Nutrition

"Why does my breakfast make me hungry?" After someone asked me this question for who-knows-how-many times, I decided to delve deeper into the possible reasons and mechanisms. I thought it would be a good idea to share my thoughts on the subject with you.

This is quite a long article, but I hope it is interesting enough to keep your attention and interesting enough to teach you a few things.

My heart was in my mouth a few months ago when it seemed like there was overwhelming evidence for the benefits of breakfast, but I was able to disprove it.

Why does breakfast make some people hungry?

As mentioned earlier, it was not without reason that this question piqued my interest beyond what could be attributed to food choices. In questionnaires, clients often stated that eating in the morning made them hungry before lunch and that this was sometimes the case less than an hour after breakfast.

On Facebook, in emails and in conversations, similar anecdotal experiences were mentioned too frequently to be explained by mere coincidence - or to be dismissed with a half-hearted response based on the assumption that everyone ate an unhealthy breakfast.

These people hadn't eaten fruit loops and a peanut butter sandwich with a glass of orange juice for breakfast - you know, the average person's breakfast that would make anyone hungry an hour later.

No, these people had eaten a typical fitness athlete's breakfast that included all kinds of foods that most of us have eaten for breakfast at one time or another - oatmeal, dairy, eggs, etc. It was often a meal characterized by moderate to high amounts of carbohydrates and protein, relatively low amounts of fat, and usually a useful amount of fiber.

You can spend all day debating how healthy or unhealthy whole grains and dairy are, but the fact remains that these foods can't provide a blanket explanation for the fact that breakfast triggers hunger in some people.

Heck, all you have to do is google "why does my breakfast make me hungry", "hungry after breakfast" or "breakfast makes me hungry" and you'll see that the forums are full of people reporting similar experiences.

I would count myself as one of those people. Skipping breakfast was by far the best change I made to my diet when I started Intermittent Fasting in 2006.

Like many other Intermittent Fasting practitioners, breakfast was something really annoying for me and skipping it made a huge difference. Compared to before, dieting almost went by itself.

Not to mention the long-term maintenance of weight. No more counting down the hours until lunchtime and no more feeling like I was on a diet - regardless of whether I was actually dieting, maintaining my weight or gaining weight.

For me and many others, skipping breakfast keeps hunger at bay much better than eating something in the morning - as paradoxical as this may sound. This is of course very interesting to me as it's a damn strange thing. Why are some people better off not eating anything at all in the morning? How can it be that under these specific circumstances you are better off with zero calories than with hundreds of calories. It just doesn't make sense...

So I set about trying to find an answer to this question and eventually came up with a satisfying hypothesis regarding the mechanism underlying this mysterious post-breakfast hunger surge that so many of us feel.

The original article ended up being 12000+ words long and had an over-the-top ridiculously academic feel to it, branching off into all sorts of only remotely related topics. The article was far too long for most people's attention span and far too technical for most people's level of understanding.

So yesterday I sat down and rewrote the whole thing, trying to get it across in the same way I would explain the topic to my girlfriend or an invisible friend I've told the whole thing to a few times now.

Note: As for the term breakfast, in the context of this article, I mean breakfast in the traditional sense, i.e. breakfast right after getting up - and not in the original sense of the word as the first meal after an overnight fast.

Let's define hunger after breakfast

Trying to define hunger after breakfast is something completely pointless. It's something you'll understand immediately because you've had the same experience, or something that will make you wonder what the hell I'm talking about because you simply don't have that problem. I suspect most of my readers will fall into the first category, which is why I won't spend much time on an academic discourse explaining the phenomenon beyond what I've already done. Simply put, some people get hungry - very hungry - and experience cravings of varying intensity shortly after eating breakfast in the morning.

In the realm of scientific literature, scientists who specialize in research on appetite, hunger, and addiction make a distinction between the previously mentioned terms (i.e. hunger, cravings, etc.), but since hunger after breakfast is described by clients and on forums as a subjective experience, without more detailed research on my part, I would guess that most people are referring to the same phenomenon when they talk about hunger after breakfast and use terms such as cravings, feeling hungry, ravenous hunger, etc. Personally, I would describe this feeling as hunger in the sense that most people would use the term hunger.

Hunger after breakfast sets in sometime between morning and noon - usually 30 minutes to 2 hours after breakfast and doesn't usually manifest itself in any symptoms beyond noticeable hunger. However, some people have mentioned that irritability and an impaired ability to concentrate on tasks that require greater amounts of focus occur at the same time as hunger after breakfast.

An important point is that the same meal does not produce this early and/or pronounced hunger when consumed later in the day. Hunger after breakfast cannot be explained by differences in food choices, but by certain individual factors and their interactions with a time-dependent effect of food intake on hormonal profile and metabolism.

An introduction to cortisol

Cortisol is the main culprit when it comes to post-breakfast hunger. Most of you will probably associate cortisol with stress and muscle catabolism and consequently with 'bad' and 'avoidance'. While this is partially correct, it is largely incorrect.

Since "partially correct" is responsible for many of the bullshit nutrition myths out there, it's useless. People who claim that eating six meals a day will boost your metabolism and that fasting results in starvation mode are "partially correct" - but most of what they say is just nonsense.

Context is often key and this is especially true when it comes to cortisol - which is why I'm going to give a brief introduction to this complex and multi-faceted hormone here. There are almost as many different definitions of stress as there are myths out there about cortisol but in terms of the former, the definition that appeals to me most from a minimalist perspective is the following:

"Stress can be defined as any challenge to an individual's homeostasis that necessitates an adaptive response by that individual."

Newport & Nemeroff, 2002.

