Nutrition Articles     |    Pitfalls and Plateaus

The Glycemic Index ranks carbohydrate-containing foods (on a scale from 0 to 100) based on their effects on blood sugar levels in the body. Foods are ranked based on how they compare to a reference food—either glucose or white bread. A food with a high glycemic index (70 or above) will elevate your blood glucose higher—and more quickly—than a food with a medium or low glycemic index (55 or less).

Highly processed and sweetened foods, such as candy or even bread made from refined white flour, tend to have a high glycemic index while less processed “whole” foods, such as an apple or whole-wheat bread tend to be lower in glycemic index. When planning meals using the glycemic index as a guide, proponents recommend choosing foods that are low or medium on the scale as often as possible. This usually is a good idea for any healthy diet because low-GI foods tend to be less processed, more nutritious and more wholesome. But plenty of good-for-you foods can have a high glycemic index (watermelon is one example), while other “unhealthy” foods like candy bars can be low on the GI scale.

Proponents of the GI diet believe that the lower the GI number of a carbohydrate food, the better. High GI foods are digested and metabolized more quickly, causing a rapid rise in blood glucose levels. This creates a dramatic spike in levels of the hormone insulin, which works to remove sugar from the blood. These responses can lead to an overproduction of insulin, contributing to weight gain. Therefore, carbohydrate foods with low glycemic indexes cause less insulin secretion and slow the clearing of glucose from the bloodstream—resulting in greater satiety, and fewer calories consumed throughout the day.

To give you an idea of how various foods rank on the glycemic index, here are a few foods along with their average GI ranking. Remember that 55 or less is considered “low,” 56-69 is considered “medium” and 70-100 is considered “high” on the glycemic index. Most non-carbohydrate or low-carbohydrate foods (protein, meat, fat, nuts, oil, etc.) have a “low” glycemic index.

Food	Glycemic Index
Peanuts	8
Agave nectar	11
Dark chocolate	23
Cashews	25
Grapefruit	25
Chickpeas	28
Apricots	31
Lentils	32
Tomato juice	33
Soy milk	34
Pizza	35
Apple	36
Skim milk	37
Baked beans	40
Apple juice	41
Fruit yogurt	41
Orange	43
Snickers bar	43
Milk chocolate	45
Corn tortilla	46
Meat lasagna	47
Vegetable soup	48
Orange juice	50
Banana	51
Ice cream	51
Sweet corn	52
Potato chips	54
All-Bran cereal	55
Clif Bar	57
Power Bar	58
Soda	59
Honey	61
French fries	63
Green beans	63
Sweet potato	63
Raisins	64
Popcorn, plain	65
Fruit punch	67
Brown rice	68
Baked potato	69
White bagel	69
White rice	73
Doughnut	75
White bread	75
Watermelon	76
Chocolate chip granola bar	78
Gatorade	78
Instant oatmeal	79
Corn flakes	81
Caramel rice cake	82
Pretzels	83
Rice milk	86

(Additional information and glycemic index values can be found at www.GlycemicIndex.com and www.Mendosa.com. However, SparkPeople does not necessarily endorse the content or reliability of these websites.)

Diabetes Management: Carbohydrates and the Glycemic Index
According to the American Diabetes Association and the American Dietetic Association, there is no singular diet or meal plan that works for everyone with diabetes. People with diabetes are encouraged to work with a Certified Diabetes Educator to develop a personalized meal plan to achieve blood glucose control and weight management. Overall, research studies indicate that the total amount of carbohydrate consumed is the strongest predictor of blood glucose response, and this is typically the first tool used in the managing of blood glucose levels. For individuals needing greater blood sugar control, choosing low-glycemic carbohydrates along with a carbohydrate-controlled diet plan may produce modest results. However, it is not recommended that people with diabetes follow a low-GI eating plan alone. The amount of carbohydrates a person eats—regardless of their effects on blood sugar—is still important.

Glitches in the Glycemic Index
The glycemic index is a marvelous tool for ranking carbohydrate-containing foods, but it’s still in its infancy and needs additional research. It can be challenging for individuals to make healthy food choices, and the glycemic index can add another level of complication to a person’s diet. Although it does have some practical benefits, here are a few of the limitations of the glycemic index.

