breakfast?

[gigahertz123]

So I'm developing mixed opinions on breakfast.

I feel like I have been instructed that I need breakfast despite the fact that my body doesn't want it, and eating breakfast usually makes me hungrier during the day. It also makes it more difficult for me to maintain the caloric deficits I am trying to keep. I'm more satisfied with two larger meals than three smaller meals throughout the day.

Most days my breakfast is an EC stack and a multivitamin. Does anyone see any reason to change this?

[ArchangelEST]

I do not consume a traditional breakfast. www.leangains.com - Meal timing and frequency is largely irrelevant.

I cannot say anything about your EC stack and multi usage. Not really up to date on that. But multivitamin consumption is usually not needed and can possibly do more harm than good depending on what multi you are using and the rest of your nutrition.

[DerUbermensch]

I've always gotten a sore stomach from consuming a traditional breakfast, so I stopped eating it in high school. Now come to find out, they've created a diet protocol around not eating it.

Just skip it OP.

[gigahertz123]

I do not consume a traditional breakfast. www.leangains.com - Meal timing and frequency is largely irrelevant.

I cannot say anything about your EC stack and multi usage. Not really up to date on that. But multivitamin consumption is usually not needed and can possibly do more harm than good depending on what multi you are using and the rest of your nutrition.

The multivitamin is somewhat necessary for me because I am on blood thinners (coumadin) which is affected by large doses of vitamin K such as those found in leafy greens, so I am somewhat vitamin deficient otherwise. I'm using just a basic daily multi.

Repped for confirming what I was thinking. Any other input is appreciated!

[sunngodd]

Only thing I would change is taking the multi with food so you can absorb the fat soluble vitamins.

There's lots of dogma surrounding breakfast, none of it is true. Nail your calorie and macro goals for the day and you're golden.

[foodandfitness]

So I'm developing mixed opinions on breakfast.

I feel like I have been instructed that I need breakfast despite the fact that my body doesn't want it, and eating breakfast usually makes me hungrier during the day. It also makes it more difficult for me to maintain the caloric deficits I am trying to keep. I'm more satisfied with two larger meals than three smaller meals throughout the day.

Most days my breakfast is an EC stack and a multivitamin. Does anyone see any reason to change this?

OP, I wouldn't worry about eating breakfast if you don't like to. I personally don't feel hungry in the morning. I just have a glass of OJ in the morning just to get a little food energy, and then eat regularly when my appetite comes back. Do whatever suits you best.

[WonderPug]

I "breakfast" at lunchtime.

[OtisBDriftwood]

I do not consume a traditional breakfast. www.leangains.com - Meal timing and frequency is largely irrelevant.

I cannot say anything about your EC stack and multi usage. Not really up to date on that. But multivitamin consumption is usually not needed and can possibly do more harm than good depending on what multi you are using and the rest of your nutrition.

That's contradictory by itself.

[WonderPug]

That's contradictory by itself.

Can you elaborate.

[musikguy72]

That's contradictory by itself.

He's saying that when you eat your meals and how many meals in a day you eat (timing and frequency) play little to no part in body composition.
How is that contradictory?

[PushUp08]

I used to not be hungry in the mornings either, but I forced myself to start eating a little oatmeal and then gradually was able to eat a full meal. Now I can't do anything in the morning until I've eaten. I love me some breakfast

[ArchangelEST]

That's contradictory by itself.

I suppose you are referring to the fact that IF is a specific system which does somewhat emphasize a specific meal timing pattern?

Yeah. I am aware. But that's nitpicking.

[WonderPug]

I think the point is that IF works, 9 meals a day works, and everything in between works, as long as caloric balance and nutrient sufficiency are proper. Thus, meal timing and frequency are a function of preference.

[ArchangelEST]

I think the point is that IF works, 9 meals a day works, and everything in between works, as long as caloric balance and nutrient sufficiency are proper. Thus, meal timing and frequency are a function of preference.

Exactly. Just came in to edit my post to make it more clear, but beat me to it.

Bro's have been getting in top contest shape for decades on 9 meals a day and chicken breast and broccoli being the majority of their diet. While Martin's clientele are getting into an equally awesome shape on fasting the majority of the day, eating only a few meals and eating just about anything they desire....

So yeah. Meal choice, timing and frequency - all largely irrelevant. Over-all macros, calories and micro's matter.

[OtisBDriftwood]

Can you elaborate.

He's saying that when you eat your meals and how many meals in a day you eat (timing and frequency) play little to no part in body composition.
How is that contradictory?

Trying to refute the bros by structuring a plan based around his own window and time frame. It's almost the same sh*t with the difference being that it's even more ridiculous because it preaches that you go a sh*tload of hours without eating just for the sake of it.

brb i wanna go out with my girlfriend for a nice lunch but i'm on my fasting window lol
Give me a break!

Not saying it doesn't work because i wouldn't know but most of this crap preached around customized diets, lifestyles etc are just a piece of sh*tty marketing.

What about just eat when you want? What happened to the good ol' "i'm hungry, i'll just eat now!" ????

[OtisBDriftwood]

I think the point is that IF works, 9 meals a day works, and everything in between works, as long as caloric balance and nutrient sufficiency are proper. Thus, meal timing and frequency are a function of preference.

You got it, champ!

[OtisBDriftwood]

Personally i started for being a "bro", i sweared by "bro-science". I evolved and got to accept all types of dieting but even if stuff like IF works, i still find it completely absurd.
If you feel like not eating for 16-18 hours and then stuff your face in the rest of the day, more power to you but mehh! Being obsessed with timings, windows or whatever, is just not for me.
I can see how it works, i'm not disputing that. In the end of the day, get the essential macros and cals IN VS. cals OUT.

