calitoker90
New member
Is it ok to skip out on breakfest and lunch because I have to eat whatever my dad cooks for dinner sometimes its like pasta or something.
Weight-Loss Skip breakfest and lunch?
- Thread starter calitoker90
- Start date
Weight-Loss
Your best bet would be to eat a small breakfast and lunch and then very carefully portion out your dinner. You can track your calories at Fitday.com.
The reason for this is because your body's metabolism will slow down if you do not eat something every 3 to 4 hours. That is why a lot of programs like Body For Life has you eat 6 small meals a day.
So you may be saving calories but then your body slows down so it won't burn them effeciently when you do eat them.
I am sure you will get a lot more technical answers to your question here that may explain it better.
You may also ask your dad if he can add a salad or vegatable to dinner. It will help fill you up and that way you can eat more vegatables and a smaller portion of pasta.
The reason for this is because your body's metabolism will slow down if you do not eat something every 3 to 4 hours. That is why a lot of programs like Body For Life has you eat 6 small meals a day.
So you may be saving calories but then your body slows down so it won't burn them effeciently when you do eat them.
I am sure you will get a lot more technical answers to your question here that may explain it better.
You may also ask your dad if he can add a salad or vegatable to dinner. It will help fill you up and that way you can eat more vegatables and a smaller portion of pasta.
Fat Lazy Guy
New member
Perhaps you could also offer to cook dinner for your dad instead? Or if your dad is set on eating his food, then perhaps you could make dinner for yourself? It's pretty important to eat breakfast and lunch. I don't know all about it, but it's something to do with keeping your body out of starvation mode.
And the vege tip above is good as well.
And the vege tip above is good as well.
There's a reason people say breakfast is the most important meal of the day.. it's definitely not a good idea to miss it, for reasons that have already been posted.
If you have to eat what your dad cooks for dinner, maybe try just having smaller portions. By eating breakfast, lunch, and some healthy snacks during the day, you may find that when you sit down to eat whatever your dad has cooked up for dinner, you're not feeling overly hungry and you can eat less of it. There's a lot to be said for eating a smaller portion for dinner and taking the leftovers for lunch the next day!
If you have to eat what your dad cooks for dinner, maybe try just having smaller portions. By eating breakfast, lunch, and some healthy snacks during the day, you may find that when you sit down to eat whatever your dad has cooked up for dinner, you're not feeling overly hungry and you can eat less of it. There's a lot to be said for eating a smaller portion for dinner and taking the leftovers for lunch the next day!
I wouldn't go so long without eating personally.
However, many of the above posts are incorrect. The starvation mode is NOT triggered in an instant. It's not even really a "mode." It's an entire set of physiological adaptations that take place in one's body after prolonged periods of energy deficient times. Total calories is what matter most when speaking of the "starvation mode." Not meal by meal.
Also, the metabolism is not as volatile as many think. Skipping breakfast is not going to cause any major swings in metabolic output.
Actually, number of meals doesn't really matter all that much IN TERMS of metabolic output.
If anything, these meals are important though, due to the overnight "fast." It reverses catabolic processes. Maintaining muscle is good.
However, many of the above posts are incorrect. The starvation mode is NOT triggered in an instant. It's not even really a "mode." It's an entire set of physiological adaptations that take place in one's body after prolonged periods of energy deficient times. Total calories is what matter most when speaking of the "starvation mode." Not meal by meal.
Also, the metabolism is not as volatile as many think. Skipping breakfast is not going to cause any major swings in metabolic output.
Actually, number of meals doesn't really matter all that much IN TERMS of metabolic output.
If anything, these meals are important though, due to the overnight "fast." It reverses catabolic processes. Maintaining muscle is good.
