What to eat for breakfast if you only have ten minutes?

[linuxguy0481]

I am usually out the door in the morning. I have to eat cereal sometimes because it's so quick. I need to stop eating cereal. What kind of meals can I make for breakfast that's quick as well as satisfying my appetite?

[Alvaro Antolinez]

My breakfast is lunch, a la Lean Gains . (not for every body or for the serious athlete though)

[Cole Dano]

I make a shake on my busy mornings.

1 scoop casein

1 scoop dextrose

1/2 scoop coconut powder

berries

yogurt

water to desired thickness

I just mix it with a fork in a glass

[Blairbob]

Boiled eggs the night before. Or leftovers from the night before.

Microwave or fry up some bacon. Sometimes, I'll cook a tritip after dinner and cut it up for breakfast and lunch the next few days. It just rarely lasts a couple of days.

Glass of milk, glass of juice. It'll last ya awhile. Cheese maybe and some fruit and some slices of meat.

[Parth Rajguru]

Wake up earlier and make it so you have more time. Or eat leftovers. This is coming from someone who for your years didn't eat anything for breakfast(a la intermittent fasting) and I've realized that it needed to change for the level of performance that I'm after.

[Nic Branson]

I'm up and out fast here, typically oatmeal with some almond slivers and raisins with casein protein in it or cottage cheese. Also eat a serving of sharp cheddar, love my cheese.

[John Sapinoso]

if you can eat at home bacon, eggs and a handful of nuts.

if you want to eat on the go: blend a hand full of nuts, some coconut milk, some protein and a few handfuls of either spinach or kale or other greens

[Scott Fischer]

In the past I've made bircher musli the night before so that all you have to do is grab it from the fridge and eat it. At the moment my typical breakfast consists of yoghurt, walnuts, berries and honey; it's very quick to make too.

[Razz]

Pretty much anything is better than cereals. If you want results stop making excuses and get up 10 minutes earlier and go to bed earlier.

[irongymnast]

Why exactly are cereals bad?

[Nic Branson]

Eggs are nice and quick....hate that I them and I do not get along well. Oatmeal works awesome for me, bacon or good sausage on the weekends also with almond meal or buckwheat waffles. Which also waffles can be frozen after being made then popped into the toaster or microwave for a quick start.

[Felipe]

skip it and you will automatically be in Intermittent Fasting mode!

[Joshua Naterman]

The carbs at breakfast are fine as long as you have protein in there too, and breakfast is the one time that you can really benefit from some of the faster carbs, but cereals just have so much... if you actually use a measuring cup and have what the box recommends as a serving you'll be fine, but I think you will quickly realize that you are eating a lot more than that. So, to make up the difference just add oatmeal.

An egg and 8-12oz of milk combined with an actual, by the box serving, of pretty much any cereal and 30g of slow carbs all in one meal is really a pretty close to perfect breakfast. Of course you can just skip the cereal and have the carbs from better sources, but hey... enjoy your cereal if it's really important to your mental health.

Just know that by itself you will be out of energy from the cereal in about an hour if you just have the recommended serving size, and if you have significantly more you will be storing quite a bit of those carbs as fat because your body won't be able to use them all for energy quickly enough to prevent storage as fat.

Combining an egg (takes 4 minutes to make sunny side up if you are clever and simply cover the pan while the egg cooks, this works for up to 4 eggs at a time in my experience), the milk (whole milk), cereal and oatmeal (or cooked buckwheat groats, which you would need to prepare ahead of time, as you would most other slow carb sources like sweet potatoes) will give you all the protein you need for 2-3 hours as well as the energy, and release it in a way that your body can really use quite efficiently.

As an aside: The reason gains on leangains and IF protocols are slower is simple: You're barely in positive nitrogen balance throughout the day. It is one way, but far and away not the only way or the "best" way. You spend about 13 hours in positive nitrogen balance and 11 hours in negative nitrogen balance, and that's assuming your first meal is liquid whey protein and your last meal is somewhat fatty beef or pure micellar casein. You inherently limit the amount of protein your body can actually use for anabolic purposes because of the limited time window. We have limits on how much protein we can actually absorb from the gut per hour, and nothing takes longer than 4.5 hours to pass through the gut and actually be fully absorbed, at least to the extent that it can be because by then it's beyond the protein-absorptive areas of the intestines.

Know your body, get better results.

