Not lasting to lunch!

[jumbotights]

Not even close! Oatmeal about one cup at 8:30am, and ravenous by 11! This wont work since dinner has to be 7pm. I have no real appetite at breakfast but choke down some plain oatmeal on way to work so I can make my three distinct meals. Well this morning I was literally shaky hungry within 2-1/2 hours of the oatmeal. I need to find something I can eat while driving because I have no appetite before that time that actually lasts me to lunch. This step is sooooo hard for me, I never go 5 hours, never.

[Sienna]

Can you eat breakfast at work at a better time for you? Oatmeal rewarms fairly well in a microwave or would stay warm in a thermos. Also, you might try adding some protein to your breakfast. Eggs can be hardboiled in advanced and grabbed on the go from the fridge. If time at work is an issue, perhaps you could plan to leave your home a little early (you'd have more time since you weren't eating) and so you could eat before work started.

[montanajack]

If you're overweight, you will have issues with insulin resistance. It isn't "you might", it is simply how bad...mild, moderate, etc. So, if you are overweight and have insulin resistance, starting the day with oatmeal by itself probably not the best choice.

I can find a zillion references and reasons why, all based on objective science, but, my $.02?

Change your breakfast. Eat a more Zone-like breakfast consisting of less carbs, more protein and more fat. The protein and fat will help take care of your hunger. Some ideas:

1. Lets say you want to keep the oatmeal. Add some protein powder to it (AFTER) it has cooked and cooled a bit (you'll need to add some water). In addition, add a little peanut butter or olive oil to get that 40/30/30 balance.
2. Another option? Like Sienna notes eggs are great. They're a mainstay on many programs...low carb, high carb. I love an egg white omelet with some black beans, vegetables, cheese and salsa. Change up the mix, but, the Slow Carb diet is a good example of making a near Zone-like diet work with very little trouble:

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/20 ... -exercise/

3. A third delicious option are breakfasts on thin Whole Wheat bagels (<100 cal) with eggs, cheese and and Canadian bacon. I lightly grill some onions as well.
4. Art Devany has a wonderful breakfast of eggs & Canadian bacon with berries (staying on the "Evolutionary" Diet side of things).

You'd be surprised what a big difference getting off a pure carb breakfast will do for you.

One question: do you drink coffee? If so, cut your java by at least 50%. Coffee jacks with your cortisol which screws up your blood sugar big time if you're trying to lose fat. Elevated cortisol = less release of HGH = less burning of bodyfat, a BAD thing.

[wosnes]

If you're overweight, you will have issues with insulin resistance. It isn't "you might", it is simply how bad...mild, moderate, etc. So, if you are overweight and have insulin resistance, starting the day with oatmeal by itself probably not the best choice.

What's the source for that?

Oatmeal isn't one of my favorites, but every now and again I have a bowl for breakfast. It never lasts me until lunch, either. It does help if I add some fat -- milk and/or butter. But it's still not the best choice for me; I will be ravenous by lunch.

Oddly enough, whole grain toast with butter and some fruit easily lasts me until lunch. I don't always eat breakfast, but the earlier I eat, the more I eat.

[montanajack]

Which? The insulin resistance? I can check if that is what you're referring to.

[Sienna]

I'm overweight (and not just a little bit - up until about a month ago I was obese). My blood sugar levels have never been even a tiny bit problematic. I routinely have just oatmeal for breakfast and find that (for me) it fills me up just fine. And I've never had a problem with a high carb breakfast making me feel tired. So I'm not sure how accurate your first statement is, but I would love to see your source on that. It's my personal hypothesis that one of the reasons that so many conflicting scientific studies exist is that people are just different from one another. Protein and/or fat in the morning is great for many people (hence why I recommended jumbotights try adding some - maybe it works for them, maybe it won't, but can't know until they try), but not necessary for everyone.

[wosnes]

Which? The insulin resistance? I can check if that is what you're referring to.

Yes, the insulin resistance. I've never heard that it's a given that one will have problems with it if overweight.

[jumbotights]

Thanks all, I do drink lots of coffee in the morning. Looks like I will need to change what I eat and see if adding some protein helps. I had to have some cheese before lunch or i would have died. Will try something different tomorrow, more fat and protein, thanks.

[Kevin]

Remember this about oatmeal: it's 2/3 water. A quarter cup of dry oatmeal (26-29 grams of carbs) makes 3/4 cups of oatmeal.

