Any suggestions on alternatives?

V

veenie

New member
It's that time again where I have final exams for school. The issue is that I usually wake up early (3 am) to study because this way I can get a lot of studying done. However usually when I wake up I have one maybe two cups of green tea till around 7 am where I have my regular breakfast.

My question is, is this going to affect my diet in anyway?

I do get about 5 hours of sleep everyday. And I stop eating at 6pm and go to bed around 10pm.

Are there any other alternatives I can have instead of green tea? Plain black coffee is something I can think of, but I know that once sugar and all that start adding, it gets calorie heavy.

Any suggestions would be appreciated
Thanks
 
Calories consumed through out the day are what will effect your weight loss, not when you eat them.

Green tea is fine for you - but are you considering switching to coffee for the buzz to stay awake, if you aren't used to that amount of caffeine, it might make you jittery and unable to concentrate...

To stay awake, don't rely on alternatives, get plenty of sleep - your body and brain will thank you.. Drink lots of water and go for a quick walk in the cool air if you need a jolt - much better than caffeine.

I'm of the belief that nothing will really hurt for the short term -but -- instead of last minute cramming for exams, next semester, keep up with the studying so you don't have to cram.
 
While calories throughout the day matters, timing of meals does have an effect on weight loss. There's more to weight loss than just counting calories.

Going 13 hours without eating just isn't a good idea. I'd have something upon waking (protein, carb, and fat), even if it is small. Not only will your body respond well to the meal physically, but mentally your concentration should be much better. Besides, if you're going to wake up at 3am to study you should get the most out of your time as you can. If not, might as well get a few more hours of sleep.
 
I prefer to feed my body when I need my brain to work. I try to plan around times when I am going to need to focus and make sure I have some thing to eat before or during those periods.

As far as energy, I find myself best off when I have 7-8 hours sleep and exercised the previous day (this helps me be less restless when it is time to sleep, and it helps me have a more restful sleep).

One alternative sweetener I have tried is stevia. It is a natural sweetener derived from a (herb?) plant. Stores tend to sell it in a concentrated form so you don't need much in each glass of tea/coffee. There's debate whether any kind of sweetener is bad because sweetener supposedly tricks your brain. Stevia's taste is definitely different than sugar, it's a more earthy (strong?) taste.
 
if you are trying to build muscle not having enough sleep will definitely affect your progress since its a known fact that muscles are building when you are a sleep. If you are trying to loose weight than not sleeping enough might speed up the process but you might be loosing more muscle than actual fat. About the times when to eat stuff I really don't know if there is a fact but the word goes around to NEVER skip your breakfast and NEVER eat 2-3 hr before you go to sleep. Those are the 2 things I have used in my diet and its been working, not sure if because of it but never the less its working. I went a extra mile and I try not to eat after 6pm period. I would drink but not eat anything after 6pm or at least i try not to.
 
Trevor M. said:
Really? What research do you have to back up this statement?
Click to expand...

Take a look at the effects of breakfast alone on weight loss/gain.

There is plenty of research to suggest that calories in/calories out is not the "be all and end all" of weight loss. If this were true then all calories would be equal...and clearly they are not.
 
CAndersonCSCS said:
Take a look at the effects of breakfast alone on weight loss/gain.
Click to expand...

I haven't one issue with you. It's par for the course that a 'professional' comes in here spewing nonsense and I usually show them the door within the initial hour.... but you've given good advice to date.

Welcome. :)

That said, I'd love to see the research you have on breakfast and/or meal timing.

I agree. Breakfast is an important meal.

But what 'effects' are you talking about exactly that breakfast has during a hypocaloric diet?

There is plenty of research to suggest that calories in/calories out is not the "be all and end all" of weight loss. If this were true then all calories would be equal...and clearly they are not.
Click to expand...

Hopefuly you mean "If this were true then all nutrients would be equal.... and clearly they ar not."

A calorie is always a calorie just as a kilogram is always a kilogram.
 
I agree. Breakfast is an important meal.

But what 'effects' are you talking about exactly that breakfast has during a hypocaloric diet?

Hopefuly you mean "If this were true then all nutrients would be equal.... and clearly they ar not."

A calorie is always a calorie just as a kilogram is always a kilogram.
Click to expand...
I couldn't have said it better myself, Steve!