• There is usually a wide variation in the glycemic index of any given food. Even in the chart above, the glycemic values listed are averages. One study can list a potato’s glycemic index as low as 56 and another may rank it as high as 100. Therefore, the glycemic index is not an absolute—it should be thought of as a guide only.
• Many factors affect the glycemic index of a given food: ripeness, storage time, processing, preparation, and the other foods you eat with it. For example, juice has a higher glycemic index than whole fruit; mashed potatoes are higher than a baked potato, and whole-wheat bread has a higher GI than whole-wheat flour.
• Grinding and cooking can elevate the glycemic index of some foods, because these techniques make it quicker and easier for your body to digest food. For example, al dente pasta has a lower GI than soft-cooked pasta.
• Glycemic indexes are based on individual foods, but most people eat food in combinations within a meal or snack. Eating carbohydrate foods with fiber, protein, and fat will usually reduce the glycemic index of a meal as a whole.
• Every individual digests carbohydrates at a different rate, and your body’s glycemic response may vary greatly throughout the day.
• Not every “high” GI food should be avoided from a nutritional standpoint. And the inverse is also true: many low GI foods aren’t necessarily healthful or nutritious. When certain high glycemic foods are eliminated from the diet, so are vital vitamins, minerals, fiber, and phytochemicals. Watermelon has a “high” glycemic index of 76, but it is high in potassium, vitamin A, and lycopene, and low in calories, for example. On the other end of the spectrum, a Snickers bar has a “low” glycemic index of 43, yet doesn’t contribute much in the way of nutrition. Therefore, the use of the glycemic index needs to be balanced with basic nutrition principles and healthy food choices.
• Relying on the glycemic index alone may lead to overeating and weight gain. The GI value represents the type of carbohydrate in a food (fast digesting or slow digesting), but says nothing about the amount of carbohydrates—or calories—it contains. Peanuts look like the perfect choice with a GI of 8, but with about 400 calories in 1/2 cup, they won’t help shed pounds when eaten in excess. Portion control is still relevant for managing blood glucose levels and for managing your weight.

SparkPeople’s Stance
The glycemic index is one option for ranking the healthfulness of carbohydrate-containing foods, but it’s not perfect—and more research is needed. It’s not a bad idea to be aware of the glycemic index and applying some of its principles when choosing carbohydrates for blood sugar control and filling power. Just don’t rely fully on the glycemic index as a guide for what to eat and what to avoid. Keep the following facts in mind:

• 20% of the average American’s calories come from high-carbohydrate, “empty calorie” foods, such as cakes, cookies, pies, pastries, ice cream, sugar, candy, soda pop, and chips. Current recommendations state that sugar should make up NO MORE than 7% of one’s total calorie intake.
• Fresh fruits and vegetables, and whole grains are nutritionally superior to highly processed, refined products.
• Simply limiting the total number of carbohydrates you consume at any given meal can more easily control your blood sugar levels than choosing low-glycemic foods alone can. Distribute your daily total evenly among 3 meals and 1-3 snacks. By focusing on portion sizes and balanced meals throughout the day, you’ll help keep your blood glucose—and hunger—levels in check.
• You probably don’t need a complicated rating system to confuse you about which carbohydrates to include in your diet. We believe that the glycemic index is just one of many tools that can help you learn about the pros and cons of various foods, but it should not be the be-all-end-all guide to healthy eating.

Selected Sources
Nutrition Recommendations and Interventions for Diabetes: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association. American Diabetes Association, Bantle JP, Wylie-Rosett J, Albright AL, Apovian CM, Clark NG, Franz MJ, Hoogwerf BJ, Lichtenstein AH, Mayer-Davis E, Mooradian AD, Wheeler ML. Diabetes Care. 2010 Aug;33(8):1911.

The Evidence for Medical Nutrition Therapy for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in Adults, Franz MJ, Powers MA, Leontos C, Holzmeister LA, Kulkarni K, Monk A, Wedel N, Gradwell E. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2010 Dec :110(12):1852-89.

Craig Ballantyne, CTT

Chances are you’re reading this on Saturday or Sunday…hopefully you didn’t have too much to drink last night.

Let’s talk about a real politically incorrect topic in the fitness world – booze.

So many readers ask, “Can I still drink while on a fat loss program?” And well, the answer is yes, you can do anything you want on a fat loss program…you just have to accept the consequences of your actions.

And what are the consequences of drinking?