Breakfast IS IMPORTANT and should not be dismissed. It has been showed that people who do not skip breakfast tend to be slimmer than those who skip it. I disagree with Steve as people who do eat breakfast, on top of being slimmer, are far less likely to have blood sugar issues (issues which may lead to diabetes type 2) and cardiovascular problems among other things - as far as I'm concerned I consider our metabolisms as generally resistant to a lot of abuse, however I would say they are votatile in the sense that e.g. blood sugar levels can significantly alter depending on what we eat and when. People with poor digestion, which is increasingly common, are generally even more prone to problems if they do not eat for prolonged periods of times, or eat a big meal in one go. I trully believe that actually, metabolic output is heavily influenced by meal composition of course, and meal time and frequency.
Steve is right to say that prolonged starvation takes longer than that (which will occur if you eat a meal of less than approx 1200 cal a day for a while, which is what the others may have meant), however the body will still be in what can be called "fasting mode" during that day (which some people call rightly or wrongly starvation mode - I feel the terms are interchangeable as long as the context is made clear) as you wouldn't have eaten all night and day.
Asit's been explained, not eating for a prolonged amount of time will slow down your metabolism.
If you havent eaten all day, you are more vulnerable to binge/over eat all that unhealthy food, and you wont get your vegs and fruits in.
Edit: Read this
Steve is right to say that prolonged starvation takes longer than that (which will occur if you eat a meal of less than approx 1200 cal a day for a while, which is what the others may have meant), however the body will still be in what can be called "fasting mode" during that day (which some people call rightly or wrongly starvation mode - I feel the terms are interchangeable as long as the context is made clear) as you wouldn't have eaten all night and day.
Asit's been explained, not eating for a prolonged amount of time will slow down your metabolism.
If you havent eaten all day, you are more vulnerable to binge/over eat all that unhealthy food, and you wont get your vegs and fruits in.
Edit: Read this
Last edited:
jerseygirl35
New member
not a good idea at all!! why dont you try just eating smaller amounts (about every 2 hours or so) and making what you eat of your dads a manageable size. the key to weight loss is being able to eat anyhitng you want- but in reasonable quantities. Also, you could let your dad know that youre a little conscious about it right now andask if he might make somethingthat better fits your diet.
Oh no! And I was just starting to like you as I was reading your various posts that have been great UP to this point. 
And now you go and defy my authority!!!!
LOL, ONLY KIDDING!!!!
I wouldn't even have replied to this if you hadn't said:
I disagree with Steve........
You seem to have missed my one and ONLY point. Or you are debating against "ghost topics" such as insulin sensitivity, blood glucose regulation, and the like.
If you had simply created a post outlining the numerous, known benefits associated with small, numerous feedings.... we would have been fine as I'm sure each of the benefits that you would have highlighted I would have agreed with.
Just FYI for everyone else, a brief list that highlights SOME of these benefits include:
1. Improves glucose tolerance
2. Insulin regulation/sensitivity
3. Cortisol control
4. Control cravings/appetite
5. Improve nutrient utilization
6. Possibly lowers LDL cholesterol
The list goes on. And if I had refuted these, and other concepts... your direct disagreement with me would have been warranted. However, I never suggested that there were no positive effects of small, numerous feedings or the the existence of a lack-of-importance when it comes to eating breakfast.
And please notice that "Increased metabolic rate" is NOT on the list I provided above, for good reason.
Don't tell me you think that is a valid, scientific reason to eat breakfast. It couldn't be the fact that a large number of people who eat breakfast also make better food choices in general than those who skip breakfast, leading to a slimmer waistline.
Mind you, I am all about eating breakfast and never would I recommend someone to skip it.... but breakfast certainly does NOT make you skinny. Body fatness is directly correlated to TOTAL CALORIES. Period.
I'm all for using science to explain your case.... but the science has to be applicable and "good."
I've seen probably the same studies you are referring to here and I certainly would not hold them in high regard with respect to the "WHY" you should eat breakfast.
There are certainly positive reasons why you shouldn't skip breakfast. I just wouldn't use this/these study/studies as my backbone of support.
