Skipping breakfast- prediabetes risk?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF is a fad. What matters is not eating between meals. Cramming your eating into 6 or 8 hours is not more helpful.
Check David Agus.

A fad? Fasting is part of most religions and millions of people fast. This has been true for a very long time.

I agree that snacking is not good. Constantly spiking your blood sugar can lead to insulin resistance.

People are participating in religious fasts to improve health. It’s also why religions exempt certain people from fasting.

Are NOT participating to improve health

It doesn’t matter why. It isn’t a fad though. Fads come and go. People have been fasting forever.

It is 100% a fad. It is being touted as beneficial for your health with zero scientific basis for it. Muslims fast for one month and not year round like the IF folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ive just read that skipping breakfast raises the risk of prediabetes and internet info seems to support this.

I thought eating less was more beneficial and waiting to eat until later would be better! Like intermittant fasting which seems highly regarded.

Ignore that information. It is being put out by the processed food manufacturers

Oh yeah, where did you read that? Post the source of your information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may be a stupid question, but what constitutes as skipping breakfast? Is it a matter of eating within a certain amount of time after getting up in the morning? I've been walking first thing in the morning and eating 30-60 minutes after that, which is a few hours after getting up. I'm usually not hungry right away but by the time I am preparing something to eat, I am feeling the hunger.

Your first meal of the day is breakfast. Breaking the fast= breakfast.

I agree; but for the purposes of OP's question and this discussion, what constitutes "skipping breakfast?"
Person A gets up at 6 am and first eats at 9 a.m.
Person B gets up at 9 am and first eats at 12 noon.
Person C gets up at 8 am and eats at 11 am while
Person C gets up at 9 and also eats at 11 am.

Have any of these people skipped breakfast?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may be a stupid question, but what constitutes as skipping breakfast? Is it a matter of eating within a certain amount of time after getting up in the morning? I've been walking first thing in the morning and eating 30-60 minutes after that, which is a few hours after getting up. I'm usually not hungry right away but by the time I am preparing something to eat, I am feeling the hunger.

Your first meal of the day is breakfast. Breaking the fast= breakfast.

I agree; but for the purposes of OP's question and this discussion, what constitutes "skipping breakfast?"
Person A gets up at 6 am and first eats at 9 a.m.
Person B gets up at 9 am and first eats at 12 noon.
Person C gets up at 8 am and eats at 11 am while
Person C gets up at 9 and also eats at 11 am.

Have any of these people skipped breakfast?

I would say no, none of these people are "skipping breakfast."

I get up at 5-5:30, and don't eat until 11-12pm. I don't even say that I "skip breakfast" but rather, that I eat my breakfast (break fast) pretty late.

[Anonymous]

I suspect that people who skip breakfast tend to eat more calories in the evening, and eating late usually elevates your blood sugar for longer than the same meal would if you ate it at 9am or even 2pm.

So I discovered after wearing a CGM (just out of curiosity -- I'm not diabetic and I'm a normal BMI) for a few weeks. I'm rarely hungry until 1pm or so, which meant that I was eating a meal in the early afternoon and then another around 8pm-9pm. Since my weight is stable and my A1C always looks great, I was pretty surprised to see how high my blood sugar went (and STAYED) from dinner into the early hours of the morning. Not diabetic levels, but ~110-125, not ideal when your last meal was hours ago!

I did a little experiment and if I stopped eating by dark, didn't matter what I'd eaten (even if it was an ice cream sundae) -- my blood sugar was back below 100 within a couple of hours, and stayed that way all night.

Sucks for those of us who aren't hungry in the mornings. But I try now to finish eating by 7pm or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that people who skip breakfast tend to eat more calories in the evening, and eating late usually elevates your blood sugar for longer than the same meal would if you ate it at 9am or even 2pm.

So I discovered after wearing a CGM (just out of curiosity -- I'm not diabetic and I'm a normal BMI) for a few weeks. I'm rarely hungry until 1pm or so, which meant that I was eating a meal in the early afternoon and then another around 8pm-9pm. Since my weight is stable and my A1C always looks great, I was pretty surprised to see how high my blood sugar went (and STAYED) from dinner into the early hours of the morning. Not diabetic levels, but ~110-125, not ideal when your last meal was hours ago!

I did a little experiment and if I stopped eating by dark, didn't matter what I'd eaten (even if it was an ice cream sundae) -- my blood sugar was back below 100 within a couple of hours, and stayed that way all night.

Sucks for those of us who aren't hungry in the mornings. But I try now to finish eating by 7pm or so.

May I ask what CGM you used?

[Anonymous]

Dexcom G7

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF is a fad. What matters is not eating between meals. Cramming your eating into 6 or 8 hours is not more helpful.
Check David Agus.

A fad? Fasting is part of most religions and millions of people fast. This has been true for a very long time.

I agree that snacking is not good. Constantly spiking your blood sugar can lead to insulin resistance.

People are participating in religious fasts to improve health. It’s also why religions exempt certain people from fasting.

Are NOT participating to improve health

It doesn’t matter why. It isn’t a fad though. Fads come and go. People have been fasting forever.

It is 100% a fad. It is being touted as beneficial for your health with zero scientific basis for it. Muslims fast for one month and not year round like the IF folks.

Intermittent doesn’t mean the same everyday. I have lost 25 pounds this way but go ahead and get some shots to help you lost weight. That’s the way lazy people use.