That ain't much food.

But I love oatmeal. Tomorrow, I'm going to add an egg's worth of egg white (5 grams of protein to the oatmeal's 4) to it before I cook it. I'll let you know if it's edible.

I usually eat my oatmeal with a pinch of salt, butter, milk, cinnamon and raisins. It tastes like cinnamon toast.

It's a great idea to delay breakfast until you get to work if you aren't hungry in the morning. I often do.

Oh, the shakes will probably lessen over time. Don't give up. If you have to, eat four (small) meals for a week or so.

[montanajack]

I'm looking for a few more references for you, but, here's a start:

Insulin resistance is one of the reasons for hyperinsulinism. This condition is strongly associated with obesity; and in general the fatter you become the more insulin resistance you will demonstrate, for one important reason. Insulin resistance is an adaptation that keeps fat people from becoming even fatter -- reducing the effectiveness of the insulin molecules causes less efficient fat storage.

Dr. John McDougall, MD

Here are some references as well:

Barzlai N, She L, Liu B-Q, Vuguin P, Cohen P, Wang J, and Rossetti L. "Surgical removal of visceral fat reverses hepatic insulin resistance." Diabetes 48: 94-98 (1999)

Kahn BB and Flier JS. "Obesity and insulin resistance." J Clin Invest 106: 473-481 (2000)

Reaven GM and Laws A. Insulin Resistance. The Metabolic Syndrome X. Humana Press, Totowa NJ. (1999)

Silha JV, Krsek M, Skrha JV, Sucharda P, Nyomba BL, and Murphy LJ.
“Plasma resistin, adiponectin and leptin levels in lean and obese subjects: correlations with insulin resistance.†Eur J Endocrinol 149: 331-335 (2003)

[Over43]

Hi Jumbotights,

I would like to add to some of the posts, at least agree with them. If I eat cereal, oatmeal, etc. for breakfast I'm chewing on the carpet by 10:00. If I eat some sausage (or bacon), eggs, and a slice of toast, then I am more satiated until lunch.

Even Saturday, which I planned as an N Day, I had oatmeal, but had sausage links on the side, and was good to go until 3 (I ate breakfast at 9).

Good luck to you.

O43

[Sienna]

Hi montanajack, thanks for the references! I've paged through the abstracts and a few of the articles, although admittedly I haven't finished reading all of the articles yet.

But based on what I've seen thus far I think I've found a source of miscommunication, so I wanted to address that.

Your original statement was:
montanajack wrote:

If you're overweight, you will have issues with insulin resistance. It isn't "you might", it is simply how bad...mild, moderate, etc. So, if you are overweight and have insulin resistance, starting the day with oatmeal by itself probably not the best choice.

I think what struck me, was the absolute nature of your statement. You *will* have issues with insulin resistance if you are overweight. I don't disagree that an increased BMI increases the risk for insulin resistance, and the references that you supply seem to support that. However, from what I have seen so far, none of them seem to support the claim that ALL overweight people have insulin resistance or even that ALL obese people have insulin resistance.

In fact, since your original post, I have done a bit of additional research of my own, and I came across this article: Relationship between obesity, insulin resistance, and coronary heart disease risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Sep 4;40(5):937-43. which can be found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... archtype=a

This article supports that high BMI is correlated with insulin resistance. However, if you look at figure 1 which plots SSPG (a measure of insulin resistance) versus BMI for individuals, you can see that while there is a correlation, there are also many individual with high BMIs without insulin resistance.

So based on the references that you provided, I'm wondering if I misunderstood you initial post, and that you merely meant that if someone is overweight there is a good chance that they are insulin resistant and should look at that as a possible cause.

[sbimka]

I think its really important to pay attention to what your body is telling you. We are all different and what is right for one may not be right for another. My husband loves oatmeal and will be satisfied till his next meal which is usually 5 hours later. Me? It does not satisfy. I too experience the shakes as you describe after eating carbs. I do very well with protein. I do not experience the hunger, instead I feel full. Going by the original question, it seems obvious that oatmeal alone will not work for you. Experiment with the suggestions given and see what your body tells you. Tune in and find what works. Also a great read is Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Insulin resistance is definitely a possibility and very much related to ingestion of carbs.

[montanajack]

Hi Sienna,

Let me provide full disclosure before I go any further: I am not a doctor nor do pretend to play one, so, everything I say is based on my understanding having taken some biology classes over the years, trying to stay current on the latest research and asking a lot of smart people questions.