I could walk anyone through a nutrition program that didn't have a breakfast and have them lose weight. Would it be optimal? Certainly not. But still, my point is, breakfast does not make you skinny.
Blood sugar levels and metabolic rate are NOT the same thing.
You do realize that you are disagreeing with a point that I never made: That being that meal timing/frequency doesn't effect things such as "blood sugar issues."
Again, a point I NEVER made.
I was NOT talking about blood sugar levels. If you did any reading of my discussions on this subject you'd understand this. No crap rate of food intake effects blood sugar.
My post was solely directed at the individuals who assumed that by skipping breakfast your metabolic rate would plummet causing a storage in fat.
This is NOT the case.
Whenever I get into one of these debates, I usually say there are numerous benefits to eating small, numerous meals. (this includes the regulation of blood glucose, insulin, etc) However, an increased metabolism is NOT one of them.
My initial point which you've tried to transform is and always was:
Human metabolism doesn't slow on a meal to meal basis. In rats/mice, probably. In humans, no way.
If you want to have a research-flinging "war" on the topic, be my guest. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've debated this topic and won. Just make sure you are actually debating MY POINT, and not the points you make-believe I made.
My only comment was:
The metabolism is not as volatile as many think. Skipping breakfast is not going to cause any major swings in metabolic output.
Actually, number of meals doesn't really matter all that much IN TERMS of metabolic output.
Going off on a tangent with regards to variables aside from metabolic rate does absolutely nothing in terms of my point that you disagreed with.
Sorry if I sound defensive, but it seemed to me like you were trying to turn my words into something they weren't.
On top of the studies that delve into the impact of meal frequency/timing, look at empirical evidence. I've trained a boat load of individuals in my time. I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that eating 3 meals compared to 6, when calories and macros are identical, don't make any difference in end-physique-result. I should couch this statement with the fact that some people would rather eat more frequently, which is great. It helps with satiety. Others don't like to. Bottom line: As long as cals and macros are accounted for and they can make either approach work for them, they net result will be the same in terms of body composition.
Again, certainly not what I was advocating.
Ahhh, finally. You make a point that is in direct opposition to my one and only, original point.
Care to explain? Or better yet, show proof?
As I said above, although there are too many variables at play (like insulin, blood glucose, leptin, peptide YY, gherlin, etc, etc, etc) to know exactly what is happening on a meal by meal basis, it's been obviously proven with research and real world results that meal frequency and timing really don't impact the net, end-of-the-day result IN TERMS OF METABOLIC RATE. That is not to say there aren't many other variables that are effected by meal frequency/timing/rate. I was only speaking of metabolic rate.
If you had to choose one or the other..... 3 meals vs. 6.... certainly choose 6. It is most likely the "healthier" option assuming you are making the correct food choices...... and "healthier" being a very broad concept.
But in relation to weight loss and physique, aside from any psychological levels of satiety and the like, there is not much going on on the physiological level when comparing metabolism and meal frequency/timing.
Starvation mode in the fitness industry = a state of depressed metabolic rate due to prolonged periods of energy deficiency. It's primarily the set of physiological adaptations primarily involving hormonal shifts that lead to this depression in metabolic rate.
This is a moot point though, as it does little for the debate at hand.
Bingo.
And thus, you have one of the psychological reasons why small, numerous meals are better. However, your argument against my original post/point really doesn't stand any ground unless you really care to explain this:
**********************************************************
I'd just like to add this:
People over-hype the benefits of small, numerous feedings due to its attention it gets in this industry as of late. Certainly, there are health benefits associated with eating small, numerous feedings (some of those outlined above). However, they should be the least of our worries. If you want to eat 3 meals per day, go for it.
In a day of age where a vast majority of individuals are shoving big macs down their throats followed by a gallon of coke at an alarming rate, the last thing we, as professionals in the industry, should concern ourselves or our clients with is the number of meals they eat.