Cortisol is released in response to a stressor to help you deal with that stressor efficiently - whether that stressor is a 20 repetition set of squats to complete exhaustion or an approaching deadline for an article that needs to be published. The role of cortisol during these challenges is to give you a boost, not to hinder you - whether the stressor is physical (e.g. training, injury, cold) or psychological (e.g. a complex cognitively demanding challenge).

Elevated cortisol levels during exercise allow us to go far beyond our non-stressed comfort zone and maintain an adequate rate of exertion without being unduly distracted by pain, hunger and fatigue for a longer period of time than would otherwise be the case. Cortisol improves muscle and glycogen metabolism, increases pain tolerance, reduces fatigue and boosts motivation.

Oh yes, does this answer the questions of those who have asked me about my thoughts on the use of cortisol blockers before training? No? Okay, then all I can say is good luck with those squats buddy....

Because of the cortisol response to a cognitive challenge, we can remember important facts faster and in more detail, maintain our concentration, stay alert and work on the computer all night if necessary. Cortisol improves our sensory perception, memory and alertness.

Most of this is covered in Robert Sapolsky's excellent book, Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers, in which he also explains when and why cortisol becomes bad for us. In short, prolonged stress results in chronically elevated cortisol levels, which then do all kinds of bad things. There is a time and a place for cortisol. But in our hectic times, the thin line between work (stress) and leisure (rest) is often blurred.

With constant demands placed on oneself, never-ending obligations and endless opportunities to work (at the office, at home, etc.), the stressors of modern society are of great psychological variety and they are omnipresent if you allow them to be.

In stark contrast, the stressors of the past were more often short-term and physical in nature. Even though these were probably more serious and often life-threatening, there was a clear line between start and finish. And this explains the title of Sapolsky's book, which I cannot recommend enough and which should be read by anyone seeking a more detailed explanation of stress and the work of cortisol.

What Sapolsky does not explain in detail, however, is the cortisol response upon waking and the acute effects of cortisol on insulin secretion.

The cortisol response after waking up

Most people understand the concept of exercise and work as stressors - challenges to homeostasis - that require an adaptive response (cortisol). However, few people think of waking up after sleep and getting up in the morning as a particularly stressful event. However, waking up after sleep is indeed a major challenge to homeostasis.

The transition from a passive state of sleep to an active state of wakefulness is - in some ways - like going from a leisurely walk to a sprint where you have to give it your all. In the field of endocrinology, there is a special name for the events that follow waking up in the morning: The Cortisol Awakening Response (CAR - in German Kortisol Aufwachreaktion), on which there is a substantial amount of scientific research.

"Awakening stimulates ACTH release in the pituitary gland, which then stimulates cortisol release by the adrenal cortex. The rapid increase and peak in cortisol levels after waking is known as the Cortisol Awakening Response (CAR). Although CAR is believed to be part of the cortisol diurnal rhythm, CAR and cortisol diurnal rhythm represent two separate adrenocortical activities."

Shin et al, 2011.

As the body prepares to start the day, cortisol levels begin to rise steadily during the second half of the night, reaching a peak around the time you open your eyes. But as you struggle to get out of bed, cortisol levels continue to rise on the way to the shower. They will peak around 30 to 45 minutes later, which is around breakfast time.

We have now reached a key point in this hypothesis behind post-breakfast hunger, as the precise timing of the peak cortisol circadian rhythm (CAR) and the consumption of breakfast have some very interesting effects on insulin secretion.

The cortisol awakening response and insulin secretion

So you've showered, gotten dressed for the day and done all the things you do in the morning that are none of my business and now you sit down to eat your breakfast before work, school or whatever. I'm guessing it's now 30 to 45 minutes after you get out of bed, if you're like most people.

By the time you sit down to eat - or sometime around that period - your cortisol levels will be at their highest of the day, which should be around 20-30 nmol/l. In comparison, cortisol levels in the evening are around 2-5 nmol/l, which corresponds to the lowest value of the cortisol daily rhythm, if you're interested in the numbers. Of course, cortisol levels could rise further later in the day depending on the amount of stress you are exposed to, but this has nothing to do with our analysis.

"The early insulin response to a meal is higher in the morning than in the afternoon and this fact can only be partially explained by a moderate increase in incretin secretion. Rapid non-genomic effects of high cortisol levels in the morning may be at least partially responsible for this observation."

Vila et al, 2011.

The point is that the peak of the cortisol diurnal rhythm coincides with breakfast and that this is the only time during the day when cortisol levels reach sufficiently high levels to have an acute and marked effect on the food-induced insulin response.

If this sounds vague to the endocrinology enthusiast and those familiar with cortisol, let me briefly explain in plain language. What I mean here is that during the CAR maximum, cortisol levels rise high enough to "tantalize" the glucocorticoid receptors. This changes the non-genomic interaction between cortisol and insulin action from a suppression by the former, as can be observed at other times during the day due to mineral corticoid binding dominance, to a non-genomic stimulation or synergistic effect (Vila et al., 2010; Dallman et al., 1995)

If the last paragraph doesn't make much sense to you, then you now know why I had to rewrite and simplify the entire article.

Short-term* exposure to cortisol significantly increases insulin secretion and this is the key point here.

* As opposed to long-term exposure, which has the opposite effect.

Stop guessing and start calculating. This guide to calculating calorie needs includes numerous formulas for calculating your basal metabolic rate and advice on macronutrient intake.

The goal of this article is to provide you with guidelines that will help you determine not only how much food you should eat per day, but also how you should divide your three macronutrients - protein, carbohydrates and fats.

