 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / January 2007One breakfast or two?
What is better? A) a 600 kcal breakfast at 8, then lunch at 2 pm?, B) or a 300 kcal breakast at 8, a 300 kcal snack at 11, then lunch at 2 pm?  SignatureEnrico C My email address: http://www.x-privat.org/sigmail/sig-52cb9.png > What is better? > > A) a 600 kcal breakfast at 8, then lunch at 2 pm?, > > B) or a 300 kcal breakast at 8, a 300 kcal snack at 11, then lunch at 2 pm? Better for what? > > What is better? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Better for what? Just another instance of a bunch of idiots arguing over language. :( Are you trying to gain weight, lose weight, build big muscles, live as long as possible, have a lot of energy throughout the day, or just be plain healthy? You did not answer. Therefore, you are truly an idiot. > plain healthy? That's it! SignatureEnrico C My new email address: http://www.x-privat.org/sigmail/sig-5ace6.png > What is better? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > My email address: http://www.x-privat.org/sigmail/sig-52cb9.png Option B is better for metabolism as well as distibuting calories for diabetese. Overall calories remain same. >> What is better? >> >> A) a 600 kcal breakfast at 8, then lunch at 2 pm?, >> >> B) or a 300 kcal breakast at 8, a 300 kcal snack at 11, then lunch at 2 pm? > Option B is better for metabolism What is the reason for that? > as well as distibuting calories for > diabetese. Overall calories remain same. Of course! :-) SignatureEnrico C My new email address: http://www.x-privat.org/sigmail/sig-5ace6.png Rise in blood glucose level, followed by insulin to bring it down.. takes about 2 to 3 hours.. Calorie distribution allows the blood glucose not to see too many peaks and valleys.. Did I pass the test!!! Forgot to mention, it all depends on Insulin Resistance levels. > Forgot to mention, it all depends on Insulin Resistance levels. What factors influence insulin resistance levels? Genetics mainly? > Forgot to mention, it all depends on Insulin Resistance levels. Well, it depends on the specific meal as well. :-) But let's say: same person, same meal (or same meal split in two little meals, in case B). SignatureEnrico C My new email address: http://www.x-privat.org/sigmail/sig-5ace6.png > Rise in blood glucose level, followed by insulin to bring it down.. > takes about 2 to 3 hours.. Someone (not I) would argue that this way (2 meals instead of a big one) you have high levels (though not so high) of glucose and insuline in your blood for 4-6 hours, id est all the time, instead of 2-3 hours. SignatureEnrico C My new email address: http://www.x-privat.org/sigmail/sig-5ace6.png : What is better? : : A) a 600 kcal breakfast at 8, then lunch at 2 pm?, : : B) or a 300 kcal breakast at 8, a 300 kcal snack at 11, then lunch at : 2 pm? B). It has also a better effect on serum lipids even if the caloric intake remains equal. SignatureJuhana > What is better? > > A) a 600 kcal breakfast at 8, then lunch at 2 pm?, > > B) or a 300 kcal breakast at 8, a 300 kcal snack at 11, then lunch at 2 pm? A normal adult male would have to eat 2,300 calories a day just to maintain a healthy level of muscle mass. So, 600 calories for breakfast is a total joke unless you are trying to starve to death. Starving on 600 calories would provide insufficient nutrients to remain healthy. Nor, would it provide the level of energy required for a healthy active lifestyle. No normal person deals with kcal. :) Just thought that you might want to know. > So, 600 calories for breakfast is a total joke Let's say 800 or 1000 then, or what your breakfast is. > No normal person deals with kcal. :) Forget calories. What is healthier: a big breakfast or a small one followed by a similar, mid-morning snack? SignatureEnrico C My new email address: http://www.x-privat.org/sigmail/sig-5ace6.png > > So, 600 calories for breakfast is a total joke > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Forget calories. What is healthier: a big breakfast or a small one followed > by a similar, mid-morning snack? I see nothing wrong with 3 square meals a day, without any snacks. Nothing stopping anybody from drinking a high protein shake, first thing in the morning as part of your breakfast. Jack LaLanne does it and he is a healthy 92 years old. > I see nothing wrong with 3 square meals a day, without any snacks. Would you expand on that? > Nothing stopping anybody from drinking a high protein shake, first > thing in the morning as part of your breakfast. Jack LaLanne does it > and he is a healthy 92 years old. Anedoctical. SignatureEnrico C My new email address: http://www.x-privat.org/sigmail/sig-5ace6.png > > I see nothing wrong with 3 square meals a day, without any snacks. > > Would you expand on that? Today in Richmond, VA, USA the temperature is expected to reach 80 degrees Fahrenheit in the next to the coldest month of the winter. If your don't like square meals then I suggest that you try serving your meals on round plates. I have better things to do today, than talk with some loser who is totally confused over the simplest of life skills. You would never have survived 9/11. :) LOL If you actually were a loser, you wouldn't be whining so much. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.