In many cases, twisting someone's arm to eat 5-7 meals instead of their normal 3 would leave them hating their "diet" and falling off the wagon.... most likely gaining weight.
Best bet is to educate individuals on how to make proper food choices and allow them to allocate those food choices over their day as they see fit. Possibly after good food-choice-habits are established then tweak meal timing and frequency.
But doing so right off the bat, in my opinion, does more harm than good for the average individual trying to lose weight.
Lula, I know this is going beyond our discussion.... but this is more a general thought of mine on the topic at hand.
And now you go and defy my authority!!!!
LOL, ONLY KIDDING!!!!
I wouldn't even have replied to this if you hadn't said:
I disagree with Steve........
You seem to have missed my one and ONLY point. Or you are debating against "ghost topics" such as insulin sensitivity, blood glucose regulation, and the like.
If you had simply created a post outlining the numerous, known benefits associated with small, numerous feedings.... we would have been fine as I'm sure each of the benefits that you would have highlighted I would have agreed with.
Just FYI for everyone else, a brief list that highlights SOME of these benefits include:
1. Improves glucose tolerance
2. Insulin regulation/sensitivity
3. Cortisol control
4. Control cravings/appetite
5. Improve nutrient utilization
6. Possibly lowers LDL cholesterol
The list goes on. And if I had refuted these, and other concepts... your direct disagreement with me would have been warranted. However, I never suggested that there were no positive effects of small, numerous feedings or the the existence of a lack-of-importance when it comes to eating breakfast.
And please notice that "Increased metabolic rate" is NOT on the list I provided above, for good reason.
Don't tell me you think that is a valid, scientific reason to eat breakfast. It couldn't be the fact that a large number of people who eat breakfast also make better food choices in general than those who skip breakfast, leading to a slimmer waistline.
Mind you, I am all about eating breakfast and never would I recommend someone to skip it.... but breakfast certainly does NOT make you skinny. Body fatness is directly correlated to TOTAL CALORIES. Period.
I'm all for using science to explain your case.... but the science has to be applicable and "good."
I've seen probably the same studies you are referring to here and I certainly would not hold them in high regard with respect to the "WHY" you should eat breakfast.
There are certainly positive reasons why you shouldn't skip breakfast. I just wouldn't use this/these study/studies as my backbone of support.
I could walk anyone through a nutrition program that didn't have a breakfast and have them lose weight. Would it be optimal? Certainly not. But still, my point is, breakfast does not make you skinny.
Blood sugar levels and metabolic rate are NOT the same thing.
You do realize that you are disagreeing with a point that I never made: That being that meal timing/frequency doesn't effect things such as "blood sugar issues."
Again, a point I NEVER made.
I was NOT talking about blood sugar levels. If you did any reading of my discussions on this subject you'd understand this. No crap rate of food intake effects blood sugar.
My post was solely directed at the individuals who assumed that by skipping breakfast your metabolic rate would plummet causing a storage in fat.
This is NOT the case.
Whenever I get into one of these debates, I usually say there are numerous benefits to eating small, numerous meals. (this includes the regulation of blood glucose, insulin, etc) However, an increased metabolism is NOT one of them.
My initial point which you've tried to transform is and always was:
Human metabolism doesn't slow on a meal to meal basis. In rats/mice, probably. In humans, no way.
If you want to have a research-flinging "war" on the topic, be my guest. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've debated this topic and won. Just make sure you are actually debating MY POINT, and not the points you make-believe I made.
My only comment was:
The metabolism is not as volatile as many think. Skipping breakfast is not going to cause any major swings in metabolic output.
Actually, number of meals doesn't really matter all that much IN TERMS of metabolic output.
Going off on a tangent with regards to variables aside from metabolic rate does absolutely nothing in terms of my point that you disagreed with.
Sorry if I sound defensive, but it seemed to me like you were trying to turn my words into something they weren't.
