by: BITTERQUILL at: 7/15/2013 (15:44)
Fitness Minutes: (54,519)
3,342 7/15/13 11:30 A
here is what I do...
I just woke up at 11:00 so instead of eating breakfast, I will go straight to lunch, but count that as my breakfast. Then lunch becomes my dinner and dinner is a larger than normal snack.
Does that make sense?
When I am working, I just shift all of my meals to where I am eating dinner at 1 in the morning.
It doesn't matter what time you eat. Just eat healthy food at regular intervals during the day. Make sure you're getting enough sleep so you don't crave sugar to keep you awake at night!
Fitness Minutes: (29,239)
1,989 7/14/13 11:09 P
For some of us...Pre-Diabetics and Diabetics...it does indeed matter when those 1500 calories are eaten!! All at once would absolutely devastate my blood sugar.....!!
I agree that "clock time" doesn't matter....but evenly spacing intake of carbs makes a tremendous difference in controlling blood sugar levels. I believe that teaching people that "skipping meals is just fine" (even if you call it intermittent fasting), and then "eating it all at once", is part of the reason we have so many people developing diabetes....! Our bodies are not biologically suited to large, irregular intakes of calories...unlike a snake, we don't digest things slowly over several days.... patti
Edited by: LADYSTARWIND at: 7/14/2013 (23:11)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
11 7/14/13 10:50 P
That breakfast even needs to be eaten is a myth. Look into the principles of intermittent fasting.
Fitness Minutes: (9,122)
183 7/14/13 5:23 P
When I sleep in, I usually end up combining breakfast and lunch so I end up only eating 2 meals plus a snack.
I do it because I'm awake for less hours (since I'll still going to bed at the same time). If I was staying up later, like when I worked shift work, I'd just shift all the meals back a few hours. Breakfast at 11:30am, lunch at 3:30, supper at 9, and a snack somewhere in between.
The time that you eat doesn't matter. If you go to bed at 2 or 3am and sleep until 9 or 10am, breakfast at 11 is perfectly reasonable. Some people find that they do better (in terms of satiation and energy levels) if they eat within a certain amount of time of waking and on a schedule thereafter, but the actual time makes no difference either way. Your body doesn't magically store more calories after 9am.
In fact, the schedule itself doesn't actually make a *huge* difference in weight loss. You will probably feel better and have an easier time sticking to your goal if you eat small amounts regularly rather than one large meal once per day, but whether you eat 1500 calories all at once or in several smaller chunks of 300-500 calories apiece, it's still 1500 calories.
There is no weight loss recommendation that breakfast "must" be eaten before 9:00 am. Since you work late...get your needed sleep. When you wake up...try to eat within the first 2-3 hours of rising.
Becky SP Registered Dietitian
Fitness Minutes: (5,940)
225 7/14/13 3:02 P
I am having a bit of a problem recently with sleeping in. I work on a college campus, so I don't get to sleep until later in the night (or morning) and it is throwing off my breakfast schedule. I ate breakfast at 11 am today, and I have always been told to eat before 9 am. I just can't seem to get up that early considering I work really late. Should I skip breakfast, or shift all of my meals a few hours? I keep getting mixed answers.
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.