Slashdot Mirror
Skipping Breakfast May Be Linked To Poor Heart Health, Study Says (theguardian.com)
A new study says that skipping breakfast could be linked to poorer cardiovascular health. The findings reveal that, compared with those who wolfed down an energy-dense breakfast, those who missed the meal had a greater extent of the early stages of atherosclerosis -- a buildup of fatty material inside the arteries. The Guardian reports: The research is part of a larger study that will follow the participants over a decade or more to see how disease in the arteries progresses. Published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the research looked at the health and diets of 4,052 middle-aged bank workers, both men and women, with no previous history of cardiovascular disease. At the start of the study, which is partly funded by the Spanish bank Santander, participants completed a detailed questionnaire into what they had eaten and when over the previous 15 days. Body mass index, cholesterol levels and other measures were collected, together with data including the participants' smoking status, educational attainment and level of physical activity. Imaging techniques were used to track the extent of the early, sub-clinical stages of atherosclerosis in six arteries, including those around the heart, thighs and neck. The results reveal that, compared to those tucking into more than 20% of their daily calories at breakfast, those who consumed next to nothing for breakfast had a greater extent of atherosclerosis.
People who take the time to breakfast probably also hit the sack earlier and get more sleep.
Who remembers what they have eaten the last 15 days? How many of the answers were incorrect, either because the people forgot or lied for
whatever reason. These medical studies are just usefull enough to find trends that have to be backed up by real research into cause and effect.
To even publish such early results is irresponsible and might even bias other research by leading them into a wrong direction.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
You know what else isn't available in nature? Cooking. Oh, and in the northern regions, forget about citrus fruits, so enjoy your scurvy from time to time.
Just because something is "unnatural" doesn't mean it's bad. It does instinctively make sense to say "hey, our ancestors didn't have X, they evolved without X, so we don't need X to survive". The fallacy here is that our ancestors only needed to survive until they could procreate to keep the species going. So dying with 30-35 is perfectly fine. You'd procreate before (at about 14-16 years of age, maybe have 2-3 more kids and die when they in turn reach the ripe age of 14-16), so the species is fine.
You probably ain't, but who gives a shit? It's natural!
So please can the "it's unnatural" argument. It's bollocks.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh, and in the northern regions, forget about citrus fruits, so enjoy your scurvy from time to time.
There's plenty of vitamin C in other things, including raw meat.
So dying with 30-35 is perfectly fine
Not at all. It's very beneficial for a tribe to have elders with experience.
What if it is? There's nothing particularly bad about eating a glazed donut a few times a week. Diet related health problems are related to the total of all foods eaten over long periods of time (in combination with other lifestyle factors), not specific food items.