Haha - When I originally asked that question. I was thinking..."I hope he has something more to show than simply that breakfast is good for ya"...;)

2,000 (arbitrary amount for example) calories a day with no breakfast is = to 2,000calories a day with breakfast.

Lets assume we have a twins. Both are exactly identical to the last detail even in lifestyle. Say their MT line is 2,500calories a day. Lets place both of them in a 500 calorie deficient through diet alone by cutting back their calories to 2,000flat. They would both eat the exact same foods, amount of calories, and eat at the exact same time...except, one would eat breakfast and the other wouldn't.
To say that the one who eats breakfast will loose more weight than the one that doesn't would be wrong in my opinion. I simply have not seen any research that shows it even worth worrying over. Breakfast is important, but not for "increasing metabolism". Same as with eating multiple meals (5-6) throughout the day is helpful in some areas. But in metabolism speed, research shows not.
 
Hey Steve, thanks for the welcome.

Check out johnberardi.com for some references. With regards to breakfast, if you look at the some of the research done you see that the tendencies of people who don't eat breakfast are to overeat throughout the remainder of the day, hence leading to weight gain. That's one possibility. They've also stated that the types of food eaten for breakfast may play a role as well.

However, if you browse the site above I believe he references a study where they kept the calories/nutrients etc. the same, but instead of eating late in the evening they ate breakfast instead. With all else being equal, the change resulted in weight loss.

As far as the calorie is not a calorie, here was my train of thought on that...

If you consume 2000 calories/day and it all comes from fat it will not have the same effect as consuming 2000 calories/day that all comes from protein. If it did, then it wouldn't matter how much protein, carbs, or fat you consumed on a daily basis as long as you took in the same number of calories.
 
1: Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 Mar;55(3):645-51.Links
The role of breakfast in the treatment of obesity: a randomized clinical trial.Schlundt DG, Hill JO, Sbrocco T, Pope-Cordle J, Sharp T.
Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240.

Fifty-two moderately obese adult women were stratified according to their baseline breakfast-eating habits and randomly assigned a weight-loss program. The no-breakfast group ate two meals per day and the breakfast group ate three meals per day. The energy content of the two weight-loss programs was identical. After the 12-wk treatment, baseline breakfast eaters lost 8.9 kg in the no-breakfast treatment and 6.2 kg in the breakfast treatment. Baseline breakfast skippers lost 7.7 kg in the breakfast treatment and 6.0 kg in the no-breakfast treatment. This treatment-by-strata-by-time interaction effect (P less than 0.06) suggests that those who had to make the most substantial changes in eating habits to comply with the program achieved better results. Analyses of behavioral data suggested that eating breakfast helped reduce dietary fat and minimize impulsive snacking and therefore may be an important part of a weight-reduction program.
 
Check out johnberardi.com for some references. With regards to breakfast, if you look at the some of the research done you see that the tendencies of people who don't eat breakfast are to overeat throughout the remainder of the day, hence leading to weight gain. That's one possibility. They've also stated that the types of food eaten for breakfast may play a role as well.
Click to expand...
This I can agree with.


As far as the calorie is not a calorie, here was my train of thought on that...

If you consume 2000 calories/day and it all comes from fat it will not have the same effect as consuming 2000 calories/day that all comes from protein. If it did, then it wouldn't matter how much protein, carbs, or fat you consumed on a daily basis as long as you took in the same number of calories.
Click to expand...

You do understand that macro nutrients have the ability of interconversion? For example, following deamination glucogenic amino acids can enter a number of different pathways for a conversion to glucose.
Think of the alanin-glucose cycle for example. In this example an amino acid is cycled to the liver for conversion to glucose.
Carbohydrates are more than capable of contributing to esterification.

These are just a few examples, however. You see, a calorie is just a calorie. A calorie of protein can in term become a calorie of fat or of glucose if the body demands it.
This ability of macro-interconversion is what allows us to live in time where we arn't getting enough of a specific macro.
 