Well, here’s a dirty little secret. Just because you drink a little beer – or have a glass of wine every night – doesn’t mean you can blame your belly fat on booze.

After all, a glass of wine, a bottle of beer, and a shot of alcohol all roughly contain the same amount of calories, between 100-150. A glass of wine adds fewer calories to your diet than most minor eating mistakes, such as:

– a cube of cheese
– two handfuls of nacho chips
– a few chicken wings
– half a giant bakery muffin
– or half a slice of post-bar pizza

Of course, if you’re drinking a Jack and Coke, you can expect to almost double your calorie intake…so 6 of those in a night and you’re looking at 1800 calories – that’s REAL damage…but only moderate damage if you stick to 6 light beers, which would hit you up at 600-900 calories.

The reality is that alcohol does NOT add that many calories to most people’s diets.

The truth is you need to stop blaming alcohol for your belly fat and look at what you are eating. That’s where your calories are probably piling up.

NOTE: Unless you’re consuming one of the 500 calorie Starbucks concoctions…then you DO have a liquid calorie problem…but one glass of booze per day is not making you fat.

As for all the so-called fat loss ‘gurus’ who try to impress us with their knowledge and claim that alcohol slows your metabolism, that just doesn’t hold up in the real world.

What matters is total calories coming from the liquids, and if you keep that low and it fits into your daily diet, then yes, you can drink booze on a fat loss program and still lose fat.

But there are other factors in the booze discussion we must address.

First, I’d never recommend someone start drinking just to get the so-called health benefits of alcohol.

I’ve seen first hand what booze can really do, and it hurts more people than it helps – directly and indirectly.

My father drank about 12 beers a day for 30 years, and while he never weight over 165 pounds at 5’9″ until his final year, it was the booze that killed him.

Handle your drinking with care. It can be a dangerous vice. Even binge drinking, which is what I used to do back in the early 2000′s, can be quite harmful.

If you go all week without drinking and then drink six, nine, twelve, or more drinks in a night, this will hurt you in the long haul.

Besides, once you get over 30 years old, the “mornings after” are hardly worth the “nights before”, at least in my opinion.

Today, I’ve come a long way from the 18 year old who used to drink all Friday night, work manual labor all Saturday, and then drink again all Saturday night.

I’m also a lot different from the 27 year old who would go all week without booze and then drink from 4pm to 4am on Saturday night.

Neither of those were healthy lifestyles. And I should have known better, particularly the 27-year old me.

Today, I rarely drink, and I recognize that when I do have a couple of drinks, it decreases the quality of sleep and leaves me stuffed up the next day.

It’s just not worth. In fact, for anyone who drinks each night and feels tired the next day, I guarantee you’ll overcome your lack of energy by giving up your nightly alcohol.

That’s a fact.

Booze tonight will ruin your tomorrow.

BUT…it shouldn’t stop you from losing belly fat. Alcohol is not kryptonite to your fat loss efforts. Of course, alcohol isn’t going to HELP your fat burning either.

Alcohol contains calories (about the same as you’d get from a similar sized soda or juice), and too many calories from any beverage will leave you with belly fat, but don’t blame your beer belly on beers when you have two drinks and a plate of 2000-calorie nachos and wings.

Understand that for most people, the real belly fat damage comes from the food you eat with the booze, not the booze.

Know your enemy.

Handle with care.

Make the healthy choices.

Now, having lectured you, I’ll admit that from time to time, on special occasions, I’m happy to have a drink.

While in Nicaragua recently, sitting in a restaurant overlooking the Pacific Ocean, I had a few Coronas (and yes, chips and guacamole) on the beach, and it doesn’t get much better than that.

When I go to restaurants, I love a Cabernet with my Ribeye.

And for my cocktail of choice, a friend and I have a ritual of celebrating business deals with a “Moscow Mule”. At STK, the steakhouse in the Cosmopolitan in Vegas, they even bring you the drink in a fancy copper mug.

Oh, and if we’re doing shots (which I don’t do anymore), it’s tequila, no lime or salt needed.

But most of the time, a club soda or bottle of water will do.

