Recent weight article in Psych Today

[Red_Nine]

Hey guys, I was reading this month's Psychology Today, you can tell it's the right issue because there's a blonde chick in leather lingerie and a mask on the cover

Anyways, there was an article concerning the successful habits of people who were able to lose and keep off weight, over 60 pounds for over 5 years. That's a lot, but I think the principles apply to even smaller weight losses.

The findings were that many types of diets were used, and almost any diet can work - low fat vs low carb, real food vs shakes and bars, etc., but that the successful ones had 2 things in common. 1) They exercised vigorously for at least 1 hour each day. 2) They ate breakfast.

The important point of (1) is that walking or golf isn't considered enough, it has to be strenuous. The point of (2) was that those who skipped breakfast ended up binging at lunch or snacking.

Just thought it would be something interesting for those trying to lose weight

[spade_of_aces]

good points man.
breakfast is so key its not even funny. People trying to burn fat often skip it cause they don't feel they need it and save on calories, but fail to realize:
1) breakfast is literally what starts your metabolism each day
2) eating breakfast makes you feel fuller and more satisfied all day long
3) breakfast gives you energy to get off your fat ass and go do shit that burns calories
4) breakfast is tasty and delicious

I figure its also worth noting that for long term success in keeping weight off, you need all kinds of exercise. Cardio is good at burning fat directly, but bad for helping you keep it off. You need to lift weights 3-4 times a week to build muscle which will boost your metabolism and help you keep that fat off. Also, things like golf or morning walks count as NEPA (non-exercise physical activity) and are great for burning extra calories but, like you said, shouldn't replace actual exercise

[Vapor]

While OP cited a reference you did not. Some corrections:

Originally Posted by spade_of_aces

1) breakfast is literally what starts your metabolism each day

No it doesn't. You metabolism doesn't stop at night.

2) eating breakfast makes you feel fuller and more satisfied all day long

No it doesn't. It makes you feel fuller and satisfied while it's in your stomach, or until limbic hunger kicks in.

I figure its also worth noting that for long term success in keeping weight off, you need all kinds of exercise. Cardio is good at burning fat directly, but bad for helping you keep it off. You need to lift weights 3-4 times a week to build muscle which will boost your metabolism and help you keep that fat off.

No it won't, at least not to a significant degree. It will stimulate appetite, however, which will make it easier to gain fat.

[spade_of_aces]

No it doesn't. You metabolism doesn't stop at night.

ok, that one was just shitty wording on my part. I know the body doesn't stop when we sleep, but I meant to say something along the lines of "breakfast gives a nice boost to the body's metabolism." Now, I dont have a specific study to back that up, but I've read that sentiment over and over in health magaizines and online articles: breakfast kick-starts your metabolism. I don't want to spread misinformation, especially within a field as intricate as dietetics. Any chance you could clear that up for me?

No it doesn't. It makes you feel fuller and satisfied while it's in your stomach, or until limbic hunger kicks in.

yeah, and people who eat regular moderate meals are less likely to get excessively hungry later and overeat. That whole process starts with a good solid breakfast; if you eat early in the day you feel full and you're less likely to get really hungry around noon and eat a crazy indulgent lunch. If we were worried about the effects of limbic hunger, then why even bother to eat at all while dieting if its only gonna make us want to eat more at a later time. Limbic hunger seems like more of a concern when it comes to "ill just have one cookie" sort of thinking... I'm sorry, but that line of thinking just doesn't make sense to me.

No it won't, at least not to a significant degree. It will stimulate appetite, however, which will make it easier to gain fat.

Now you really lost me. Muscle requires a greater caloric intake to maintain than any other type of tissue, thus the more muscle you have the higher your BMR will be and the more calories you'll burn in a day. Granted you probably wont be building much muscle in a hypocaloric diet, weight training 3 days a week is a must to maintain muscle mass and keep your metabolism strong while burning fat.

[Vapor]

Originally Posted by spade_of_aces

ok, that one was just shitty wording on my part. I know the body doesn't stop when we sleep, but I meant to say something along the lines of "breakfast gives a nice boost to the body's metabolism." Now, I dont have a specific study to back that up, but I've read that sentiment over and over in health magaizines and online articles: breakfast kick-starts your metabolism. I don't want to spread misinformation, especially within a field as intricate as dietetics. Any chance you could clear that up for me?

Scroll down to "Meal frequency and TEF" on this link
Leangains - Intermittent Fasting for Strength Training and Fat Loss

yeah, and people who eat regular moderate meals are less likely to get excessively hungry later and overeat. That's not how hunger works.
That whole process starts with a good solid breakfast; if you eat early in the day you feel full and you're less likely to get really hungry around noon and eat a crazy indulgent lunch. If we were worried about the effects of limbic hunger, then why even bother to eat at all while dieting if its only gonna make us want to eat more at a later time. Limbic hunger seems like more of a concern when it comes to "ill just have one cookie" sort of thinking... I'm sorry, but that line of thinking just doesn't make sense to me.

That's not how limbic hunger works. It goes away after 15 minutes. Periods of eating means insulin remains stable and people don't worry about "starvation mode" or "low blood sugar," or cravings.

Number of meals and when you eat them don't really matter. Personal preference or lifestyle should dictate.

Now you really lost me. Muscle requires a greater caloric intake to maintain than any other type of tissue, thus the more muscle you have the higher your BMR will be and the more calories you'll burn in a day.

This is one of those things people say that just doesn't have any basis in fact. Let's say a pound of muscle burned an extra 40 calories per day (that's the typical number that gets thrown around). Putting on 10 pounds of muscle would let you eat an extra 400 kcal/day. Not many calories, but a decent number.

But it's not true; a guy with 150 total pounds of muscle on his skeleton would burn 6000 kcal/day with zero activity. A mildly active person would have a caloric breakeven point of something like 8000 kcal/day. Impossible.

I'm not saying having muscle isn't important. Espeically if you are going to diet/cut, you'll want extra muscle because it'll get lost in the cutting process. It also makes you stronger, the lifting is good for your bones, chicks dig it, all good stuff. But any idea that the extra muscle is somehow burning any meaningful number of calories for you is simply not true. It is much, much easier to control via simply eating less food.

HTH

[jailhouse]

Originally Posted by Vapor

Scroll down to "Meal frequency and TEF" on this link
Leangains - Intermittent Fasting for Strength Training and Fat Loss


This is one of those things people say that just doesn't have any basis in fact. Let's say a pound of muscle burned an extra 40 calories per day (that's the typical number that gets thrown around). Putting on 10 pounds of muscle would let you eat an extra 400 kcal/day. Not many calories, but a decent number.


HTH

I only wish this was true. I could eat over 7,000cals a day then.

The underappreciated role of muscle in health and disease -- Wolfe 84 (3): 475 -- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

"every 10-kilogram difference in lean mass translates to a difference in energy expenditure of 100 calories per day, assuming a constant rate of protein turnover." That's only 10 calories for one kilogram of muscle, or a little less than 5 calories per pound

[spade_of_aces]

damn... thanks for the links. Here I was reading through bodybuilding forum after forum with the impression that more muscle significantly increased metabolism. Just goes to show you can never really trust the internet...

So just to get everything straight, is there any reason NOT to eat a bunch of small meals throughout the day, starting with a good breakfast when dieting? I get that TEF is a product of what you eat, not when you eat it, but it still seems like eating throughout the day is the better deal.