We will cover common terms and definitions in combination with formulas that can help you get on the right track. Before we start with this information, I would advise you to take a week or two to examine your current eating habits. Write down everything you eat and find out how many calories, how much protein, how many carbohydrates and how much fat you consume each day.

This will take some time and work, but it is necessary. If you don't know the portion sizes and the calorie and nutrient compositions of the foods you eat, then the information in the rest of this article won't matter or help.

Calorie consumption - from basal metabolic rate to total daily calorie consumption

The basal metabolic rate (BMR)

Basal metabolic rate is basically the amount of calories you would need each day if you didn't exercise all day and only needed minimal amounts of energy.

Basal metabolic rate is often confused with the amount of calories you should consume each day. This is not the case unless you are bedridden. The basal metabolic rate is a baseline value if you are not doing any physical activity.

NEAT

The term NEAT stands for non-exercise activity thermogenesis and describes the amount of calories you consume on a daily basis through non-planned exercise. NEAT includes things like walking around at work, going shopping or doing household activities. NEAT includes unplanned cardio or workouts with weights.

You typically have control over the calories consumed that are part of the NEAT. You can choose not to go shopping or not to clean the house, etc.

Exercise-induced thermogenesis (EAT)

Exercise-induced thermogenesis describes the amount of calories burned daily through planned exercise. Exercise-induced thermogenesis does not include activities such as going shopping or walking to work. Only your cardio training, your training with weights, Zumba training sessions, etc. are tolerated here.

The thermic effect of food (TEF)

The thermic effect of food is the amount of energy burned directly through food intake and digestion. The thermic effect of food will vary based on the fiber content and macronutrient composition of the meal.

The thermic effect of food is expressed as a percentage of the total calories of a meal. The thermic effect of food in a typical meal is around 15%. A protein-only meal can have a thermic effect of up to 25%, while the thermic effect of fat is typically less than 5%. Carbohydrates fall somewhere in the middle and can range from 5 to 25%. Fiber also has a high thermic effect.

Total daily calorie consumption

Total calorie expenditure is the combination of basal metabolic rate, NEAT, exercise-induced thermogenesis and the thermogenic effect of food. This is the total amount of calories you burn in a given day.

Total calorie expenditure = BMR + NEAT + EAT + TEF

Factors that influence basal metabolic rate and total daily calorie expenditure

Here are some of the most important factors that influence your total daily calorie expenditure:

• Testosterone levels - Long-term declining testosterone levels can lower your basal metabolic rate.
• Gender - Men generally have a higher basal metabolic rate than women.
• Health - If you are sick or injured, you typically don't move as much
• Puberty - If you are growing rapidly, you are likely to consume more calories than normal.
• Pregnancy - Pregnancy will increase your calorie consumption.
• Weight - The heavier you are, the more energy you will use to maintain your weight.
• Muscle tissue - Extra muscle tissue will increase the amount of calories you consume each day.
• Occupation - Do you have a desk job or are you constantly on your feet and moving around a lot?
• Exercise - Exercise obviously influences exercise-induced thermogenesis.
• Nutritional composition - The composition of your diet influences the thermogenic effect of food (TEF), which can increase or decrease your total daily calorie consumption.
• Unplanned physical activity - Are you a person who moves a lot or do you sit in front of the TV all evening?
• Body temperature - The higher your body temperature, the more energy you burn.
• Thyroid hormone levels - High thyroid hormone levels increase the basal metabolic rate.
• Caffeine and tobacco - Caffeine and tobacco consumption can increase your basal metabolic rate.
• Climate - If you work or sleep in an environment that is slightly warmer or cooler than normal, this will lead to higher energy expenditure.
• Stress - When you are stressed, this usually leads to an increase in energy expenditure.

Estimating your basal metabolic rate

Below are several methods used to determine your daily calorie needs.

Katch-McArdle BMR formula

The Katch-McArdle method is considered a reliable method for estimating your basal metabolic rate if you are relatively lean and have a fairly accurate estimate of your body fat percentage. The equation is:

Basal Metabolic Rate = 370 + (21.6 x lean body mass)

The fat-free body mass in kilos corresponds to your total weight minus your fat weight and is calculated using the formula

Fat-free body mass = weight - ((body fat percentage in % /100) * weight)

Cunningham formula for the basal metabolic rate

This is another formula that assumes you know your body fat percentage.

Basal metabolic rate = 500 + (22 x lean body mass)

Activity multiplier - calculating your total calorie consumption

Now that you have calculated your basal metabolic rate, you can multiply it by one of the following factors based on your activity level to get your total calorie consumption.

• Sedentary - Basal Metabolic Rate x 1.2: You don't get much exercise at work - desk job. After work, you spend the evening on the couch in front of the TV.
• Slightly active - basal metabolic rate x 1.375: Some daily activity plus some exercise 1 to 3 days a week.
• Moderately active - basal metabolic rate x 1.55: A reasonable amount of daily activity plus exercise 3 to 5 days a week.
• Very active - Basal metabolic rate x 1.725: You are very active and you exercise 6 to 7 days a week.
• Highly active - basal metabolic rate x 1.9: You are extremely active, including up to two training sessions per week and/or have a very physically demanding job.

These figures are only intended to give you a rough estimate. The first 2 weeks on a new calorie level may result in abnormal weight gain or weight loss as your body may either retain or excrete water due to changes in sodium and carbohydrate intake. Don't worry about the weight you gain or lose during the first 2 weeks of a bulking or definition phase as long as these changes are not abnormal.

After these 2 weeks, you should monitor your weight and make minor adjustments based on your goals.

Macronutrient intake

Now that you know how many calories you will be eating per day, it's time to determine the macronutrient composition of your diet. These macronutrients are protein, fat and carbohydrates.

