7 Reasons Why You Should NOT Eat Breakfast (Blog)

[hardestgainer]

For the benefit of people asking about protein this is the last blog article about it http://stronglifts.com/protein-daily-needs-myths-best-sources-protein/. Mehdi, do you still stand by this for the amount of protein required? I'm just trying to clear up confusion.

[kali]

dear mehdi,
so to elucidate what hardestgainer is asking, so if i weigh 173lbs, i need at least 173 grams of protein a day (and very tough to do even if i eat a lot, without powders) per your last blog article?, or, i need no more than 80-120 grams per brad pilon (or 80 grams for a thinner guy like me, and 120 grams for the huge people), who also goes on to say pretty much that all whey powders do is give me expensive piss ? (and in your last blog you do recommend whey)
(and to clarify: these examples are for building muscle, not maintenance)
otherwise, though, thanks for the info on fasting and how you don't lose muscle if you still exercise, that was good to know.

[Bman1]

Kali - I think the answer is in the studies listed in your longish post above. What I have read before and was repeated above is that the results from actual controlled studies show that those who participate in heavy lifting "need" between 1.6-1.8 g/Kg body weight. which works out to about .7 to .8 grams per pound. So, using the higher end number, at 173 pounds, you would "need" about 135 grams to help maximize muscle growth. The reason I am putting "need" in quotes is that the above numbers are for optimizing your protein intake and muscle growth. Let's say you only get 0.5 g/pound for some period. That doesn't necessarily mean that you will lose muscle, in fact you may still gain muscle but not as much as if you had gotten closer to .8 g/pound. On the other hand, there is no real harm in getting 1 or even 2/g pound but you will not get significantly greater muscle growth than if you only had 0.8 g/pound.

[Mehdi]

@hardestgainer
As I wrote earlier: with the 8 nutrition rules, you're cutting carbs. So you need to get your calories from somewhere. That's why the recommendation of 1g per pound of body-weight remains: how are you going to get your calories otherwise if you're eating low protein + low carbs?

So again: there really isn't anything that changes, 8 nutrition rules remain valid. It's just the reasons why we do what we know understand better. And the research it's backed up by allows us to understand why fasting works, and can even open door to vegeteranism for example.

@Kali
Check this: http://stronglifts.com/protein-daily-ne ... s-protein/ Diet at bottom is 200G protein, remove the whey and you have 17g. I don't use any whey neither, haven't since more than 1 year.

[kali]

thanks mehdi that helped a lot

[kali]

to bman1: this sounds good, and i guess it cuts it down the middle, its less than the full 1g/lb, but more than brads pilon's approach as well. thanks

[BangoSkank]

This blog has my outspoken approval and I just now joined the forum so that I could say so. Human's evolved for millions of years after *NOT* having compulsively eaten breakfast (we had neither fridges, Bob Evans, nor Wheaties to enable us to), having instead intermittently fasted most of their days, so seeing your recent blog post was a breath of fresh air compared to the more persistent so-called "conventional wisdom" I see coming from most other fitness professionals.

GREAT POST!

IF has done wonders for me and my clients.

One question: Do you train fasted? I do and I much prefer it. Anyone with doubts about IF affecting performance is welcome to watch me train after I haven't eaten for 17/18/19 hrs. I usually outsquat, outrun, and outperform everyone else.

I look forward to your future articles on IF and how they have changed your outlook on lifestyle and fitness.

Thanks Mehdi and great work over here!

-Tim Donahey

[atypical1]

This blog has my outspoken approval and I just now joined the forum so that I could say so. Human's evolved for millions of years after *NOT* having compulsively eaten breakfast (we had neither fridges, Bob Evans, nor Wheaties to enable us to), having instead intermittently fasted most of their days,

I've stayed out of this discussion until now because I have nothing for or against fasting. It's simply another way of eating to me and it's inherently no better or worse than any other but I disagree with this logic.

First, that we've evolved for millions of years without eating breakfast is unsubstantiated. We simply don't know what our ancestors did. Perhaps the first thing they did when they woke up was to eat. Nobody knows.

Second, just because we might have adapted to one part of our environment does not mean that it is the optimal condition for us. One could make the argument that our bodies (generally speaking) are becoming weaker over the generations as an adaptation to us not having to work as hard and having a sedentary lifestyle. But you wouldn't say that evolutionary change was better would you?

Again, I'm neither pro nor anti fasting. I don't fast but that's because I like to eat small meals and so getting all of my 4000 + calories would be tough for me to do if I limited my meal count. But let's not throw something that you can't substantiate like evolution into the argument. We should be sticking with science and actual experience.

james

[Kappe]

This blog has my outspoken approval and I just now joined the forum so that I could say so. Human's evolved for millions of years after *NOT* having compulsively eaten breakfast (we had neither fridges, Bob Evans, nor Wheaties to enable us to), having instead intermittently fasted most of their days,

Studies HAVE shown that our bodies are adapted to eating bigger, calorie heavy meals, early and less and less as the day passes.

Just one example.

In one study they analyzed how different daytime eating patterns affected our bodies. A group of volunteers were given the same meal but at different times of the day. On one occasion they were given most of their calories at breakfast time, and on another occasion most of their calories at supper time. Even though the meals were identical the level of glucose remaining in the blood after the evening meal was much higher. Blood glucose levels are an indication of how efficiently your body is clearing glucose and storing it for future use. High glucose levels after a meal among other things increase the risk of diabetes. The reason for the higher glucose levels later in the day is that our bodies are programed for eating most of our calories early in the day. We produce less insulin as the day passes and our body starts to get ready for sleep.

That's why the "our ancestors" argument is flawed. We can't tell with 100% certainty how our ancestors ate, but our bodies at this point in time are programed to eat most of the calories early in the day.

This however doesn't mean i completely disagree with mehdi (and others) on breakfast/fasting, but that's a completely diffretnt question Im just tired of hearing the ancestors argument

[Mehdi]

:mrgreen:

This blog has my outspoken approval and I just now joined the forum so that I could say so. Human's evolved for millions of years after *NOT* having compulsively eaten breakfast (we had neither fridges, Bob Evans, nor Wheaties to enable us to), having instead intermittently fasted most of their days, so seeing your recent blog post was a breath of fresh air compared to the more persistent so-called "conventional wisdom" I see coming from most other fitness professionals.

GREAT POST!

IF has done wonders for me and my clients.

One question: Do you train fasted? I do and I much prefer it. Anyone with doubts about IF affecting performance is welcome to watch me train after I haven't eaten for 17/18/19 hrs. I usually outsquat, outrun, and outperform everyone else.

I look forward to your future articles on IF and how they have changed your outlook on lifestyle and fitness.

Thanks Mehdi and great work over here!

-Tim Donahey

Thanks for the support.

On the breakfast natural/unnatural: human beings adapt to anything. So it doesn't really matter what we used to do, we can adapt.