[Alvaro Antolinez]

Slizz you really confuse me some times as you are testing so many things in a rapid succession :shock: . Didn't you use to follow Lean Gains style some months ago?, also isometrics, and so many other things that you later change but we don't get to know the conclusions of your experiences!!!.

[MH87]

Hmm. I disagree with some of the things you're saying here Slizzardman.

We have limits on how much protein we can actually absorb from the gut per hour, and nothing takes longer than 4.5 hours to pass through the gut and actually be fully absorbed, at least to the extent that it can be because by then it's beyond the protein-absorptive areas of the intestines.

The reason gains on leangains and IF protocols are slower is simple: You're barely in positive nitrogen balance throughout the day.

I disagree. Gains on leangains aren't slower. Just because you skip breakfast and go without food for a few hours doesn't mess up your bodys nitrogen balance. And I don't believe there's a hard-cap on when you stop absorbing food. 4.5 hours? Nope, I just don't believe it.

Anyone interested in reading other thoughts about eating frequency can check this link:

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

In this article Martin Berkhan addresses some typical topics.

One of them is number 5. "Maintain a steady supply of amino acids by eating protein every 2-3 hours. The body can only absorb 30 grams of protein in one sitting."

This is a very long post though but it has a lot of very good points.

He also cites Lyle Mcdonald:

"The 30 g/meal thing has been around for decades, much older than the 1997 paper. A few gut hunches on where it came from.

1. Marketing: I base this on the fact that the value has changed over the years. When Met-RX sold products with 30 grams protein, 30 g/meal was the cutoff. When they moved to 42 g/meal, 42 grams was the cutoff. Weider probably did it before then.

2. Bodybuilders looking to rationalize their desire to eat lots of mini-meals after the fact. So take an average male bodybuilder, 180 lbs eating 1 g/lb who has decided that 6 meals/day is optimal and....

3. Even there, I think Gironda had written this. It probably came out of some bullshit paper in the 50's that was taken out of context and just got repeated long enough to become dogmatic truth.â€

Another article link from the same post, mentioning protein absorption in meals, written by Alan Aragon.

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/

"In sum, view all information – especially gym folklore and short-term research – with caution. Don’t buy into the myth that protein won’t get used efficiently unless it’s dosed sparingly throughout the day.", he says.

Personally, I do intermittent fasting myself. Lets say I wake up at 7 am. I have my first meal at 12 o clock. Sometimes a whey shake at 11.30 am. It's really not that many hours I go without food... It's really nothing extreme... And not everyone actually eats breakfast and is naturally hungry at the morning. It's pretty much a hormonal response when you wake up hungry. I'm not saying having breakfast is bad in any way, or that following a protocol like leangains is any better than anything else either.

Another thing. Even on sites like bodybuilding.com there's actually agreement that meal frequency really is not that important. Ultimately its about macros and calories.

I especially like Berkhans final comments on the subject:

"I am still of the opinion that the best diet is the one you can stick to in the long term. However, the decision should be based on personal preference and not neurotic adherence to a diet built on faulty and bad science."

[Edward Smith]

The carbs at breakfast are fine as long as you have protein in there too, and breakfast is the one time that you can really benefit from some of the faster carbs, but cereals just have so much... if you actually use a measuring cup and have what the box recommends as a serving you'll be fine, but I think you will quickly realize that you are eating a lot more than that. So, to make up the difference just add oatmeal.

An egg and 8-12oz of milk combined with an actual, by the box serving, of pretty much any cereal and 30g of slow carbs all in one meal is really a pretty close to perfect breakfast. Of course you can just skip the cereal and have the carbs from better sources, but hey... enjoy your cereal if it's really important to your mental health.

Just know that by itself you will be out of energy from the cereal in about an hour if you just have the recommended serving size, and if you have significantly more you will be storing quite a bit of those carbs as fat because your body won't be able to use them all for energy quickly enough to prevent storage as fat.

Combining an egg (takes 4 minutes to make sunny side up if you are clever and simply cover the pan while the egg cooks, this works for up to 4 eggs at a time in my experience), the milk (whole milk), cereal and oatmeal (or cooked buckwheat groats, which you would need to prepare ahead of time, as you would most other slow carb sources like sweet potatoes) will give you all the protein you need for 2-3 hours as well as the energy, and release it in a way that your body can really use quite efficiently.