• Protein - Contains 4 kcal per gram
• Fat - Contains 9 kcal per gram
• Carbohydrates - Contains 4 kcal per gram

Fat intake

Fat will not make you fat. Your body needs a reasonable amount of fat for overall health. Total fat intake should make up 20 to 35% of your total calorie intake.

If you feel you can function on higher amounts of carbohydrates, then a fat intake in the range of 20 to 25% of total calories could be an option. If you are struggling to eat enough food or if you react badly to carbohydrates, then a higher fat intake is recommended.

Protein intake

Protein intake can be a controversial topic. Some people claim that you should never eat more than 150 grams per day. Although the effectiveness of consuming more than 150 grams of protein per day for muscle building is questionable, there are certainly a number of other reasons to eat more than 150 grams.

A higher protein intake is perfectly safe and harmless if you do not suffer from kidney disease. If you are underweight or in a bulking phase and building muscle quickly, I recommend 200 to 250 grams of protein per day depending on your calorie consumption.

If you are eating a ton of calories per day, then you should up your protein intake to 250 grams. If your calorie intake is around 3000 kcal, then 200 to 220 grams of protein per day might be a good option. I would also like to note that if you have already built up a lot of lean muscle mass or are dieting, it may make sense to eat a little more protein than normal.

For exercisers who are building muscle at a moderate rate and doing some sort of slow and clean mass-building phase, 180 to 220 grams of protein per day is a good choice. Ultimately, you should adjust your protein intake based on your calorie needs and/or dietary preferences.

Women should consider a protein intake of 100 to 120 grams per day. If you are a younger and/or highly active woman, you should consume 120 grams of protein per day.

Carbohydrate intake

Now that you have determined your protein and fat intake, you can easily calculate your carbohydrate requirements by subtracting the amount of protein and fat calories from your total calorie intake and dividing the result by 4.

Keep in mind that you can adjust these values as needed based on what your body is telling you. I functioned better with more carbs when I was younger and function better with more fat in my forties.

Listening to your body is very important. Remind yourself to make small, incremental changes so that you can more easily assess your future needs.

You could just as well call this article "the top ten diet myths debunked", which would fit just as well. However, many of these diet myths (meal frequency, skipping breakfast, etc.) are also associated with intermittent fasting.

Anyone who learns about nutrition using the "usual channels" - be it fitness magazines, mainstream diet books or internet forums - will be confronted with what is currently considered the universal "belief system" about what constitutes a good diet.

While specific dietary recommendations may depend slightly on who you listen to, there are many common denominators and "rules" that you are told you must follow. Call it hearsay, incompetence or ignorance - it all boils down to the same thing. We've all been in this situation and we've all followed these rules. Even though these diet myths are primarily rampant in the bodybuilding and fitness community, many of them are also propagated ad nauseam in the mainstream media. On closer inspection, however, the vast majority of these myths lack a scientific basis. They are born out of half-wisdom, false conclusions from poorly conducted studies or studies cited in the wrong context. Sometimes what is claimed is exactly the opposite of what is really taking place on a physiological level. For example, many people believe that alcohol makes you fatter than any other macronutrient. However, if you look at how inefficiently the body converts ethanol into fat, it is the other way around. In this context, it should also be mentioned that the alleged negative effects of alcohol on muscle growth are not mentioned anywhere in the scientific literature.

You will see similar examples in this article. For example, it is often claimed that short-term fasting decreases the metabolic rate - but if you look at studies on the subject, the exact opposite is true.

The myths I want to debunk today are kept alive by the following:

1. Repetition: repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth. If everyone says the same thing, then it must be true. There is no need to question it and think for yourself. The fact that bodybuilders and fitness stars continue to propagate these myths doesn't help either. Most people believe that if these people are doing it, it must be great. Unfortunately, bodybuilders and fitness stars may be the last people on earth you should listen to if you want objective and accurate opinions on nutrition.
2. Commercial forces: The supplement industry benefits greatly from people who believe that regular meals provide metabolic benefits. People don't have the time to eat six cooked meals a day. Instead, they turn to meal replacement powders, shakes and protein bars. The cereal industry benefits greatly from preaching the benefits of breakfast for weight control, health and fat loss. There are no commercial benefits from telling people that they would do just as well with three full meals.
3. Few people have the knowledge or interest to interpret scientific studies and draw their own conclusions: To do this, you would need an academic background that includes critical examinations of studies and study methodologies as part of the learning process.

However, an academic background or existing education in nutrition or physiology rarely seems to correlate with objectivity and honesty in the field of nutrition, in my experience. The advice and claims I have seen from many registered dietitians have been so flagrantly false that I have little confidence in what they say. The same is true of many "nutrition gurus" and so-called health experts with a solid list of academic credentials.

That these people, who should know better, continue to repeat the same myths is astonishing and strange. Perhaps they have lost interest in keeping up with the latest research. After all, what we know today is more than a little different from what we knew 20 years ago. Or maybe they're afraid that their credibility might be called into question if they revise the advice they've been giving for years? I've been thinking about this issue for a long time. But I'm going to digress. Back on topic.

The top ten (intermittent) fasting myths debunked

The dietary recommendations and advice given to us by the mainstream media and most forums will have you believing that fasting is an unhealthy practice. In addition to ruining your metabolism, you should expect uncontrollable hunger, fat gain, muscle loss and serious mental impairment. At least that's what they tell you. Needless to say, people seeing Leangains and the Intermittent Fasting concept for the first time have many fears that make them think twice about whether they really want to try it. Fears that are based on years of dietary indoctrination based on false ideas and lies. We've all been there.