Ok, having said that I'll say I don't put much credibility in the BMI tool...I think it is highly inaccurate and doesn't provide a lot of useful information. If I'm 74" and 216lbs, the BMI calculator says I'm overweight. However, what if I told you that I worked out and had a 35" waist? I think more accurate tools are a) a tape measure and b) bodyfat calipers.

But, nearly everything I've read indicates if a person is overfat, then he or she is typically insulin resistant. However, depending on their over all health--are they young? are they active? do they consume transfatty vs. healthy fats? etc.--the level of insulin resistance can vary from very mild to quite severe.

At least from my limited understanding, science still hasn't pinned down the exact reason for insulin resistance but believe inflammation, caused by bodyfat, high triglycerides, etc., all tend to be key contributors.

[montanajack]

Tune in and find what works. Also a great read is Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Insulin resistance is definitely a possibility and very much related to ingestion of carbs.

Hi,

I've read both of Mr. Taubes' books and have been a bit disappointed with the accuracy of his information. For example, with all of his criticism of carbs as part of the human diet, he fails to address in either Good Carbs Bad Carbs or Why We're Fat why 'The Blue Zones'--portions of the world with the longest lived, healthiest peoples--survive on predominantly carb diets.

Mr. Taubes' newest book cites Dr. Ron Rosedale as a leading physician who supports the Atkins approach to low carb diets, which is completely untrue. He also also suggests red meat and fatty cuts as a safe part of your diet, however, what he fails to mention in his recommendation is red meat is very inflammatory because of its affect on insulin. (Ref: An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. Susanne HA Holt, Janette C Brand Miller, and Peter Petocz)

Also, Saturated Fatty Acids (SFAs) are loaded with arachidonic acid, a very pro-inflammatory fat. Also, I don't think Mr. Taubes has been too far outside of Boston or NYC...most hunters would tell him that wild game, which our Paleo ancestors survived on, is quite lean with only a few portions of the animal containing fat (eg several organs). And for those who've gone through any kind of survival-style school, foliage, lots of bugs, etc., all become part of the diet.

While its nowhere near as voluminous as Mr. Taubes' Good Calories Bad Calories, I'd recommend Art Devany's book as a guide to Paleo eating.

However, I think Mr. Taubes position on processed carbs is 100% correct: they have little or no place in the human diet.

[Graham]

@montanajack: I don't think Taubes is quite so blind and ignorant as you suggest - but the info on the blue zones is very interesting, and very encouraging.

One of the issues that has been bothering me about a low-carb solution to Western ailments is whether it would be a sustainable global approach. The blue-zone diets aren't heavily reliant on animal protein - yet, as far as my limited exploration has taken me, they aren't heavily reliant on grains either.

A complicating issue when recommending strategies to obese Westerners is that a diet and lifestyle that might have prevented obesity might not be the answer once obesity exists. Well-known advocates of low carb strategies such as the Eades or Atkins were clinicians treating people already deep in metabolic difficulties. Whatever fault we may find with the particulars of their approaches, let's not forget their work was based on a foundation of successful treatment of obesity.

[kccc]

It's my personal hypothesis that one of the reasons that so many conflicting scientific studies exist is that people are just different from one another.

I absolutely agree.

And as a corollary, I think scientific studies produce conflicting results when the studies are not sufficiently fine-tuned to account for (a) the specific variables that actually matter (b) the complex interactions of multiple variables that are all necessary.

One reason I like BA's statement that "we are all experiments of one".

[montanajack]

Hi Graham,

@montanajack: I don't think Taubes is quite so blind and ignorant as you suggest

Not suggesting blind or ignorant or blind, moreso, his personal bias prevented him from from providing a balanced set of facts regarding his recommendations. For example, vegan and vegetarian diets have been proven to work miracles with diseases. Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, MD, for example, has had 100% success over 20 years in reversing heart (arterial) disease with a vegan diet. This is based on objective science, yet, Mr. Taubes fails to mention this in his criticism of vegetarian approaches. And a very good point regarding the sustainability a program diet eating a meat-centric diet.

At the same time, the vegan advocates overlook many facts. For example, humans cannot obtain vitamin B-12 from a vegan diet so it is obtained via supplements. So, humans are clearly omnivore. Another fact that is overlooked is there is no chance our Paleo ancestors could have survived as vegans prior to fire and some basic cooking tools. As grain and legumes are indigestible by humans in their natural form, where did they get their calories? Most probably fruits, nuts, vegetables, bugs and animal proteins.