As an aside: The reason gains on leangains and IF protocols are slower is simple: You're barely in positive nitrogen balance throughout the day. It is one way, but far and away not the only way or the "best" way. You spend about 13 hours in positive nitrogen balance and 11 hours in negative nitrogen balance, and that's assuming your first meal is liquid whey protein and your last meal is somewhat fatty beef or pure micellar casein. You inherently limit the amount of protein your body can actually use for anabolic purposes because of the limited time window. We have limits on how much protein we can actually absorb from the gut per hour, and nothing takes longer than 4.5 hours to pass through the gut and actually be fully absorbed, at least to the extent that it can be because by then it's beyond the protein-absorptive areas of the intestines.

Know your body, get better results.

Why do so many people report such good energy, mental clarity on breakfasts like Poliquin's "Meat and Nut' Breakfast then?

Cereal is crap, load of carbs, very little protein (and poor quality protein at that), anti-nutrients, poor nutrient density, the list goes on and on.

[Joshua Naterman]

People most likely report better clarity because they never ate good carbs to begin with, and when you get rid of garbage food you ALWAYS feel better. Tons of people think that whole grain bread is good for you, and it's better than spoonfuls of sugar but not by THAT much. The carbs absorb extremely quickly, and that leads to a fast rise in blood sugar, a large insulin response, most of the sugar being sucked out of the blood within 90 minutes and then you have zero energy and feel all foggy because you are actually hypoglycemic.

With the meat, a lot of that protein gets used directly for energy via deamination and the krebs cycle, with some going through gluconeogenesis and becoming sugar, which also happens relatively slowly. This is an example of a less efficient method, in the sense that you are creating the correct conditions in the blood in terms of nutrient release and peak + steady state blood sugar levels but are doing so by using protein instead of high quality carbohydrates.

As a breakfast-only thing, with an otherwise reasonable diet that doesn't go overboard with the protein, this won't hurt you.

If you eat every meal like that you will find out that your organs have a very high likelihood to start failing you in your 60's. The very first long term studies on this in humans are coming out soon, and are following retired NFL players. So far the leading cause of death is organ failure, which is NOT normal in any age group much less the 50's and 60's.

This research HAS been done on many, many animals and has conclusively shown that chronic over-consumption of protein (significantly beyond the anabolic maximum) does cause premature organ failure.

The reason I did the things I did in the past were to reset my hormonal responses and sensitivities so that I could benefit from a proper diet. They were never meant to be long-term solutions, only steps for me to use in order to actually eat what my body was designed to eat.

MH: You are free to disagree, but either you missed part of what I said or I forgot to type part of what I needed to say!

You can absorb an "unlimited" amount of any nutrient within the confines of the absorption surface areas, enzyme activity, and the speed of intestinal transit. That does not change how much gets used for what it is.

Example: The circulating amino acid pool only lasts for 30 minutes. During that time it will either get used as protein or the nitrogen will get cleaved off and it will either become sugar or get burned directly as fuel. Let's say you get 45g of protein and it all gets absorbed in 2 hours. Your body isn't going to be able to use all of that as protein unless you are on steroids, because our enzymes just can't work that fast without extreme upregulation of the hormonal response mechanism. You will use an absolute maximum of around 1.5g/kg divided by 24, more or less, per hour. So at my size, we will use 100kg because it is an easy number to work with. That's 150g of protein used for protein synthesis, at maximum, each day. divided by 24 that is something like 6.25g/hour. Max. Now, I will be the first to say that there is probably some wiggle room here based on individual hormone levels and daily activity, because both of these upregulate maximal rate of protein synthesis. Regardless, the point is that there is simply no more than 10g is going to be used per hour as protein because we have physical limitations on absorption rates (especially of whole food) and tissue utilization rates. The tissues themselves are where the true limiting factors are. Excess protein gets used directly for energy or gets turned into fat or carbs, not in that order, and then either stored or used.

To put that in perspective, there have been a number of recent studies showing that even bodybuilders achieve positive overall nitrogen balance with just 1.2g/kg. This, by the way, should make it easy to understand why as you get bigger it is harder to keep putting on more mass at the same rate. You have less of a difference between what is required to achieve a slightly positive overall nitrogen balance and the limit of your tissue's ability to utilize dietary protein for protein synthesis.