Now you know the deal with booze and your belly fat,

Craig Ballantyne, CTT

A surprising look at the effects of antibiotics on gut flora and belly fat levels

Commentary by Mike Geary – Certified Personal Trainer, Certified Nutrition Specialist
Main article by Mark Sisson

Let me start this article by saying that I certainly understand the importance of antibiotics in our medical system.  They have saved literally millions of lives from serious infections.  However, we have to consider some of the side effects of popping so many antibiotics throughout our lives, and as you’ll see in this article, increased belly fat can be one of those side effects.  Not fun.

We also have a very serious overprescription problem with antibiotics in the US.  And thus we also have a growing problem with antibiotic resistance, and possibly creating “super bugs” that are stronger and nastier than ever.

Doctors give out antibiotics prescriptions like candy, at every little minor health issue, including viral infections (which obviously makes no sense, since antibiotics kill bacteria and not viruses).  And remember that whenever you pop that antibiotic pill, you destroy a good portion of your ‘friendly’ bacteria in your gut that help with your digestion and your immunity.  As I’m sure you can understand, those friendly bacteria in your gut are of MAJOR importance to your health.

So whenever you take antibiotics, you’re essentially killing the bad guys (the bacterial infection that you might have), but you’re also killing the good guys (your friendly gut flora), and thus, you disrupt an important part of your digestive and immune systems.

And as you’ll see in the article below, taking antibiotics not only kills some of your beneficial gut bacteria, but even just one cycle of antibiotics can also possibly PERMANENTLY disrupt the balance and health of your gut “microbiome”.

…and the shocking part that the title of this article alluded to:  antibiotics use can possibly increase your abdominal fat.  Youch!

A couple important passages in the article below to pay close attention to:

1.  Transplanting gut flora from obese mice into lean mice turned the formerly lean mice fatter…  Compelling evidence that gut flora has an important connection to body fat levels.

2.  In the study below on antibiotics use in US veterans, take note of the sixfold increase in the hormone ghrelin, and how ghrelin increases your appetite, and can also increase abdominal fat.

3.  Take note also of how antibiotics are used as growth promoters in livestock… particularly to increase body fat levels and fat marbling of meat.  It wouldn’t be a far stretch to correlate this to increased visceral fat in humans in the abdomen.

Hmm… you might want to really question your doctor hard next time he/she prescribes antibiotics for you and make sure they really are necessary for your survival.

The Problems with Antibiotics: They Kill the Good Guys and Make You Fat

by Mark Sisson, best-selling author of The Primal Blueprint

Every time you take antibiotics, billions of domesticated gut flora die inside you.

As I mentioned in recent blog posts, antibiotics are designed not to target human cells, but the same cannot be said for the commensal bacteria living in our guts. See, most antibiotics don’t discriminate between “good” and “bad” bacteria. They target bacteria. They aren’t us, they are foreign entities, but we wouldn’t be us without them. We need them to function properly.

It’s a bit like bringing in an exterminator to kill the bugs infesting your house, and the guy ends up killing your dog and making your cat act funny, along with killing the insects. The job is done, and he technically did what you requested, but now you have to tell your kid that Buddy moved to a farm upstate to go be a sheepdog and figure out how to deal with your cat peeing on the sofa and scratching up your stomach (leaky gut, get it?). Not very fun, and not what you bargained for.

The results of a 2010 study on the lasting effects of antibiotics on one’s gut flora are rather scary. Over a 10 month period, three individuals – humans – each went on two courses of ciprofloxacin, an extremely commonly prescribed antibiotic often used to treat bone and joint infections, respiratory tract infections, gastroenteritis, endocarditis, urinary tract infections, cellulitis, infectious diarrhea, anthrax infection, typhoid fever, and skin infections to name more than a few. In other words, it’s regarded as a trusty all-purpose antibiotic, effective across all species (vets often prescribe cipro). So, what happened to the patients’ gut flora populations after taking cipro?

Three to four days into the treatment schedule, gut diversity was lost and composition was altered. What flora remained became more homogenized, and the various ratios of the more than 400 species of bacteria that live in the gut became lopsided. One week after the conclusion of each treatment, gut flora had recovered, but only slightly. It was a shade of its former self.  Diversity improved, but not to original levels. Composition began to normalize, but it was incomplete. Things were stable and the diversity/composition protected from further change, but the state of flora being protected was not the same pre-cipro state.