I've listed below the ten most common fasting and dieting myths that exist to make people resistant to Intermittent Fasting. I've explained why they're false and linked studies and other sources for those looking for detailed information on the topic. I've also described the origin - or what I believe to be the origin - of these myths.

I've dealt with all of these myths before, but I thought it would be good to have it all in one place. Even if you've been following my articles for a while, you'll find some new information here that I haven't talked about in the past. This will be a long article, but it's worth the time.

Myth 1: Eat regularly to ignite the metabolic fire.

The Truth

Every time you eat something, your metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the so-called thermic effect of food. The amount of energy you expend is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients you consume during that meal.

Let's assume that we measure the thermic effect of food over 24 hours with a diet of 2700 kcal consisting of 40% protein, 40% carbohydrates and 20% fat. We perform three different runs where the only factor that changes is the meal frequency.

• A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.
• B) Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.
• C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.

What we will see is a different pattern of the thermal effect of the food. Example "A" would cause a stronger and longer lasting increase in metabolic rate, which would slowly decrease until the next meal. The thermal effect of the food would have a wavelike pattern. Example "C" would result in a weak but consistent increase in metabolic rate, while pattern "B" would be somewhere in the middle. At the end of the 24 hour phase - or as long as it would take to absorb these nutrients - there would be no difference in the thermic effect of the food. The total amount of energy consumed by the thermic effect of the food would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect the overall thermic effect of food. You cannot trick the body into burning more or fewer calories by manipulating meal frequency.

The most extensive study review on meal frequency and the thermic effect of food was published in 1997. This review looked at many different studies comparing the thermic effect of food at different meal frequencies, ranging from one to 17 meals per day, and concluded: "Studies that used whole-body calorimetry and doubly labeled water to look at total energy expenditure over 24 hours found no difference between continuous munching and one large meal per day." Since then, no study has refuted this.

Just recently, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, this study found no difference between lower (3 meals) and higher (6 meals) meal frequency. This study got some attention in the mainstream media and it was nice to see the New York Times debunk this diet myth.

The origin of the myth

Looking at how conclusive and clear the study evidence is on meal frequency, you might wonder why some people, very often even doctors and dietitians, repeat the myth about firing up the metabolic fire and recommend eating small regular meals. I suspect that they have somehow misunderstood the thermic effect of food. Ultimately, they are technically correct when they say that you will keep your metabolic rate elevated if you eat regularly. However, they forget the critical part where it is explained that the thermic effect of food is proportional to the amount of calories in each meal consumed. Another assumption is that they are basing their advice on some epidemiological studies that show an inverse correlation between meal frequency and body weight in the general population. This means that scientists look at the dietary patterns of thousands of individuals and find that those who eat more frequently tend to weigh less than people who eat less often. It's important to emphasize that these studies were not controlled for calorie intake and were conducted with average people (i.e. normal people who don't count calories and eat spontaneously like most people).

There is a saying that correlation does not imply causation and this warrants further explanation as it also explains many other nutrition myths and misinterpretations. Just because there is a link between low meal frequency and higher body weight does not mean that low meal frequency causes weight gain.

These studies likely show that people who tend to eat less often have poorly regulated eating patterns - the type of personality who skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, eats too little during the day and eats too much in the evening. This type of person is less concerned about their health and diet than the type of person who eats more often.

Another plausible explanation for the link between low meal frequency and higher body weight is that skipping meals is often used as a weight loss strategy. People who are overweight are more likely to be on a diet and eat fewer meals. The link between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general public and vice versa is related to behavioral patterns - not metabolism.

Myth 2: Eat smaller meals more often to better control your hunger

The truth

Considering how important it would be to find the best meal pattern to control hunger and appetite, there is a surprising lack of studies on the subject. The most commonly cited study is one in which overweight men were given 33% of their daily calorie needs either all at once or in the form of 5 separate meals before being allowed to eat as much as they wanted 5 hours later. A: A single meal was consumed. 5 hours later, subjects were free to eat as much as they wanted "buffet style". B: Same setup as before. However, the single meal was now split into 5 smaller meals, consumed every hour until the meal where subjects were free to eat as much as they wanted.

The results showed that subjects from scenario "A" consumed 27% more calories when they could eat as much as they wanted. The same setup was carried out by the same scientists with lean men and can produce similar results. On closer inspection, however, it quickly becomes clear how little these scenarios are transferable to the real world. The macronutrient composition of the one or five meals before the free meal was 70% carbohydrates, 15% fat and 15% protein in the form of pasta, ice cream and orange juice. The situation created was extremely artificial and abnormal. Who sits around eating pasta and ice cream and drinking orange juice every hour before a regular meal? The latest research, conducted under conditions that more closely resembled a real-world scenario, shows exactly the opposite result. In this study, three high-protein meals led to greater satiety and better appetite control than six high-protein meals. There is no doubt that meal frequency is highly individual. Absolute statements claiming that smaller meals are better in terms of hunger and appetite control are simply not true and are based on studies using methods that are very different from real-life situations. Current research using normal meal patterns and normal protein intake, which is closer to what can be observed in the context of a diet that is not completely dumbed down, suggests better appetite control when eating a smaller number of larger meals.

The origin of the myth

This myth may have its origins in the limited amount of data from studies on meal frequency and appetite control. It is also likely that this is another case of confounding correlation and causation from studies and meal frequency and higher body weights - if people who eat often weigh less, then this must mean that they are better able to control their hunger, etc.

