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

Blairbob said:

Uhh, bananas are loaded with sugars and fructose. It's the berries that tend to be relatively low on sugar content.

Hope I'm not becoming the annoying guy who is goes counter the current but I don't see it as a problem.

Actual amount depends on the size, but about 6g of each of fructose and glucose, which is not loaded by any means.

And I'm not suggesting eating a whole bunch of them either - some with breakfast, as a snack or after workout when there's glycogen to replenish. Excellent potassium source as well. It's a few more grams of fructose perhaps than some slightly less sweet fruit; most are not as good in terms of glucose. Pro athletes often use them and are able to perform at the highest level possible.

Anyway, the point isn't what fruit, they all have sugars. I shouldn't have even mentioned the type. You can take the lowest sugar fruit and eat enough of it to start storing fat. Likewise sweet potato or sugar beets. To me It's knowing the amount and best time to eat them... but everyone should eat as they know best of course.

Many of you guys are more advanced strength wise, and perhaps that careful attention to selection is partly why.

I'm following a varied exercise program including GB and endurance work so perhaps can tolerate a wider range of food choice. Variety and taste is important to me. Not saying I'm better: I'd like to be able to leg press 1200 pounds too

I just wanted to add quickly (and sorry if I sound like a broken record recently) - just be careful about assessing whole foods like fruit on the basis of a nutrient like sugar. Research has repeatedly shown that sugars from fruits affect people differently to free sugars.

Stephan Guyenet has a good article going over research about sugar (free and from fruit), so I won't bother rambling any further

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.a ... ening.html

And in case anyone's interested in mechanisms, Colby Vorland talks about some research which could give a few hints...

http://nutsci.org/2012/01/06/strawberry ... n-in-rats/

fatjiri said:

I just wanted to add quickly (and sorry if I sound like a broken record recently) - just be careful about assessing whole foods like fruit on the basis of a nutrient like sugar. Research has repeatedly shown that sugars from fruits affect people differently to free sugars.

Stephan Guyenet has a good article going over research about sugar (free and from fruit), so I won't bother rambling any further

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.a ... ening.html

And in case anyone's interested in mechanisms, Colby Vorland talks about some research which could give a few hints...

http://nutsci.org/2012/01/06/strawberry ... n-in-rats/

This is a very good point.

The primary factor in how sugar affects our bodies has a lot to do with both how quickly it gets into the system and how much of the different types of sugar there are in the system within a given timeframe, usually 15-30 minutes.

Sugar from fruit usually enters the system at a slow enough rate and in small enough quantities to not be an issue. The only real issues occur with melons and pineapple, both of which cause rather large spikes in blood sugar due to high GI and a pretty high concentration of sugar. Large amounts of other fruits can also cause issues, especially when there is a lot of free fructose involved, but as a general rule there is no need to be concerned with moderate intake of any fruit variety.

When you're dealing with someone whose body has been conditioned to react in a manner consistent with metabolic syndrome and/or diabetes when consuming sugars, total avoidance of sweet tastes (which of course includes nearly all fruit) for a few months can really help. That last bit is not based on direct research, but is a personal experience of mine. I based my sweet avoidance on research showing that sweet tastes, even non-caloric ones, cause a preemptive release of insulin that is believed to be a response to chronic blood sugar spikes in an attempt to keep blood sugar under control. It certainly helped me, but there are no large sample studies I am aware of to show whether or not this choice will actually cause a different response physiologically. From a psychological basis, it make everything MUCH easier for me. When I wanted something sweet I had something bitter, preferably organic cocoa nibs. That immediately took care of the craving, which was weird. I also used cream and glutamine mixed together, as recommended by Poliquin. That also helped.

slizzardman said:

The hard part about this kind of research is that to get truly meaningful results you have to get someone to live in a lab for 10 weeks so that you can completely control what they eat and when.

Sign me up when you have your study ready to go Slizz. It can't be just me thinking 10 weeks in a lab w/ Slizzardman wouldn't be awesome. Just bring 20-30 composition books, inkwell, a few dozen feathers and you're golden. Also, thanks all for some great back and forth/info...i.e. something that needs to be read about 5-10 more times.

If you are on a typical American diet and are looking to sort of reboot your body into a healthier hormonal status then you will probably benefit from 2-3 months of a somewhat high protein, higher slow fat diet (milk and meat fats, olive oil, etc) and non-starchy vegetable diet. After that you'll probably want to take 2 months to slowly integrate starchy veggies and whole grains (preferably rice, oats and buckwheat but realistically whatever you like that doesn't bother you), reduce protein intake to 1.5-1.8g per kg of body weight, and dial down the fat to just fill in the caloric gaps after you are getting the carbs and protein your body needs.

Is there some kind of indicator on whether you need that "reset"? I mean, I've been paleo-ish for about a year, though macros have varied quite a lot. I wonder if I should follow the above protocol?

Is there some way of knowing if it's necessary/beneficial?

Bissen said:

If you are on a typical American diet and are looking to sort of reboot your body into a healthier hormonal status then you will probably benefit from 2-3 months of a somewhat high protein, higher slow fat diet (milk and meat fats, olive oil, etc) and non-starchy vegetable diet. After that you'll probably want to take 2 months to slowly integrate starchy veggies and whole grains (preferably rice, oats and buckwheat but realistically whatever you like that doesn't bother you), reduce protein intake to 1.5-1.8g per kg of body weight, and dial down the fat to just fill in the caloric gaps after you are getting the carbs and protein your body needs.

Is there some kind of indicator on whether you need that "reset"? I mean, I've been paleo-ish for about a year, though macros have varied quite a lot. I wonder if I should follow the above protocol?

Is there some way of knowing if it's necessary/beneficial?

There is no way of knowing whether it is beneficial or not without doing a comparison group study, which has not been done.

The indicator would be diagnosis via blood tests (C-reactive protein for sure, and perhaps blood sugar tests) that put you in the prediabetic and/or metabolic syndrome category. Those should be the populations most likely to derive extra benefit from the above protocol as opposed to a direct change to healthy eating patterns, though they may benefit just as much from switching all of their carbs (outside of non-starchy veggies) to buckwheat and other extremely high fiber sources as this would give their bodies the chance to down-regulate an excessive insulin response.

I've been starting my mornings with one of these puppies for a few weeks now and they work great:

1 small/medium banana

Handful of blueberry's

10g whey

1 tblsp coconut oil

3 cubes of ice

Mix with water and blend

Don't forget the coconut oil. It's what keeps me feeling relatively full until about 10am for my 2nd meal

^ not bad