The authors admit that these are uncharted waters. They don’t know, nor do they pretend to know, the lasting effects of hosting an altered microbiome in your gut.  They don’t use the words “good” or “bad” to describe bacteria.  They just know that it’s altered, and – as much as a ten month trial can tell us – perhaps for good.  (Scary huh)

I dunno – I have an inkling of an idea that maybe, just maybe, forever altering our gut flora isn’t such a hot idea. I think the researchers would agree, but they can’t say anything without knowing for sure, of course. But my inkling isn’t exactly unfounded. We do have some evidence that altered gut flora are associated with weight gain. We even have evidence that antibiotics cause weight gain.  Let’s take a closer look.

Foremost, of course, is the widespread usage of antibiotics to “increase the growth” of livestock. I use quotes because what they’re really doing is making the livestock FAT by disrupting the microbiome of their guts. One study even determined that eliminating routine administration of antibiotics to livestock for the purposes of increasing weight gain wouldn’t affect dietary protein availability in developing nations. My guess as to why?  Antibiotics are increasing body fat accumulation on these animals, rather than purely inducing sheer hypertrophy of muscle meat – unless you know of any bodybuilders who cycle penicillin and cipro – and the resulting weight gain is coming more from fat than protein.

Other animals offer more avenues of understanding the obesity-promoting effects of altered gut flora.  Like, say, mice:

A team of researchers transplanted gut bacteria from obese mice into lean mice. The lean mice enjoyed a 60% increase in body fat and a rapid, 14-day descent into insulin resistance following the gut flora alteration.

In a later study, members of that same team induced obesity in mice through diet. As they fattened, a specific type of Firmicutes bacteria bloomed – it began to overgrow in the gut. Transplanting this Firmicute into lean mice made the lean mice fat. Lean mice who received transplants from lean donors did not get fat.

Oh, and there’s also some cool evidence in humans. Those same researchers who showed that lean mice have different gut flora than fat mice and that transferring fat mice flora to lean mice made the lean mice fat studied whether this was true in humans. It is. Just like the mice, lean human guts contain more flora from the bacterial phylum of Bacteroidetes and less from the Firmicutes phylum, whereas obese human guts contain flora more heavily weighted toward Firmicutes. Furthermore, both mice and humans with “obese” gut flora (high in Firmicutes) derive more energy from food and have an increased ability to “harvest energy.”

Okay. So it seems pretty clear that gut bacteria plays a role in obesity, and there’s strong evidence that it’s a causal role. But the studies up until now have only shown that altering gut bacteria by adding flora from obese animals to the guts of lean animals makes them gain weight. The question, then, becomes whether altering gut flora via antibiotic usage can have similar effects on weight.

One Martin Blaser, an NYU microbiome researcher, believes he has the answer. Citing the 2010 study mentioned earlier and another that he authored himself, he speculates that not only does antibiotic usage permanently change our gut flora, it also promotes obesity.

Blaser examined the effect of antibiotics on Helicobacter pylori, a common member of the human gut biome. While there’s evidence that H. pylori increases the risk for ulcers and gastric cancer, making it a popular target for physicians (even in asymptomatic patients) wielding a hammer made of antibiotics, it’s also been living in human guts for at least 58,000 years. You might imagine that casually flouting such an extended co-history together could have some unintended consequences. You’d be right.

Blaser used US veterans who were scheduled for upper GI endoscopies (close examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract). Of the 92 vets, 38 had no H. pylori, 44 tested positive for H. pylori, and 10 were indeterminate. 23 of the H. pylori positive were given antibiotics, and all but two had total eradication of H. pylori. So, what happened to the 21 subjects who were initially replete in H. pylori but who eradicated them through antibiotics?

They gained the most weight. Their BMIs increased by 5%, give or take 2%. The other vets had no weight change.

Leptin levels increased by 20%.

Postprandial ghrelin increased sixfold.

The ghrelin increase is the most interesting effect to me. It does a number of things, the foremost of which is to increase hunger.  High levels also increase abdominal fat. So, after taking antibiotics and losing all their H. pylori, patients weren’t as satisfied after meals, they gained more weight, and the weight they gained was likely concentrated in the abdomen.  Bad stuff all around. I’ve written about the dangers of belly fat before; it’s not just a matter of “looking good naked”.

Man, antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock really make sense when you put it all together. They give you all sorts of awesome stuff:

More efficient conversion of feed into energy. Lower food costs.