Myth 3: Eat smaller meals to keep your blood sugar levels under control

The truth

According to legions of nutrition and health "experts", eating smaller meals more often will help you avoid hunger pangs, give you more stable energy levels throughout the day and keep you mentally sharp. But contrary to what many people believe, blood sugar is extremely well regulated and kept within a narrow range in healthy people. It won't fluctuate wildly up and down and it won't drop sharply if you don't eat for a few hours. This will not be the case even if you go a day or even a whole week without food. People seem to think that they will suffer from extreme hunger and extreme mental impairment if they don't eat so often. Think for a moment about the evolutionary consequences for human survival if this were true. Considering that regular periods of fasting and even famine were a natural part of life in the past, it is unlikely that we would be here today if we had not been able to function when finding food was most critical. I've seen healthy young men - bodybuilders in most cases - complain of lethargy and impaired mental function when they hadn't eaten for just a few hours. This is completely absurd. But I digress...

Maintaining blood sugar levels is a very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways to ensure this even in extreme circumstances. If you were to fast for 23 hours and then run for 90 minutes at 70-75% of your VO2max, your blood sugar would be the same after the run as it was before. It would take no less than 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state - and even this would only be temporary as your brain would adapt to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting or serious calorie restriction, blood sugar will remain within a normal range and no marker of cognitive performance will be affected.

What about the relationship between blood sugar and hunger? Blood glucose is one of the many short-term feedback mechanisms used to control hunger and the prevailing notion that low blood glucose causes hunger is incorrect. Low simply means within the lower normal range. This is dependent on many factors including habitual diet, energy intake and genetic predispositions.

Probably most important is the issue of trained meal patterns, which are regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. Basically, this means that your blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar problems and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it explains why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.

The origin of the myth

I'm not sure how people came to believe that skipping meals would negatively affect them. There is some truth in the statements about blood sugar and hunger, but this is often taken out of context. There is no need to eat regularly to maintain blood sugar levels as they are very self-regulating and will adapt to whatever meal pattern you choose.

Myth 4: Fasting puts the body into "starvation mode"

The truth

Efficient adaptations to famine were important for survival during harsh times in our evolution. Reducing the metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to survive longer and increased the likelihood of finding food in time. However, starvation in this context means starvation in the truest sense of the word. It does not mean skipping a meal or not eating for 24 hours. Or even not eating for three days. The view that skipping meals or short-term fasting triggers a "starvation mode" is therefore so ridiculous and absurd that I would like to jump out of the window at such statements.

After looking at numerous studies on this topic, there was an 8% reduction in resting metabolic rate after 60 hours of fasting at the earliest. Other studies come to the conclusion that the metabolic rate is only affected after 72 to 96 hours without food.

Seemingly paradoxically, the metabolic rate increases even during short-term fasting. Some studies have observed an increase in metabolic rate of 3.6 to 10% after 36 to 48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al).

This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline and noradrenaline) sharpen the mind and make us more active. These are desirable qualities that encourage us to search for food, increasing the likelihood of survival. At some point after several days without food, this preference is no longer useful for survival and would likely do more harm than good. Instead, an adaptation that favors energy conservation has been shown to be beneficial. This is why metabolic rate is increased during short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).

I have also chosen extreme examples to show how absurd the "starvation mode" myth is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context in which this term is thrown around.

The origin of the myth

I guess some genius once read that fasting or starvation causes the metabolic rate to drop and concluded that even skipping a meal or going without food for a day or two causes the metabolism to go into starvation mode.

Myth 5: Maintain a steady supply of amino acids by eating protein every 2 to 3 hours. The body can only absorb 30 grams of protein per meal

The truth

Whenever you hear something really crazy, ask yourself if it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. This is a great way to quickly find out if something is true or if it's more like a steaming pile of horseshit. This myth is an excellent example of the latter. Do you think we would be here today if our bodies could only use 30 grams of protein per meal?

The simple truth is that more protein simply takes more time to be digested and used. The digestion of a standard meal, for example, is not complete even after 5 hours. Amino acids are still being released into the bloodstream and absorbed by the muscles. You are still in an anabolic state. This was the case with an average meal: 600 kcal, 75 grams of carbohydrates, 37 grams of protein and 17 grams of fat. And the best of all? This was after eating a pizza - a processed food that should be absorbed relatively quickly.

How long do you think it would take to digest a large steak with twice the amount of protein and a large mountain of vegetables? More than 10 hours, that's for sure. Meal composition plays a big role in absorption speed - especially when it comes to amino acids. The type of protein, fiber, carbohydrates and previous meals all affect how long amino acids are released and absorbed by body tissues after a meal.

The origin of the myth

I think the "30 grams of protein" nonsense started circulating after the classic 1997 study by Boirie and colleagues. This study, entitled "Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion", was the first study to quantify the absorption rate of whey and casein protein and was the birth of the concept of fast and slow digesting proteins. After this, whey protein became known for its ability to rapidly increase amino acid levels in the bloodstream, while casein became known for generating a long-lasting release of amino acids - whey protein was anabolic and casein was anti-catabolic.

Due to the fact that 30 grams of whey protein was absorbed within 3 to 4 hours, I suspect that some people believed that this meant that only 30 grams of protein could be used by the body per meal. Or that you need to eat every 3 to 4 hours to stay "anabolic". Unfortunately, people overlooked a few facts that make these research findings irrelevant to real-world scenarios. First of all, this study looked at the absorption rate of whey protein in a fasted state. On its own, without any previous meals, 30 grams of whey protein is fully absorbed within just 3 to 4 hours. If meals have already been consumed earlier in the day or if you absorb a whey protein shake after a meal, absorption will be much slower. Secondly, whey protein is the fastest digesting protein and is digested at a rate of 10 grams per hour. Casein is digested much more slowly. In the Boirie study, casein was still being absorbed when the experiment ended after 7 hours. Most whole protein sources are digested at a rate of 3 to 6 grams per hour. Add in other macronutrients and it will take even longer.