So, everyone has their bias.

To me, balance is best...the Zone, the Mediterranean Diet. Moderate amounts of the three macronutrients from healthy sources...tough to go wrong with that.

[Miyabi]

How about adding some walnuts or almonds to your oatmeal? This is one of Reinhard's dietary defaults (with dried fruit). I've experimented a lot with this since I eat lunch late, and I've found that a grain & nut combination seems to work the best. Bread with peanut butter is another good one. Some sort of fruit and milk or yogurt are good to add if you can. I find this combination means no mid-morning crash even with the large quantity of strong coffee I drink.

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

@montanajack: I don't think Taubes is quite so blind and ignorant as you suggest

Not suggesting blind or ignorant or blind, moreso, his personal bias prevented him from from providing a balanced set of facts regarding his recommendations. For example, vegan and vegetarian diets have been proven to work miracles with diseases. Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, MD, for example, has had 100% success over 20 years in reversing heart (arterial) disease with a vegan diet. This is based on objective science, yet, Mr. Taubes fails to mention this in his criticism of vegetarian approaches.

I read and investigated similar atherosclerosis reduction claims made by Dean Ornish some years ago. I came across an interesting analysis and comparison of various dietary approaches that showed any of the diets studied (including Atkins) that reduced obesity also reduced atherosclerosis. Ornish's vegan diet was effective, but had poor compliance, poorer than either Weight Watchers or Atkins, but to the degree obesity was reduced by any of the studied diets, so was atherosclerosis.

At the same time, the vegan advocates overlook many facts. For example, humans cannot obtain vitamin B-12 from a vegan diet so it is obtained via supplements. So, humans are clearly omnivore. Another fact that is overlooked is there is no chance our Paleo ancestors could have survived as vegans prior to fire and some basic cooking tools. As grain and legumes are indigestible by humans in their natural form, where did they get their calories? Most probably fruits, nuts, vegetables, bugs and animal proteins.

Interesting points here - I agree about the bugs, very much overlooked. Unwashed fruit and vegetables tend to include some bugs even if you aren't intentionally meaning to eat them. A purely vegan diet would take a special effort that neither our ancestors nor modern gorillas would bother to make.

As for the edibility of legumes and grains - most are edible uncooked when they are young and green, and at any later point if they are sprouted - cooking not required.

One thing we can all agree on: whatever dietary problems confront us, finding a personally agreeable solution is the way to go - "Good health by too strict a regimen is a malady in itself" de la Rochefoucauld.

[wosnes]

Hi Graham,

@montanajack: I don't think Taubes is quite so blind and ignorant as you suggest

Not suggesting blind or ignorant or blind, moreso, his personal bias prevented him from from providing a balanced set of facts regarding his recommendations. For example, vegan and vegetarian diets have been proven to work miracles with diseases. Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, MD, for example, has had 100% success over 20 years in reversing heart (arterial) disease with a vegan diet. This is based on objective science, yet, Mr. Taubes fails to mention this in his criticism of vegetarian approaches. And a very good point regarding the sustainability a program diet eating a meat-centric diet.

At the same time, the vegan advocates overlook many facts. For example, humans cannot obtain vitamin B-12 from a vegan diet so it is obtained via supplements. So, humans are clearly omnivore. Another fact that is overlooked is there is no chance our Paleo ancestors could have survived as vegans prior to fire and some basic cooking tools. As grain and legumes are indigestible by humans in their natural form, where did they get their calories? Most probably fruits, nuts, vegetables, bugs and animal proteins.

So, everyone has their bias.

To me, balance is best...the Zone, the Mediterranean Diet. Moderate amounts of the three macronutrients from healthy sources...tough to go wrong with that.

I agree that balance is best.

Those who promote a vegan diet overlook something else: maybe it's not the absence of meat and saturated fat, but the absence of overly processed and refined foods. Industrialized foods. I don't necessarily mean "the white stuff" that we would use in cooking at home, but all the products available in our stores and restaurants whose ingredient lists read like chemistry experiments. For the most part, those aren't available in the Blue Zones or any of the other populations that are healthy and long-lived.

It's my personal hypothesis that one of the reasons that so many conflicting scientific studies exist is that people are just different from one another.

I absolutely agree.