Higher ghrelin levels that promote greater accumulation of visceral fat. More marbling.

Good for the economics of factory farming… not good for human health!

Mike’s suggestions:

First off, I personally would never take antibiotics unless I had a serious life threatening infection.

Maintaining great health and a strong immune system can go a long way to avoiding common sicknesses and infections.  Two of the most important things I can think of right off the bat are to continually load up your system with probiotics (to strengthen your gut flora colonies naturally), and also to maintain adequate levels of vitamin D from your diet and through daily sunshine (which is vitally important to your immune system).

If you have taken antibiotics and thus disrupted the health of your gut flora, you need to make sure you do your best to re-establish your gut flora with probiotics.  You want to diversify the sources of probiotics to get a lot of the various strains of “friendly” bacteria and other microbes.  Good sources of probiotics are fermented foods, yogurt, kefir, sauerkraut, kimchi, kombucha tea, other probiotic drinks.

If you keep yourself very healthy and maintain an extremely strong immune system, you drastically reduce your chances of getting infections and other sicknesses.  Personally, I haven’t taken antibiotics since I was a teenager (and I’ll never take an antibiotic again unless I had a life threatening infection), and I also haven’t been sick (not even a cold) in at least 7 years.

J’ean’s Suggestion

Anyway you look at it, a pro biotic is necessary for your immune system. However you get it, get it. Remember, our body adapt over a period of time, so if you notice that it’s not having the same outcome as before, switch to something else.

By John Romaniello, author of FatLossForever

Intermittent fasting may be the most discussed dietary concept on the Internet right now.  Like many other “breakout” diets, intermittent fasting (IF) is growing by leaps and bounds; however, unlike most of the other diets, IF is gaining ground despite the fact that the practice challenges many long-help assumptions about nutrition.

In fact, practicing IF forces you to eat in direct opposition to those assumptions, and that-along with the results-it what’s generating all the buzz.

Before we get into the why and the how, let’s first discuss the basics of the what.

What is Intermittent Fasting?

The most accurate definition is the simplest one: IF is merely the alternation of intervals of not eating (fasting) with times where you are allowed to eat.

Or, to use IF parlance, you alternate a fasting period with a feeding window.  How long each will be varies depending on which “type” of IF programming you select-and there are several.

Each method of intermittent fasting will be discussed in a later article, but for now, it’s enough to mention that the differences come from expanding the fasting window.  The fasting period on specific plans can range from 16 hours all the way up to 36 hours (with several stops in between), and each of those specific plans will have benefits.

It’s also important to note that every one of us does some form of fasting, whether you realize it or not.  The least technical-while-still-being-accurate definition of fasting is simply “not eating,” so anytime you’re not eating, you’re fasting.

Most of us aren’t on a structured timetable of meals where the window of fasting is constant, so rather than fasting intermittently, we’re fasting haphazardly-and there’s no benefit there.

The exception for most people is sleep.  When you’re sleeping, you’re fasting; therefore most of us have a fairly rigid fasting period of 6-8 hours per night, until we eat in the morning.  It is for this reason, by the way, that our morning meal is called “breakfast,” as you are literally breaking your overnight fast.

Which brings us to our next point.

The Most Important Meal of the Day? Intermittent Fasting Science Tackles the Insidious Scourge of Breakfast!

Breakfast is sort of a hot topic in the IF world, and in fact seems to be the first point of contention for people looking in on intermittent fasting from the outside.  Don’t we need breakfast?

Intermittent Fasting proponents tend to say no…which flys in the face of much of the dietary advice coming from every authority from Registered Dieticians to MDs.

For years, we’ve been told that breakfast is the most important meal of the day.  In fact, many people are often scolded by their physicians for skipping breakfast-particularly people who are embarking on a plan to lose weight.

There is some credence here, by the way: a study conducted in 2008 showed that participants who ate a calorically dense breakfast lost more weight than those that didn’t.  The espoused theory for the results was that the higher caloric intake early in the day led people to snack less often and lowered caloric intake overall.

The value of that study has been questioned for many reasons, not the least of which is that despite the fact that roughly 90% of Americans eat breakfast, close to 50% of Americans are overweight.  If eating breakfast is the first step to weight loss, then something else is going wrong.

More evidence seems to support the breakfast idea, though. There are some epidemiological studies that show a connection skipping breakfast and higher body weight.