On top of the studies that delve into the impact of meal frequency/timing, look at empirical evidence. I've trained a boat load of individuals in my time. I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that eating 3 meals compared to 6, when calories and macros are identical, don't make any difference in end-physique-result. I should couch this statement with the fact that some people would rather eat more frequently, which is great. It helps with satiety. Others don't like to. Bottom line: As long as cals and macros are accounted for and they can make either approach work for them, they net result will be the same in terms of body composition.
Again, certainly not what I was advocating.
Ahhh, finally. You make a point that is in direct opposition to my one and only, original point.
Care to explain? Or better yet, show proof?
As I said above, although there are too many variables at play (like insulin, blood glucose, leptin, peptide YY, gherlin, etc, etc, etc) to know exactly what is happening on a meal by meal basis, it's been obviously proven with research and real world results that meal frequency and timing really don't impact the net, end-of-the-day result IN TERMS OF METABOLIC RATE. That is not to say there aren't many other variables that are effected by meal frequency/timing/rate. I was only speaking of metabolic rate.
If you had to choose one or the other..... 3 meals vs. 6.... certainly choose 6. It is most likely the "healthier" option assuming you are making the correct food choices...... and "healthier" being a very broad concept.
But in relation to weight loss and physique, aside from any psychological levels of satiety and the like, there is not much going on on the physiological level when comparing metabolism and meal frequency/timing.
Starvation mode in the fitness industry = a state of depressed metabolic rate due to prolonged periods of energy deficiency. It's primarily the set of physiological adaptations primarily involving hormonal shifts that lead to this depression in metabolic rate.
This is a moot point though, as it does little for the debate at hand.
Bingo.
And thus, you have one of the psychological reasons why small, numerous meals are better. However, your argument against my original post/point really doesn't stand any ground unless you really care to explain this:
**********************************************************
I'd just like to add this:
People over-hype the benefits of small, numerous feedings due to its attention it gets in this industry as of late. Certainly, there are health benefits associated with eating small, numerous feedings (some of those outlined above). However, they should be the least of our worries. If you want to eat 3 meals per day, go for it.
In a day of age where a vast majority of individuals are shoving big macs down their throats followed by a gallon of coke at an alarming rate, the last thing we, as professionals in the industry, should concern ourselves or our clients with is the number of meals they eat.
In many cases, twisting someone's arm to eat 5-7 meals instead of their normal 3 would leave them hating their "diet" and falling off the wagon.... most likely gaining weight.
Best bet is to educate individuals on how to make proper food choices and allow them to allocate those food choices over their day as they see fit. Possibly after good food-choice-habits are established then tweak meal timing and frequency.
But doing so right off the bat, in my opinion, does more harm than good for the average individual trying to lose weight.
Lula, I know this is going beyond our discussion.... but this is more a general thought of mine on the topic at hand.
Last edited:
ToothlessFerret
New member
I use to skip breakfast and often skip lunch, but I would snack on awful junky food at every chance. Chocolate and crisps (potato/corn chips) in the morning, greasy burgers later in the day. It was part of a lifestyle that made me fat. Just recently, I seem to be meeting people with obesity who tell me that they only eat 'one big meal' each day - they also probably snack on junk.
Now I eat small and often (not always that small!). I ALWAYS start with a good breakfast, and yes, I do usually eat every two to four hours except during sleep. I even eat just before bed (usually cottage cheese). It also fits my workplace lifestyle - I eat on the go, as I work 12 hour shifts but don't get lunch breaks, I'm allowed to eat on the job. Fruit, carrots, canned fish, boiled eggs, etc - easy snacks.
Now the funny thing is, I feel as though I'm eating tonnes! I am sure that I'm eating more than when I was overweight. BUT I'm also eating healthy. I couldn't imagine myself eating so much fruit, vegetables, wholegrains, proteins, fats etc - if I didn't eat often. Eating breakfast, and eating often helps me fight any cravings for junk food. When cakes/doughnuts go around in the workplace, the old me would have gorged itself. Now, I'll treat myself to one tart - quality stuff.