Marathon runners needed a whopping 1.4g/kg, very close to the human anabolic maximum. Let that sink in for a moment. Every wonder why those people are so amazingly small? I'm talking about the world class marathon runners. Average weight is 115 lbs. For men. They need close to their estimated anabolic maximum in order to simply maintain their body's existing structure. It should make sense why people who put their bodies under this kind of stress have an incredibly hard time growing.

Again, this is not an issue of absorbing different food sources and using them for energy. We can do that. When it comes to doing so without creating excessive toxic byproducts in the process, you have to start eating according to how your body actually utilizes energy, the rate at which it absorbs nutrients, the limits of what substrates can be used for which processes and over what timeframes this happens, etc. It sounds complicated, but it isn't.

It is estimated that eating up to 20-30% above your personal anabolic maximum will not cause significant negative health effects, but beyond that you start developing serious underlying issues. That's a lot of wiggle room, and leaves plenty of room for a meat and nut breakfast if that is what you enjoy. This does not change the fundamentals of human metabolism.

[Nic Branson]

Science aside on this topic. People also respond differently to different diets. Part of this is mental. Educate yourself and find what works for you. Not going to state my opinion too much and Slizz has the science laid out.

I will say that you can eat a variety of food, junk food from time to time even having a small portion daily and be healthy with under 10% BF and good performance. Moderation and balance..bah got myself going..stopping before I continue.

[Rafael David]

wait wait wait Slizz, so what you are saying in other words is that paleo diet is bad in long term? :?

[Joshua Naterman]

wait wait wait So what you are saying in other words is that paleo diet is bad in long term? :?

It depends on what you call "paleo." If you somehow think that people around the world have been able to catch enough meat to form the largest part of their diet for millions of years, you are crazy and need to go hunting paleo style. Roots and vegetables of many varieties have always been an enormous part of the human diet regardless of culture, with very few exceptions. We are capable of surviving for quite some time on nearly any kind of diet, but when looking at limiting long-term issues like organ failure, aneurysms, cardiovascular disease, and other issues that crop up as the years pass then you will start to see that there are many dimensions to wellness in relation to diet. It is not just a single line with "bad" on the left and "good" on the right. The typical paleo lifestyle will almost certainly protect you from diabetes and in many cases obesity, and will probably make you feel good on a day to day basis. That does not mean it is the only way to accomplish this and it does not mean that typical paleo lifestyle has the most protective benefits in all areas.

If what you call paleo is eating steak and extra fat for energy and veggies for vitamins then yes, you will almost certainly have organ issues later in life.

If what you call paleo is getting the protein you actually can use from steak or other meats (or even plant proteins, combined intelligently), and eating veggies or fruits (in season, of course) for carb requirements and using plant or animal fats for the rest of the energy you need then you will probably live your healthiest life.

Cordain has gone back and made similar modifications to his ideas, but most people like the idea of their bandwagon. Their "way" that their "group" does things. It becomes like religion, which I refuse to get into.

You either see the value in taking care of your body through proper macronutrient partitioning or you do not, end of story. This can be done with nearly every diet on the planet.

[Rafael David]

If what you call paleo is getting the protein you actually can use from steak or other meats (or even plant proteins, combined intelligently), and eating veggies or fruits (in season, of course) for carb requirements and using plant or animal fats for the rest of the energy you need then you will probably live your healthiest life.

That's what I call paleo! (inhaling and exhaling deeply)

[MH87]

Hehe I see what you mean Canthar.

And Slizzardman. What you said about maximum daily protein absorption sounds reasonable. High protein causes organ damage though ? - might believe it if it can be proven. Otherwise, it's just speculation.... And sadly a lot of nutritional "information" is based on old, incomplete, faulty studies... And some of your other views here... Well... If that is what you believe to be true - alrighty then.

Still. If you haven't, and if you're really interested in nutrition and all that stuff - read that article-link I posted. It's good stuff.

[Philip Papandrea]

Hi Slizzardman ,

You said

Again, this is not an issue of absorbing different food sources and using them for energy. We can do that. When it comes to doing so without creating excessive toxic byproducts in the process, you have to start eating according to how your body actually utilizes energy, the rate at which it absorbs nutrients, the limits of what substrates can be used for which processes and over what timeframes this happens, etc. It sounds complicated, but it isn't.