Of course, proponents of the breakfast theory are quick to suggest that most people are simply eating the wrong breakfast, as quick n easy meals like Danishes and doughnuts, which can lead to weight gain.

However, the crux of the breakfast study is ultimately that a larger breakfast leads to lower overall caloric intake. That is, the argument for a larger breakfast ultimately boils down to energy balance; if that study is reliant on that position that weight loss comes down of calories in versus calories out, then the make up of the food shouldn’t matter.  If we’ve learned anything from Mark Haub’s Twinkie Diet, it’s that you can eat garbage and lose weight; clearly, something else is going on.

The only real argument that breakfast crowd have is insulin sensitivity.  As a very basic note on what this is and why this matters the more sensitive your body is to insulin, the more likely you are to lose fat and gain muscle.  Increasing insulin sensitivity almost always leads to more efficient dieting.

Getting back to it, supporters of eating breakfast declare that as insulin sensitivity is higher in the morning, eating a carbohydrate rich breakfast is going to have the greatest balance of taking in a large amount of energy without the danger of weight gain.

This brings us back to IF.  You see, insulin sensitivity isn’t higher “in the morning”; it’s higher after the 8-10 hour fasting periods you experience if you sleep.  Or more specifically, insulin sensitivity is higher when glycogen levels are depleted; as liver glycogen will be somewhat depleted from your sleeping fast.

Intermittent fasting takes that a step further: it seems that extending the fasting period beyond that 8-10 hours by skipping breakfast (and therefore further depleting glycogen) will increase insulin even further.

Insulin sensitivity is also increased post exercise (due to further glycogen depletion in addition to other mechanisms), and so in many cases IF proponents suggest compounding benefits by training in a fasted state and then having a carbohydrate right meal immediately post workout.

Ultimately, this all means that there’s nothing special about breakfast and no need to eat first thing in the morning-the first meal you eat to break your fast will be exposed to the benefits of increased insulin sensitivity.

A discussion that mentions skipping breakfast-or any meal, really-will invariably lead into a discussion of meal frequency, which leads us to our next point.

On Frequency: Intermittent Fasting Crusaders Battle the Myth of Six Meals

And now we come to the It seems that over the past 15-20 years, hundreds of diet books have been printed, and no two were identical.  In fact, some of them have been in direct opposition to one another.

Calorie-restrictive plans like Weight Watchers certainly don’t agree with plans like the Atkins diet, the first iteration of which allowed dieters to at all they want, as long as they kept carbs low.

Similarly, carb conscious plans generally call for products like yogurt or cottage cheese to be used as portable sources of protein, but many plans to reject dairy products altogether.

Despite the incredibly disparate natures of so many of these diets, the one thing that has been consistently suggested in most books published over the past 20 years is the frequency of meals.

If you’ve read a diet book, seen a nutritionist or hired a personal trainer at any point during that time, you’ve probably been told that in order to lose weight, you need to eat 5-6 small meals per day.  (Note: this suggestion is sometimes phrased as “3 meals and 2 snacks.”)

This style of eating, commonly referred to as the frequent feeding model, is popular with everyone from dieticians to bodybuilders, and has been repeated so often for so long that it’s generally taken as fact.

Which it isn’t.

In fact, the reputed benefits of eating small meals more often have never been scientifically validated.

The first and most commonly cited of these is that eating frequently “stokes the metabolic fire.”  Put less colloquially, the theory suggests that since eating increases your metabolic rate, the more often you eat, the more your metabolic rate will be elevated.  That’s true, but it doesn’t lead to more fat loss-in fact, it’s been scientifically borne out that there won’t be a difference at all.

When you eat, your metabolic rate increased because of the energy required to break down the food you’ve taken in.  This is called the Thermic Effect of Food, or TEF.  So, while you’re be experiencing energy expenditure due to TEF every time you eat, the net effect is no different regardless of how many times you eat, as long as the total amount of food is the same.

You see, TEF is directly proportional to caloric intake, and if caloric intake is the same, at the end of the day, there will be no metabolic difference between eating 5-6 meals or 2-3.  In fact, as long as the total calories are the same, you can eat ten meals or one meal, and you’ll still get the same metabolic effect.

Further, one study has shown that eating more frequently is less beneficial from the perspective of satiety, or feeling “full.”  Which means that the more often you eat, the more likely you are to be hungry-leading to higher caloric intake and eventual weight gain.