Myth 6: Fasting causes muscle loss

The truth

This myth is related to many people's belief that it is important to have a continuous influx of amino acids to avoid losing muscle. As I explained earlier, protein is absorbed at a very slow rate. After a large protein-rich meal, amino acids trickle into the bloodstream over several hours. So far, no study has looked at this in a context that is relevant to most of us - for example, by examining changes in blood amino acid levels and amino acid utilization by body tissues after a large steak and veggies followed by cottage cheese with berries for dessert. That's easily 100 grams of protein and represents a typical meal for those following the Leangains approach. We have to draw our conclusions based on what we know - that a small amount of casein consumed in liquid form will still release amino acids after 7 hours. With this information in mind, it is not far-fetched to assume that 100 grams of protein as part of a mixed meal will release amino acids at the end of the day for 16 to 24 hours after consumption.

Few studies have examined the effects of regular fasting on the maintenance of muscle mass and compared it to a controlled diet. None of these studies are relevant to how most people fast and some are full of flaws and shortcomings in study design and methodology. One study, for example, showed an increase in muscle mass and fat loss without training or a change in calorie intake, but simply by changing meal frequency. Although I would love to cite this study as proof of the benefits of intermittent fasting, the body composition was determined using a bioelectrical impedance measurement, which is notoriously inaccurate. Only with prolonged fasting does protein catabolism become a problem. This occurs when the liver glycogen stores are depleted. To maintain blood glucose levels, a conversion of amino acids into glucose, known as novo glucogenesis or gluconeogenesis, must then take place. This happens gradually and if dietary amino acids are not available, protein from body stores such as muscle must be used.

Cahill looked at the contribution of amino acids to gluconeogenesis after loading with 100 grams of glucose. He found that muscle-derived amino acids contributed 50% to the maintenance of blood glucose levels after 16 hours and 100% after 28 hours (after liver glycogen stores were completely depleted). However, if you eat a protein-rich meal before starting the fast, this should not be a problem as there will be plenty of amino acids available from food during the fast.

The origin of the myth

This myth is a good example of a gross exaggeration of physiological and scientific facts that are completely irrelevant to someone who does not go through prolonged periods of fasting or starvation.

Myth 7: Skipping breakfast is bad and will make you fat

The truth

Skipping breakfast is associated by many with higher body weight. The explanation is similar to the one regarding lower meal frequency and higher body weight. People who skip breakfast have poorly regulated eating habits and pay less attention to their health. People who skip breakfast are more likely to be dieting and are therefore likely to be heavier by default than non-dieters. It is important to keep in mind that most people who skip breakfast are not the type of people who sit around reading about nutrition. Rather, they are more likely to be people who diet haphazardly. The type of person who goes on an 800 kcal crash diet and then quickly puts the lost weight back on.

An occasionally cited argument in favor of breakfast is that we have a higher insulin sensitivity in the morning. This is true, after an overnight fasting phase, insulin sensitivity will always be higher. In other words, your body will always have the highest insulin sensitivity at the first meal of the day, as insulin sensitivity increases after glycogen stores have been depleted. If you have not eaten for 8 to 10 hours, your liver glycogen stores will be slightly depleted. This increases insulin sensitivity - and not the magical time phase of the morning hours. The same applies to training. Insulin sensitivity is increased as long as your muscle glycogen stores are not full.

The origin of the myth

First, we have the large epidemiological studies that show a link between skipping breakfast and higher body weight in the general population. A researcher involved in one of these studies commented on the link between skipping breakfast or food choices during breakfast as follows: "This group seems to represent people who are "on the go" and only have sweet stuff or sweet drinks in the morning or grab a glass of milk or a piece of cheese. Their high BMI seems to support the idea that 'dysregulated' eating habits, rather than total energy intake per se, are linked to obesity." Kellogs and haphazard nutritionists and doctors love to cite these studies over and over again, leading people to believe that breakfast has unique metabolic and health-related benefits. In reality, these studies simply show that people who eat breakfast generally have better eating habits.

Other regularly cited studies claiming that breakfast has a positive effect on insulin sensitivity are full of errors and flaws, and most have uncontrolled study designs. In one often-cited study, subjects were encouraged to eat most meals under "free-living conditions". The group that skipped breakfast ate more and gained weight, which negatively affected various health markers. Here is an excerpt from the study abstract "Reported energy intake was significantly lower during the breakfast period (P=0.001) and resting energy expenditure was not significantly different during the two time periods." Basically, people who ate breakfast were better able to control their energy intake during the rest of the day. They did not gain weight, while the group that did not eat breakfast gained weight. An increase in body fat always affects insulin sensitivity and also has negative effects on other health parameters. People interpreted this study to mean that breakfast is healthy and improves insulin sensitivity, which is not what the study showed.

8th myth: Fasting increases cortisol levels

The truth

Cortisol is a steroid hormone that maintains blood pressure, regulates the immune system and helps break down protein, glucose and fats. Cortisol is a hormone that has gotten a bad rap in the fitness and health community, but cortisol exists for a reason. The morning cortisol surge makes us look up and get active. Attenuated cortisol release in the morning is associated with lethargy and depression.

Cortisol levels are also elevated during exercise, which helps to mobilize fat, increase performance and create a feeling of euphoria during and after exercise. Trying to suppress acute increases in cortisol levels during exercise or during the normal circadian rhythm is foolish. Chronically elevated cortisol levels resulting from psychological and/or physiological stress are different and undoubtedly bad for health - they increase protein breakdown and appetite and can lead to depression.

