Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, There's Nothing Magical About Breakfast (nytimes.com)
Is breakfast the most important meal of the day? Plenty of people certainly believe that, but according to a new report, that notion is based on "misinterpreted research and biased studies." The New York Times has run a piece authored by Aaron E. Carroll, a professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, who looked into numerous studies -- and found flaws in them -- to conclude that breakfast isn't as important after all. (Could be paywalled; alternate source) He writes: The [reports] improperly used causal language to describe their results. They misleadingly cited others' results. And they also improperly used causal language in citing others' results. People believe, and want you to believe, that skipping breakfast is bad. Carroll also points out a conflict in many of such studies: most of them have been funded by the food industry. He concludes: The bottom line is that the evidence for the importance of breakfast is something of a mess. If you're hungry, eat it. But don't feel bad if you'd rather skip it, and don't listen to those who lecture you. Breakfast has no mystical powers.
I wonder if the debunkers have provided evidence that supports their position that breakfast is unimportant and can be skipped? Just because the "proof" for a hypothesis is debunked, does not automatically mean the opposite of the hypothesis is true.
I've been working out on an empty stomach in the mornings for years, only to be criticized by armchair specialists about how bad or impossible this is... There's plenty of reserve energy floating around the human body and there's nothing miraculous about physical activity on an empty stomach.
You think our ancestors woke up to a fully stocked refrigerator every morning?
Mostly random stuff.
My own observation is that obese people tend to skip or have a very light breakfast. They then make up for it by having a big lunch, dinner and then snacks right up until bedtime. I've always felt that you should be a little hungry when you go to bed, then have a good size breakfast in the morning. Improves sleep, and sets you up for the day, with only a light lunch and dinner required. I also find that it prevents you from feeling tired in the afternoon.
My observation is that obese people eat snacks. Blaming it on breakfast or no breakfast is a diversion.
There's nothing magical. It's not when you eat. It's calories in versus calories out.
.
Want to lose weight?
Find out your BSR (what you need just to survive)
Count calories.
Try to eat well (within the range of calories)
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Bacon is served at breakfast more so than other meals. Magic.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
My wife, who had a long career in medicine, often says about changing ideas on what's good and bad for you, "That's what they say today."
Many of the above postings are indirectly saying that metabolism is individual, and while some "collective" rules may make sense (get some exercise, don't overeat), not everything generalizes. I suspect breakfast is one of those non-generalizable things.
We all have to find out what works best for us. I find that a small breakfast prevents me from being overly hungry at lunch and then eating more than I should. A large breakfast might have me skipping lunch and being overly hungry at dinner. I'm in the multiple small meals category, but I don't pretend this applies to everyone.
(I am not a doctor or nutritionist, but I read what I can and watch the whole spectrum of Netflix documentaries, from the obvious to the eccentric.)
That's not a bad list, but...
- Sodium isn't bad for you (unless you have a special condition).
Sodium levels in the body can be fairly independent of ingested sodium. Some people can retain high sodium (and have high BP) even if their salt intake is very minimal. A prescription can bring that sodium down to safe values. But yes, for a lot of people, sodium intakes seems to be of only minimal consequence.
- High fructose corn syrup isn't significantly different than regular sugar.
I thought there was that issue where HFCS doesn't trigger the fullness response in the same way as plain sugar, provoking people to consume more. Has that been debunked now? But nutritionally, I generally treat all the "added sugars" as the same. Try eliminating all added sugar for a year and then eat an apple. They taste awesome.
- Aspertame has no significant health effects.
I don't eat anything that tastes awful, so I haven't even looked into it. And also, I don't trust anything "unnatural" (using my definition).
- Fat isn't bad for you.
In reasonable amounts. Also, I'm still buying into the whole olive oil versus crap oil thing.
- Caffeine doesn't cause heart problems
For some people, it can cause heart palpitations. That seems like a problem to me.
- Health food isn't much better for you than regular food
If "regular food" is what most people eat, then I think there is a big difference. But if you mean brown eggs versus white eggs, than probably not. The brown shells are better, though, because they're a little easier to spot in the frying pan.
- Eggs don't give you a heart attack
The only thing that I got from that big China study was that eggs looked pretty good and
that eating only 1-10 servings of vegetables PER YEAR (in two provinces) was really bad. Those same two provinces were also the only places where anyone drank a considerable amount of milk and that was used for some very sketchy claims against dairy.
Doctors tell me that ingested cholesterol only accounts for like 5% of your blood levels, so if you're doing a Cool Hand Luke on a regular basis, your probably pushing your luck.
- Organic doesn't mean healthy. Neither does natural.
If "organic" means no-pesticides, then I'm all for it, where I can afford it. "Natural" on the package doesn't mean anything useful and it probably will always be a junk marketing term. I use "natural" to mean anything that you could find while wandering around on the planet. Of course, then, arsenic is natural, so that isn't a good enough criteria by itself.
I try to stick to buying food with one ingredient. It's not a perfect rule (I like vinegar in my pickles), but I think the intent is solid and it is a good mantra in the grocery store.
- Chemicals are not bad for you.
See arsenic.
Anyone else here old enough to remember the Four basic food groups, one of which was entirely taken up by Dairy, which a lot of humans flat out can't digest properly at all? After a while (and a lot of embarrassing gastrointestinal distress), they decided that was BS and created the Food Pyramid. The basic idea of that one was that you should be eating a metric shitload of breads. Today we call those "carbs", and these same types of people will tell you to avoid them like the plague.
Point being that nutrition "experts" have a long proud history of being completely full of shit. They'll even admit it. But that was before. They're right this time.
Breakfast thing being case in point. Young people should probably be fed if they are hungry, but if they aren't its usually downright stupid to force food on them. For older people this goes triple. I found with advancing age that my metabolism has slowed down to the point where if I try to force even 2 meals a day on myself, I gain weight. That's bad. Much, much worse than just eating only the 1 or 2 times a day I'm actually hungry.
The only solution is to say "sod it" and eat a bit of everything. Or say "sod it completely" and eat a lot of everything.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."