Intermittent Fasting guru Martin Berkhan has summarized this study, it’s meaning, and the effects of such things quite well, but suffice it to say that it seems people who eat larger meals less frequently take in fewer calories and are more satisfied doing so.

A smaller number of meals obviously fits well into fasting protocols-if you are condensing the amount of time you’re “allowed” to eat into a small window of 4-8 hours, having more than 2-3 meals becomes impractical at best and impossible at worst.  My clients who practice IF eat 3 meals (not counting a post-workout shake, which they consume on days they train with weights).

Calories, Hormones, and Eternal Life (Okay, Not Really): The Benefits of Intermittent Fasting

Obviously, above and beyond the debunking of long-believed myths, there are numerous benefits to Intermittent Fasting that make it so popular.

Firstly, as we’ve established thus far, people who practice IF eat less frequently.  In addition to feeling hungry less often, and more full when they do eat, these people benefit in terms of practicality and logistics.

After all, eating fewer meals means fewer meals and/or buying fewer meals.  In addition to saving you time (and, probably, money), this also means that you exposed to flavors less often, and are therefore less likely to get bored and eat something you shouldn’t.

We’ve also mentioned that eating less frequently tends to result in eating fewer calories overall, but that’s a pretty important point so it bears repeating: eating less frequently tends to result in eating few calories overall. 

And speaking of caloric restriction: that brings us to another benefit.  IF plans that require full day fasting drastically reduce your calorie intake, so if you are using a style of IF which requires you to fast for 24 hours twice per week, you’re reducing your food intake by about 30%.  It’s not hard to see how that would lead to weight loss.

Going a little further, by restricting calories, you’re forcing the body to look elsewhere than the gut for energy, which can encourage cellular repair. That is, a cell will turn to its own damaged proteins for energy.  While that cycle would be bad in the long term, keep in mind you’re only fasting for “brief” periods; when you eat again the cell will use the new cell-stuff replace the old cell-stuff that’s been consumed.  All told, this phenomenon-which, again, stems from caloric restriction-can generally help prevent both disease and age.

For something more specific: one study out of the University of Utah showed that people who fasted just one day per month were 40% less likely to suffer from clogged arteries.

While there’s certainly a lot to be said for caloric restriction, it’s important to keep in mind that intermittent fasting isn’t just about eating fewer calories-there are also hormonal benefits that lead to improved body composition.

For starters, there’s the improved insulin sensitivity that comes with fasting, especially when paired with exercises, as we’ve covered; however, fasting has other hormonal benefits, including (but not limited to) an increase in the secretion of growth hormone (GH).

Growth Hormone has a myriad benefits-a discussion of which in full is beyond the scope of this writing-but for our purposes it’s enough to say that the more GH your produce, the faster you can lose fat and gain muscle.  Additionally, GH tends to offset the effects of cortisol, which is (in part) related to belly fat storage; so it seems likely that fasting can help you lose belly fat, at least indirectly.

Still not satisfied?  Well, if you need another benefit, fasting reduces inflammation as well, which can have implications for improved immunity as well as increased fat loss.

Wrapping Up

The most important thing to remember about Intermittent Fasting is that it isn’t a “diet” -it’s a way of eating, a nutritional lifestyle that will allow you to reach your goals in an efficient and convenient manner, and then hold onto your physique one you achieve them.

While IF isn’t for everyone, nor is it a perfect plan, it’s certainly an effective way to lose weight.

In addition to the hormonal benefits inherent in the practice, you’ll also feel more satisfied with your food, feel hungry less often, and probably save some money on food!

Moreover, you may live longer…if, you know, you’re into that.

So, even if you never try IF, you can at least appreciate that it’s forced the industry at large to re-evaluate the “truths” we tend to cling to.

Perhaps it’s for this reason that Intermittent Fasting seems to be generally received with appreciation and acceptance, while low carb diets, Atkins, and the “Twinkie diet” all have people on both sides of the line either praising or lambasting them.

That is, IF is well received once people see the research-and there’s a simple reason for that: it works.

Due to the combination of automatic caloric restriction, hormonal optimaztion, and ease of compliance and adjustability, IF isn’t just a fad-it’s here to stay…because it may well be the most effective eating method around.
———–