I've just finished reading the Perfect Health diet book and they recommend around 600 calories (150g) of carbs with about 300 calories of that coming from starchy sources and the rest fruit which is about enough to keep glycogen levels replenished. Excess carbs beyond what your body uses get turned into to fat also creating toxic byproducts in the process which is the same thing your talking about with the extra protein consumption. I know your eating alot more carbs now and from some other posts it seems alot less fat. Was wondering how many grams you are eating and why don't you think it would be better just to take in the amount of carbs your body needs and just make up the rest with fat?

[Joshua Naterman]

Hehe I see what you mean Canthar.

And Slizzardman. What you said about maximum daily protein absorption sounds reasonable. High protein causes organ damage though ? - might believe it if it can be proven. Otherwise, it's just speculation.... And sadly a lot of nutritional "information" is based on old, incomplete, faulty studies... And some of your other views here... Well... If that is what you believe to be true - alrighty then.

Still. If you haven't, and if you're really interested in nutrition and all that stuff - read that article-link I posted. It's good stuff.

It has to be really high consumption, and obviously it is a sliding scale. For me, a safe intake is anywhere from 150g to around 200g per day. That's an awful lot of protein.

The amount of damage also has a lot to do with how much protein is used. The damage is not theoretical, ammonium is a known toxin. When your body cleaves the nitrogen off of unused protein, which MUST be done in order to use it as energy directly OR to go through gluconeogenesis, the nitrogen has to be bound and transported to the kidneys, where it is processed into urea or uric acid in the renal tubes. There is a certain amount of this that our bodies can handle safely, and beyond that there is a somewhat curvilinear increase in overall damage in the renal tubes. It is unclear how much of this gets repaired, and much like atherosclerosis it is most probably a process that can, to quite a large degree if not completely, be reversed. Of course this would require A) switching to a higher quality protein source in order to minimize nitrogenous waste and B) taking in not more than 30% above what you need over the course of the day. If there is probable renal tube damage then maintaining a neutral nitrogen balance or very slightly positive nitrogen balance is probably the best option. You have to have protein to fix the renal tubes, but you don't want to cause excess nitrogenous waste to form.

Those last two sentences are speculative, but the rest is very solid.

So, there are a number of factors in this:

1) How much inherent nitrogenous waste do you have as a result of your diet?

This is where vegetarians are at a disadvantage, especially those who refuse to use whey protein (which causes the least amount of nitrogenous waste, per gram, of all known proteins. This is due to the amino acid profile being the least deficient in rate-limiting amino acids and also the least excessive with nearly all of the non-rate limiting amino acids.) Whey isn't perfect, there is still nitrogenous waste, but you get far less nitrogenous waste with it than you do with other plant proteins, even when combined.

The reason for the above reference to plant proteins leading to more nitrogenous waste is simple: Let's make a very easy hypothetical protein formula: 1,4,5,2.

That is what the protein is made out of. This is hypothetical skeletal muscle.

So, we have whey with 1,4,6,3.

We also have soy with 1,5,4,2.

Then we have beans with 1,3,2,4

and rice with 1,1,4 4.

These numbers represent the number of four different amino acids. This is for demonstration purposes and is not a real protein.

our hypothetical protein has 1,4,5,2. That is 12 total amino acids.

Whey protein has all of that in one molecule, 1,4,6,3. That is 14 amino acids. only 2 are wasted. That makes 2 waste molecules.

Next up is soy: We need two molecules of the soy, because it doesn't have enough of the third amino acid in just one molecule. Soy has 12 amino acids as well, but it takes two soy molecules to make the protein. That means there are 12 waste molecules. Quite a lot more than the whey.

Finally, let's see what happens with beans. Since beans only have 2 units of that third amino acid we need 3 molecules of beans. The beans have 10 amino acids per molecule so we have 30 amino acids. 12 get used, leaving 18 as waste.

With rice, we need 4 molecules because it only has 1 of the second amino acids per molecule. Rice has 10 amino acids as well, so that makes 40 amino acids used to make just one 12 amino acid protein. That's 28 units wasted.

If we use one rice and one bean molecule, we have 20 amino acids and use 12, leaving only 8 as waste. That's better than the soy, and better than either rice or beans alone. However, it is still a lot more waste than the whey.

I am well aware that all of these foods have more than 4 amino acids in real life, but this makes for an easy to follow example.

In a nutshell, so to speak, that is exactly how nitrogenous waste adds up. Meats and animal proteins like egg and milk proteins are much more similar to human tissue in terms of amino acid profile than plants are, no matter how you combine the plants.

