Nice People 12: Nice in Nice

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

I'm fine if I don't eat. If I do have breakfast, I'm famished by 12.

)

That's sort of a good, healthy sign following a modern diet.

Your 'metabolism' was awakened in the morning.

Even on v restricted diets, the earlier in the day one intakes a portion ofthe restricted calories the theoretically better it should be.


I too do much 'better' with no breakfast and can go 'some time' with out noticing I haven't eaten particularly if my fluid intake is up and I am drinking hot drinks even longer.

BUT, my metabolism IS Fooked. Officially.

If I had a wish it would be that pRents of children made them eat something, anything for breakfast everyday, just an apple, a cracker, anything ( though of course preferable something nutritious, a hard boiled egg to eat on the go if need be, even a glass of milk to wean themselves on to the habit) and that they themselves took up the habit, and maintained it. I wish, I wish, I wish, someone had made sure I had breakfast every day. With complex 'metabolic' problems it just might have made a difference. With so many more weighty people it might make a difference to wake up 'metabolism' processes earlier in the day.



The difference it might make might be staggering. Until you get Ill will something else it might never be a problem. I DO believe in not eating when you are nt hungry, but I also believe that in modern life we have confused our bodies a lot.

The more consultants I talk to about this the more the 'calories in/calories burnt' equation is clearly true but also a massive over simplification of what can be a tremendously long equation. For some it never equals, for others little alterations can make differences that make something that felt 'impossible" doable.

Nikkster

I love breakfast. Marmite time

PasturesNew

This was the Grade A idiot the RNLI had to rescue in the south yesterday http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727191/Hapless-sailor-trying-sail-America-14ft-dinghy-got-seasick-rescued-just-FIVE-MILES-Dorset-coast.html

PasturesNew

lostinrates wrote: »

...the more the 'calories in/calories burnt' equation is clearly true ...

It's the only bit I am mindful of because it's the only bit I can understand. Everything else is far too complex for me to get to grips with.

lostinrates

PasturesNew wrote: »

It's the only bit I am mindful of because it's the only bit I can understand. Everything else is far too complex for me to get to grips with.

For most people its the most important one

But its increasingly understood as oversimplified.

My Gastroenterologist was talking to me about interesting things with BMR's and things I had never heard or understood and can find almost no reference to on Internet. When I later discussed with physician he seemed surprised and said well, this is rarely discussed but yes, that's true...we don't understand why, or know why.....

( these sort of things apply to the very fat / obese and potentially to those with pcos and maybe some other dodgy hormones) They make the calories in / calories burnt not quite add up exactly right......but its what people say about the very obese. It will still work, of course, but not how I thought, because bmr is not how one expects it would be, How one is taught it is. GP doesn't know about this stuff he says. Gastro says his nutritionist/dietiion understands it but NHs ones I saw have not discussed it, and when I raised it with the ones this last time they didn't know what I was talking about.

GDB2222

Probably ruined a white linen top..blackberry sauce seeped through my pinnie and there is now a purple stain on both. Both are soaked in neat soda crystal fluid but I am not hopeful as it looks pretty fast.

One of the littlies fell asleep and wee'd on a sofa, so that cushion has been stripped and the covers washed. Parents were very apologetic but we were fine about and expect them to be the same as we age and pee on their furniture when we visit.

DW recommends Shout for the stain. Aren't biological powders good at enzyming these stains away?

And the second paragraph is so good it's worth repeating. A little close to home, though.

chewmylegoff

PasturesNew wrote: »

This was the Grade A idiot the RNLI had to rescue in the south yesterday http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727191/Hapless-sailor-trying-sail-America-14ft-dinghy-got-seasick-rescued-just-FIVE-MILES-Dorset-coast.html

He's got some way to go to beat the best. E.g.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2964235/Captain-Calamity-rescued-again.html

We got a bizarre letter from this chap at work once...

Nikkster

lostinrates wrote: »

For most people its the most important one

But its increasingly understood as oversimplified.

Makes sense to me. There is so much that goes on after food has been eaten - surely there must be plenty of scope for differences in how efficient we are at extracting energy from food (a role of different commensal bacteria has been shown here, I'd guess enzyme polymorphisms etc would also imoact?), how efficient we are at using it to keep biological process going etc etc etc. I guess maybe this is where hormones come in too?

Energy in v energy out is definitely an important one to control (as someone who is infiitely better at energy intake than energy expenditure), but there must be so much else at play.

PasturesNew

chewmylegoff wrote: »

He's got some way to go to beat the best. E.g.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2964235/Captain-Calamity-rescued-again.html

We got a bizarre letter from this chap at work once...

This fella, nicknamed the same, has a worse record. Rescued four times in four hours on one day.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266920/Britains-worst-sailor-dubbed-Captain-Calamity-gets-difficulties-FIFTEENTH-time-declines-help-lifeboatmen.html

... described as a ‘bloody menace’ by one harbour master, is believed to have run up costs of almost £40,000 for the charity after repeatedly flipping his boat while pursuing his hobby – or ‘pushing the boundaries of sailing’, as he puts it.

SingleSue

As someone who has to carefully control what goes in (and always have, even when dance training for hours and hours each day), I have always been convinced of much more at play than the simple calories in/energy out formula. Whilst others were gorging on chocolate, chips etc, even back then I had to make sure I didn't over indulge too much (although I did have some leeway and wriggle room, just not as much as some others!) and when I stopped dancing, things became even more difficult.

Take James as an example, he has to eat a huge amount each day for his weight not to drop even when energy expended is low, increase the energy expended and the calories needed becomes astronomic (more than the other 3 of us put together plus more). He hasn't quite worked out the calories/energy formula to actually put weight on enough to move out of the underweight catagory yet.

Then you have Josh, who actually does more activity than James and eats a lot less (he eats about 10% of what James eats in a day), yet he has weight issues. Ok, we now know the damage to his brain has an impact on this but it doesn't help with the actual issue of his size and a successful weight loss regime.

As for breakfast, I have one meal a day at around 10 in the morning and have found that this allows me to not only not put on weight but at times, reduce the weight by a tiny amount over time. Took some messing about to find the right time/amount but think I have finally cracked it...I'm down a dress size in the last 6 months. I can't increase my activity levels (in fact they are ever reducing as my mobility decreases), so have to carefully balance the intake to ensure the weight does not go up in response.