Short-term fasting has no effect on average cortisol levels and this is an area that has been studied extensively in the context of fasting during the month of Ramadan. Cortisol levels typically follow diurnal rhythms, meaning that they peak around 8 in the morning and decrease in the evening. What changes during Ramadan is only the cortisol rhythm, while average cortisol levels remain unchanged over 24 hours.

In a study conducted with rugby players, the subjects lost fat while maintaining their muscle mass well. And they did this despite training in a dehydrated state with no protein intake before or after training and a lower overall protein intake. Here's a quote from the study: "Body mass decreased significantly and progressively over the 4 week phase, fat was lost, but lean body mass was maintained..." "...Plasma urea concentrations decreased during Ramadan, supporting the view that there was no increase in endogenous protein metabolism to compensate for the reduced protein intake."

In a study on intermittent fasting, a significant reduction in cortisol levels was observed in the fasting group. However, this study should be viewed with caution as it had some design flaws. In summary, there is no scientific data to support the view that fasting increases cortisol levels, which could then cause all sorts of mischief such as muscle loss.

The origin of the myth

Prolonged fasting or serious calorie restriction causes increased cortisol levels. This occurs in conjunction with depletion of liver glycogen stores, as cortisol accelerates gluconeogenesis, which is necessary to maintain blood glucose levels in the absence of dietary carbohydrate, protein or stored glycogen. Again, someone seems to have looked up what happens during starvation and concluded that even short-term fasting is bad.

Myth 9: Exercising while fasting is no good. You will lose muscle and have no strength.

The truth

A large body of research on exercise performance during Ramadan has concluded that aerobic activities such as 60 minutes of running are slightly impaired. However, one of the main culprits for this is dehydration, as Ramadan fasting involves restricting fluid intake. Anaerobic activities such as training with weights, on the other hand, are only affected to a much lesser extent. More relevant and conclusive studies that do not include fluid restriction, however, show that strength and endurance in the less intensive range are not affected even after 3.5 days of fasting. New research on training in a fasting state supports this. If you read my review of this study, you will see that the only parameter that improved in the non-fasting group was an improvement in VO2max, which can probably be explained by the fact that the allowed carbohydrates allowed the members of this group to train at a higher intensity. In contrast, another study on the same topic showed no effect of fasting on endurance or VO2max. This can be explained by a lower intensity. In summary, training in a fasted state does not affect your performance while training with weights, which is probably what readers of this article are most interested in. However, training in a complete fasted state is not something I would recommend for optimal progress. Scientific research shows a pretty clear picture as to the benefits of pre- and post-workout protein intake for maximizing protein synthesis. For this reason, I recommend supplementing with 10 grams of BCAAs before a fasted state workout.

The origin of the myth

It is indeed intuitive that a large meal before training should support performance, which is why it is not surprising that so many people have their doubts about training on an empty stomach.

Myth 10: "Eat breakfast like an emperor, lunch like a king and dinner like a beggar."

The truth

This adage is linked to the idea that you should reduce carbohydrates in the evening as they are more likely to be stored as fat. While this may sound good on paper, there is no scientific data to support this and plenty to show that it is wrong.

The strongest argument against this is the numerous studies available on body composition and health after Ramadan fasting. This meal pattern of regular fasting has neutral or positive effects on body fat percentage and other health markers. This is quite an extreme and telling example. People are literally stuffing themselves with carbohydrates and treats at night with no negative effects. And yet, in the bizarre world of bodybuilding and fitness, people worry about whether it's okay to eat 50 grams of carbohydrates during the last meal of the day.

If the scientific data on Ramadan fasting isn't enough, there are plenty of other studies showing that eating later in the day has no effect on weight loss or weight loss.

In a study comparing two meal schedules, where one group ate more calories earlier in the day while the other group ate most of their calories later in the day, more desirable results were observed in the group that ate large meals in the evening.

While those who ate more in the morning lost more weight, they lost that weight in the form of muscle mass. Those who ate late at night were better able to maintain their muscle mass, which resulted in a greater reduction in body fat percentage.

The origin of the myth

Just as skipping breakfast is associated with higher body weight in the general population, so is eating later in the evening. If you've read this far in the article, you'll understand the logical fallacy behind the statement that eating late at night must cause weight gain based on population studies. People who eat late at night and munch on chips while watching TV are more likely to weigh more than others. However, it is not the fact that they eat late at night that is responsible for this - it is their lifestyle. No controlled studies have shown that larger evening meals have a negative impact on body composition compared to meals eaten earlier in the day.

Sometimes studies conducted with shift workers are cited to claim that eating late at night is bad. These studies are all uncontrolled (in terms of calorie intake) and such observational studies are further confounded by the fact that shift work has its own independent negative effects on some health parameters such as glucose tolerance and blood lipid levels. You should keep this in mind. Context is always relevant.

Although I don't usually cite studies conducted with animals, I recently read an article about a study that disproved the myth that eating late at night makes you fat, using rhesus monkeys as an example. This study is worth mentioning because monkeys are metabolically closer to humans than rodents. To summarize, I would say that I should have written this article much earlier - it would have saved me a lot of time.

I would appreciate it if you would recommend this article to other unfortunate people who have been misled into believing some of this nonsense that is put out there. Based on my experiences and the experiences of others, these misconceptions have driven many people to obsessive eating regimes that can do quite a bit of damage to physical and mental well-being. Let's try to put an end to this and save people from this fate.

Source: https://leangains.com/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked-major-update-nov-4th/