[Christiffer]

Trying to refute the bros by structuring a plan based around his own window and time frame. It's almost the same sh*t with the difference being that it's even more ridiculous because it preaches that you go a sh*tload of hours without eating just for the sake of it.

brb i wanna go out with my girlfriend for a nice lunch but i'm on my fasting window lol
Give me a break!

Not saying it doesn't work because i wouldn't know but most of this crap preached around customized diets, lifestyles etc are just a piece of sh*tty marketing.

What about just eat when you want? What happened to the good ol' "i'm hungry, i'll just eat now!" ????

I think IF helps some people because it helps them get out of the mentality that they have to eat every few hours or right when they get up. I now eat when I'm hungry, which 80% of the time falls into a IF timeframe. As long as you don't get OCD with the feeding window, than it's not as u described.

[Phrak]

I think IF helps some people because it helps them get out of the mentality that they have to eat every few hours or right when they get up.

Or it just switches the mentality to: I can only eat between 12:00pm and 8:00pm.

[ArchangelEST]

but even if stuff like IF works, i still find it completely absurd.
If you feel like not eating for 16-18 hours and then stuff your face in the rest of the day, more power to you but mehh! Being obsessed with timings, windows or whatever, is just not for me.

It's not really being obsessed about timing. I rarely keep a fixed "fasting" protocol myself. My fast varies from 12-16h actually. So I'm not a "strict IF-er" really. The point is that if I ate how much I WANTED to eat, I'd be a fat pig, because I'd stuff my face constantly.

With IF I find it nigh impossible to cram as many calories into my feeding window. It simply eliminates several hours of potential Binging time.

When I used to eat breakfast I'd be completely hungry by noon. And by the time I'd reach my evening meal, I'd be full on my calories, but still hungry. Now I eliminate breakfast, still get peckish at noon time, but now when I reach Evening, I still have a normal breakfast's worth of extra calories left over I can stuff in my face. So I can go to bed being completely stuffed... way better, than going to bed starving or having overeaten.

[Christiffer]

Or it just switches the mentality to: I can only eat between 12:00pm and 8:00pm.

Well if you already know that you can get results eating 6 meals spread out, then common sense says that an arbitrary 8 hour window isn't "necessary". Rather personal preference.

[OtisBDriftwood]

It's not really being obsessed about timing. I rarely keep a fixed "fasting" protocol myself. My fast varies from 12-16h actually. So I'm not a "strict IF-er" really. The point is that if I ate how much I WANTED to eat, I'd be a fat pig, because I'd stuff my face constantly.

With IF I find it nigh impossible to cram as many calories into my feeding window. It simply eliminates several hours of potential Binging time.

When I used to eat breakfast I'd be completely hungry by noon. And by the time I'd reach my evening meal, I'd be full on my calories, but still hungry. Now I eliminate breakfast, still get peckish at noon time, but now when I reach Evening, I still have a normal breakfast's worth of extra calories left over I can stuff in my face. So I can go to bed being completely stuffed... way better, than going to bed starving or having overeaten.

I guess do whatever it works for you.

My innitial point was only that it's hypocrite from the guy who innitially preached IF to discredit something (even if he's right) over his method that is also based on the thing he tries to discredit.

[musikguy72]

Personally i started for being a "bro", i sweared by "bro-science". I evolved and got to accept all types of dieting but even if stuff like IF works, i still find it completely absurd.
If you feel like not eating for 16-18 hours and then stuff your face in the rest of the day, more power to you but mehh! Being obsessed with timings, windows or whatever, is just not for me.
I can see how it works, i'm not disputing that. In the end of the day, get the essential macros and cals IN VS. cals OUT.

I must have misinterpreted the intention behind your first post because I completely agree with your last couple.

[Phrak]

Well if you already know that you can get results eating 6 meals spread out, then common sense says that an arbitrary 8 hour window isn't "necessary". Rather personal preference.

Right, but its just the way IF is structured and the cult like following. To many people in the IF thread worried about breaking the fast with some BCAA's or a shake.

[sunngodd]

ITT: Nuanced thinking is hard for some people

[Christiffer]

Right, but its just the way IF is structured and the cult like following. To many people in the IF thread worried about breaking the fast with some BCAA's or a shake.

Nice edit. Fair enough, we know how that thing called common sense is around here. I havent read the thread your talking about, but I can only imagine. For me personally it just helped me get over the fact that I had to eat at certain times.(now I can just eat when I'm hungry and make sure I hit my cal/macros before I go to bed) Like many have said before, IF isn't for everyone.

[ArchangelEST]

My innitial point was only that it's hypocrite from the guy who innitially preached IF to discredit something (even if he's right) over his method that is also based on the thing he tries to discredit.

It's an interesting logical mind-twister. But not really hypocrisy.

The existence of IF and the success stories coupled with it prove that the general BRO diet is not the only way to achieve results. From which any person with some logical sense will able to deduct that if both extreme methods (fasting vs 9+ meals a day) both work with similar degrees of efficiency, then everything else in-between will also work and that the frequency and timing of the meals cannot possible be a huge factor.

My argument of presenting IF is still a strong one. The easiest way to get through to people about their misconceptions is to present evidence of something completely contradictory/opposite being just as effective in achieving their results. They cannot combat that logic. They may try, but they will fail.

If instead I had just told him to read the stickies and that meal timing doesn't matter, we'd be in a big debate until he sees the light, or someone else actually posts www.leangains.com again.

[OtisBDriftwood]

I prefer the Otis diet. Off course is not advisable to everyone lol

[WonderPug]

ITT: Thinking is hard for some people

I fixed your post, which was previously too nuanced.

[MikeK46]

Most days my breakfast is an EC stack and a multivitamin. Does anyone see any reason to change this?

It's fine, assuming you don't get nauseous taking a multi on an empty stomach (many people do).