I disagree somewhat. I think we're all more alike than different, though there are minor differences. Studies make those minor differences seem larger than they are. I also think that the studies and media coverage of those studies combined with a desire for some kind of perfection blow the differences out of proportion.

I think the reason that so many conflicting studies exist is that everyone is out to prove something different. They don't believe that more than one thing can be right -- someone has to be wrong. They consistently overlook the fact that no matter what they try to prove, someone is out there proving that wrong. Not only some other scientist or researcher, but also some group of long-lived, healthy people.

No matter if you're trying to prove that meat is bad and grains are good or meat is good and grains are bad -- it can be proven. The truth is, people have been eating grains and meat for thousands of years. Some populations ate more of one than the other, it depended on what was available to them. If they traveled from one area to another -- they adapted. If you lived in "x" -- you ate what the people of "x" ate. There weren't other choices. If you lived in the Mediterranean, for example, many of the foods available were similar or identical, just prepared or used differently from one spot to another.

Two things have been proven over the years. 1. Over consumption leads to obesity and health issues (think of the aristocracy during medieval times). 2. If you bring people from the Blue Zones (and others) to the US and feed them the current standard diet here, they gain weight and get sick.

Though I'm aware of the various studies and philosophies, I don't pay attention to them anymore. Instead, I'm paying attention to the eating habits of those who are healthy and long-lived. I eat real food in moderation -- with occasional indulgences or excess. Common sense, balance, moderation and real food. I pay no attention to BMI, height/waist ratio, or anything else. My blood work is excellent and my doctors are happy.

I have a hunch that the problem doesn't lie with meat or grains even some refined grains, but with the industrialized, fake foods that are the basis of many people's diets. The more these things have been consumed over the years, the more problems there have been with weight and health.

FACT 1. Populations that eat a so-called Western diet -- generally defined as a diet consisting of lots of processed foods and meat, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of refined grains, lots of everything except vegetables, fruits and whole grains -- invariably suffer from high rates of the so-called Western diseases: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

FACT 2. Populations eating a remarkably wide range of traditional diets generally don't suffer from these chronic diseases. These diets run the gamut from ones very high in fat (the Inuit in Greenland subsist largely on seal blubber) to ones high in carbohydrate (Central American Indians subsist largely on maize and beans) to ones very high in protein (Masai tribesmen in Africa subsist chiefly on cattle blood, meat, and milk) to cite three rather extreme examples. What this suggests is that there is no single ideal human diet but that the human omnivore is exquisitely adapted to a wide range of different foods and a variety of different diets. Except, that is, for one: the relatively new (in evolutionary terms) Western diet that most of us now are eating. What an extraordinary achievement for a civilization: to have developed the one diet that reliably makes its people sick! (While it is true that we generally live longer than people used to, or than in some traditional cultures do, most of our added years owe to gains in infant mortality and child health, not diet).

There is actually a third, very hopeful fact that flows from these two: People who get off the Western diets see dramatic improvements in their health. We have good research to suggest that the effects of the Western diet can be rolled back, and relatively quickly. In one analysis, a typical American population that departed even modestly from the Western diet (and lifestyle) could reduce its chances of getting coronary heart disease by 80 percent, , its chances of type 2 diabetes by 90 percent, and its chances of colon cancer by 70 percent.

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

And don't pay too much attention to the research. There's a saying "If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it." In terms of diet, I think there's much to learn from how people ate before the scientists and researchers started telling us how to eat.

[Tina]

Sienna, try a breakfast smoothie! They're great for sipping in the car or you can take your time with them at work as your hunger arrives. I agree with the call for some protein in the morning, and for moderation in everything. I get a lot of protein from eggs - my morning smoothie has fruit, water, coconut milk, ground flax and sesame seeds, raw eggs and spinach or other greens. Sounds awful but it really works for me - no hunger for about 5 hours. The point is to experiment and find what works for you. Good luck!

[used2bskinny]

Try making a fat free latte with instant coffee and hot milk, no sugar, At least it's not eating. i think the diet allows sugar free drinks.

Used2bskinny

[NoelFigart]

used2bskinny, you can put sugar in your coffee if you want to. LOL. No matter how much sugar you put in your coffee, you won't put as much in as would be added in commercially prepared sweet drinks.

It's not "No Sugar", it's "No Sweets".

You don't even have to go the fat-free route if you don't want to. (Though, if you're making a cappuccino, skim milk DOES froth better.)