Fifty-two moderately obese adult women were stratified according to their baseline breakfast-eating habits and randomly assigned a weight-loss program. The no-breakfast group ate two meals per day and the breakfast group ate three meals per day. The energy content of the two weight-loss programs was identical. After the 12-wk treatment, baseline breakfast eaters lost 8.9 kg in the no-breakfast treatment and 6.2 kg in the breakfast treatment. Baseline breakfast skippers lost 7.7 kg in the breakfast treatment and 6.0 kg in the no-breakfast treatment. This treatment-by-strata-by-time interaction effect (P less than 0.06) suggests that those who had to make the most substantial changes in eating habits to comply with the program achieved better results. Analyses of behavioral data suggested that eating breakfast helped reduce dietary fat and minimize impulsive snacking and therefore may be an important part of a weight-reduction program.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing against what I placed in bold. I'm speaking of a physiological adaptation to one consuming breakfast to on who isn't.

Thanks for contributing the study, but. It really has no weight in this discussion as I'm not talking about behavioral modification. I'm talking about physical modification. Which, there is none that I have seen sound science back.
 
Trevor M. said:
It really has no weight in this discussion as I'm not talking about behavioral modification. I'm talking about physical modification. Which, there is none that I have seen sound science back.
Click to expand...

You can't ignore the fact that behavior is probably 80-90% of the reason people are overweight in the first place. The mechanism by which breakfast plays a role in weight loss/gain is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it has an impact.
 
You can't ignore the fact that behavior is probably 80-90% of the reason people are overweight in the first place. The mechanism by which breakfast plays a role in weight loss/gain is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it has an impact.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing against this fact so I see little point in the above quoted post. Where did I argue that behavior is irrelevant and should be ignored, anyway?
In fact, I even agreed with the behavior point earlier if you go back and check.
This I can agree with.
Click to expand...

BTW, The "mechanism" is very relevant.


Now, I'm still waiting for your response to the main topic at hand which was my post in response to yours...
As far as the calorie is not a calorie, here was my train of thought on that...
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I do understand interconversion. However, what the body does for survival and achieving optimal health are two different things.

Your body also has the ability to fight off disease. Doesn't mean it's optimal to subject yourself to it on a daily basis.

Bottom line, if what you do works for you and the people you work with...great. I'm just voicing what has worked for me.
 
Yes, I do understand interconversion. However, what the body does for survival and achieving optimal health are two different things.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure how to interpret this as a response. Your body does this on a day to day basis, all the time, 24hours a day. Not just when its in "survival mode".

You said eating 2,000calories of nothing but fat is different than 2,000calories of protein in terms of weight gain/loss. I explained why it is virtually the same thing. You respond by saying survival and optimal health are two different things...I'm lost lol...

I do understand interconversion.
Click to expand...
If you do than I'm still curious as to why you had that train of thought in the first place...
 
Last edited:
Haha - You still haven't shown how a calorie is not a calorie.

No duh, calories from protein function differently than calories from fat. They go though different metabolic processes with an end result that would be different. Not a single thing in that whole article showed that a calorie is not always "a calorie". It showed a calorie from protein can have different reactions on the body than a calorie of fat or carbs(wellknown). Two completely different things.

Protein has a higher thermic affect on the body than both fats and carbs. Thats well known. That article shows this, along with years of research. But, your argument is that, and I quote,
If this were true then all calories would be equal...and clearly they are not.
Click to expand...
.
You have yet to show how this to be true. A calorie is a unit of measurement as a pound is and as a gram is. A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat. A calorie of fat is always equal to a calorie of protein and or carbs. Its just a measurement.

Had you sad, clearly all calories do not have the same affect on the body. Then, I could agree with you to some degree. But, you didn't. Yet, you haven't presented anything to back up what was originally stated. Maybe you simply worded it wrong, no? I think that is what has happened here.
 
Trevor M. said:
Had you sad, clearly all calories do not have the same affect on the body. Then, I could agree with you to some degree. But, you didn't. Yet, you haven't presented anything to back up what was originally stated. Maybe you simply worded it wrong, no? I think that is what has happened here.
Click to expand...

I think I did say that (and you quoted it yourself):

"If you consume 2000 calories/day and it all comes from fat it will not have the same effect as consuming 2000 calories/day that all comes from protein. If it did, then it wouldn't matter how much protein, carbs, or fat you consumed on a daily basis as long as you took in the same number of calories."

I understand the calorie as a unit of measure and that is not what I am referring to.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top