However, heres the crunch - it works for me as part of a whole lifestyle. That lifestyle includes a variety of exercises, activities, and workouts.
Now I eat small and often (not always that small!). I ALWAYS start with a good breakfast, and yes, I do usually eat every two to four hours except during sleep. I even eat just before bed (usually cottage cheese). It also fits my workplace lifestyle - I eat on the go, as I work 12 hour shifts but don't get lunch breaks, I'm allowed to eat on the job. Fruit, carrots, canned fish, boiled eggs, etc - easy snacks.
Now the funny thing is, I feel as though I'm eating tonnes! I am sure that I'm eating more than when I was overweight. BUT I'm also eating healthy. I couldn't imagine myself eating so much fruit, vegetables, wholegrains, proteins, fats etc - if I didn't eat often. Eating breakfast, and eating often helps me fight any cravings for junk food. When cakes/doughnuts go around in the workplace, the old me would have gorged itself. Now, I'll treat myself to one tart - quality stuff.
However, heres the crunch - it works for me as part of a whole lifestyle. That lifestyle includes a variety of exercises, activities, and workouts.
Oh ok well I just missunderstood what you were saying, thanks for clearing that up - I'm not trying to have an argument with you or anything, or wanting to have a big debate on this post. Most of my post was just general information not directed at you in particular, like stuff about digestion etc. It really wasn't personal :'(
I never said eating breakfast makes you skinny, however regular meals in my opinion do help to promote a healthy weight as an overall healthy attitude to food, which is why I quoted it: people with healthy eating habits/patterns, and that includes frequency in my eyes (aka 3 meals vs one a day) will be slimmer, while going through eating behaviours such as starving all day then eating a big meal does not - especially in women as I and many other women/teenage girls start adopting these behaviours, which can then lead to disordered eating (it's taken me 3 years at least to get over mine). That's all I meant, and I appologise for not making it clearer. I agree with you in the sense that eating very small meals throughout the day is a pain (I rarely do more than 4-5 personally) however I like to promote breakfast as a first step to a healthier attitude to food, and because of "ghost" reasons behind it too, which I wont get into.
I totally agree with your philosophy on educating people etc - it's what I believe as well, and the whole 5-7 meals a day thing is probably more relevant to people who work out.
--- ok this next bit might bore most people ---
I'll post a longer reply when I've finished cooking if you like (let me know), although I might send you a perso message instead as I'm scared we might bore people to death with technicalities and it probably wont answer the original question! Anyway like I said, didnt want to start an argument/big debate and we obviously missed each other's points
- I'm not trying to have an argument with you or anything, or wanting to have a big debate on this post. Most of my post was just general information not directed at you in particular, like stuff about digestion etc. It really wasn't personal :'(I never said eating breakfast makes you skinny, however regular meals in my opinion do help to promote a healthy weight as an overall healthy attitude to food, which is why I quoted it: people with healthy eating habits/patterns, and that includes frequency in my eyes (aka 3 meals vs one a day) will be slimmer, while going through eating behaviours such as starving all day then eating a big meal does not - especially in women as I and many other women/teenage girls start adopting these behaviours, which can then lead to disordered eating (it's taken me 3 years at least to get over mine). That's all I meant, and I appologise for not making it clearer. I agree with you in the sense that eating very small meals throughout the day is a pain (I rarely do more than 4-5 personally) however I like to promote breakfast as a first step to a healthier attitude to food, and because of "ghost" reasons behind it too, which I wont get into.
I totally agree with your philosophy on educating people etc - it's what I believe as well, and the whole 5-7 meals a day thing is probably more relevant to people who work out.