However, if you are really smart about how you do it you CAN combine plants to get fairly close to whey. The "problem" is that they have to be together in the same meal. Remember, the amino acids only stay in the blood for about 30 minutes once they enter, so a given amino acid molecule has about a half hour to be used before it gets metabolized to avoid major problems with blood pH due to waste products piling up faster than the body can clear them.

Ammonia, if you didn't know, has a pH of 11.6 which can easily disrupt blood pH, which is kept in a very, very narrow range from 7.35 to 7.45. That is why nitrogenous waste gets cleared so quickly. Amino acids are more complicated, but they have components with a pH of 2.2 and 9.6, and they have osmotic effects. I am not quite sure why the amino acid circulation time is exactly what it is, but I am pretty sure it has to do with the rate of protein utilization and how the presence of nitrogenous waste alters blood chemistry. There may be other factors involved.

2) The other factor is obviously what you consider to be "high protein" because this is a very generic term within fitness circles.

This should really be redefined as "high nitrogenous waste" and "high (but not excessive) levels of complete human tissue amino acid profiles." Once you go beyond what the tissues can do, you have 100% waste even if you have perfect amino acid ratios. Remember, there is no warehouse where these amino acids get held for later use. It's now or never.

If you got a decent amount of protein, say 110g per day, JUST from beans you would be bordering on dangerous amounts of nitrogenous waste. At the same time you would quite possibly be slightly protein deficient. This is because sure, you get a ton of protein, but you are missing one of the vital amino acids! It's there, but there isn't enough.

Analogy time! 1 computer = 2 sticks of RAM, 1 motherboard and 1 processor.

It would be like having 400 processors, 800 sticks of RAM, and 50 motherboards. You can only make 50 computers, and the rest is wasted because you aren't allowed to keep unused parts for more than 30 minutes. That turns into a lot of waste during the day, and at the same time overall computer production wouldn't be anywhere near as good as if you had 200 sticks of ram, 100 processors and 110 motherboards. You would be able to make twice the number of computers with a fraction of the waste, as long as you had enough workers to put the computers together within 30 minutes.

That's why the protein sources matter AND the timing of when you eat them matters! If you get a package with 80 motherboards, 50 processors and 20 sticks of RAM, that's kind of crappy. If you get another package 3 hours later with 180 sticks of ram, 50 processors, and 40 motherboards That's also not so great, but if you got both packages at the same time you could really do a lot! In fact you'd be able to make double the amount of computers in half the time. You would make 100 computers in 3 hours instead of 10 in the first 3 hours and 40 in the second 2 hours, so your total would be 100 instead of 50, but it only took 3 hours to make 100 and it took 6 hours to make 50. Which would you prefer? These are the effects your food has inside your body.

The science of human metabolism is by no means complete, and I think it is ridiculous that there is not a sliding scale based on hormone levels and overall activity levels, because there is no way that these are completely static numbers. Degree of stimulation of hormone response mechanisms and load response mechanisms has almost certainly got a fairly strong influence on the maximal rate of protein synthesis...

Anyhow, this post brings you pretty much up to speed with what happens and why.

As for the renal failure, nitrogenous wastes have to be acidified during the formation of urea. When the renal tubes are exposed to consistently high levels of nitrogenous waste for very long periods of time you can actually scar them shut. This is a very, very basic (and so of course somewhat inaccurate when it comes to specific subtypes) overview of WHY excessive nitrogenous waste can and will cause long term damage that will not be noticed for a very long time.

And hey, living to your 60's is pretty good. Life could be worse and longer. It's all about how you want to go. You are all always free to believe what you want, but I personally think it is a shame for someone to let personal beliefs blind them to the basic truths that surround them. It is usually a matter of degree, not an absolute difference, that separates what is real from what is really a bit dangerous.

[Randeep Walia]

OP- you can make your own cereal with things like Buckwheat grouts, flaxseeds, dried fruits, nuts, etc. I will usually take this with some coconut milk in the mornings. I should add that I am mostly vegan so my diet will differ greatly from others.

I also make a porridge with either just millet or a mix of millet and quinoa. To which I can add hempseed milk, nut butters or sunflower seed butter, jam, so on. This usually keeps in the fridge for 3-4 days. There are lots of recipes like this on the internet.