--- ok this next bit might bore most people ---
I obviously missunderstand what you mean by "metabolic output/rate" - I guess in fitness you must have very specific expressions which differs from the ones I have learnt - I am not familiar with it obviously. For me metabolic rate or output is a general term to describe what metabolic processes your body decides to switch on or off, in correlation with the energy ratio/status of the cell (that might be biochem jargon lol). All I meat was eat proper food, several times a day. Seeing that even fat is an endocrine organ that produces hormones, it is very probable that meal frequency and composition as well as total calories are not as separate as one may think.
I'll post a longer reply when I've finished cooking if you like (let me know), although I might send you a perso message instead as I'm scared we might bore people to death with technicalities and it probably wont answer the original question! Anyway like I said, didnt want to start an argument/big debate and we obviously missed each other's points
Last edited:
Oh ok well I just missunderstood what you were saying, thanks for clearing that up
I'll post a longer reply when I've finished cooking, although I might send you a perso message as I'm scared we might bore people to death with technicalities and it probably wont answer the original question!
I wouldn't be too concerned about the original question. I think everyone does a pretty good job of answering questions around here. Plus, I've found that most questions lead into debate or discussion anyhow that many people end up learning from..... so it's all good.
And this is just how I am. What I said was very clear, and as soon as someone says "steve, you are wrong," I defend my answer while trying to stay as "nice" as possible.
It's been an ongoing theme as of late on many forums where people lash out against my post (not that this is what you were doing) and put all these words into my mouth. It's very insensible.
I like being questioned though. Always. So don't view it as a bad thing!
I think you can keep your reply here, but if you really want to do it privately, that is fine too. Just know that the character limit sucks in the PM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Didn't say "steve you are wrong" but "I disagree with steve" = nothing wrong with different opinions (although I did missunderstand your point)? I probably still view breakfast as something probably more important than some people, and there is nothing wrong with that really.
Wasn't trying to lash out, put words in your mouth or anything I really hate getting into conflict with people on message boards, especially when to be honest from what I've read of your post, I agree with your general philosophy. Also I guess inevitably sometimes people have different views. I guess it must be annoying to feel like everyone's disagreeing with you for futile reasons.
Anyway I'm going to need your opinion sooner or later this week
I need some advice on a easy workout I'm devising for my mum.
Wasn't trying to lash out, put words in your mouth or anything
I really hate getting into conflict with people on message boards, especially when to be honest from what I've read of your post, I agree with your general philosophy. Also I guess inevitably sometimes people have different views. I guess it must be annoying to feel like everyone's disagreeing with you for futile reasons.Anyway I'm going to need your opinion sooner or later this week
I need some advice on a easy workout I'm devising for my mum.
Last edited:
Didn't say "steve you are wrong" but "I disagree with steve" = nothing wrong with different opinions (although I did missunderstand your point)? I probably still view breakfast as something probably more important than some people, and there is nothing wrong with that really.
Wasn't trying to lash out, put words in your mouth or anything
Anyway I'm going to need your opinion sooner or later this week
Well, you seem like a very opinionated individual.
On top of this, I like what you have to say. People who speak up and give advice on here almost certainly cross paths with me in terms of debating or being asked to back up the claims they make. It's only reasonable IMO.So don't ever think I am personally out to get you. ESPECIALLY don't think that I am offended in anyway.
I don't think anyone could really do that on the web, honestly.
Opposing opinions are excellent. Most often they help expose the truth! And if no "truth" is found, they at the least give the readers something to think about.
My only reason for my rant was quite simple.
Meal frequency/timing has little to no impact on metabolic rate. That was my sole point.
You disagreeing with that did not make sense to me, thus you heard my rant!
Certainly no foul on your part.
See ya around.
I hope you're not out to get me because you've got waaay more muscles than I do and you'd kick my ass
I'm never out to get anyone, haha. Usually I don't have to do much.... most "gurus" the hop in here put their own foot in their mouth.... long before I actually have to "get" anyone.
You speak with logic. If anything, I'm happy you found your way into the community and hope you stick around.