Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Skipping Breakfast May Be Linked To Poor Heart Health, Study Says (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the whole-and-hearty dept.

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.

6 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Correlation ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People who take the time to breakfast probably also hit the sack earlier and get more sleep.

    1. Re:Correlation ... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People who have the time to breakfast also probably suffer from less stress and generally have more time to prepare healthy meals instead of stuffing their face with whatever is available to rip open and stir into hot water.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Correlation ... by Bongo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Anyone interested can check the blog of Dr Malcom Kendrick. He's been rabbitting on for about 30 episodes now on all the factors involved, and how the conventional view -- a view which is starting to be rejected by the mainstream, but the man in the street is yet to hear about it -- the conventional view became dogma but doesn't make sense. The lipid hypothesis is dead. The notion that fat clogs up the arteries like a drain clogged with lard, is dead. His very latest blog discusses the mechanical fluid forces inside the arteries, and in combination with what, might be a cause (the damage is usually seen only where these forces are greatest in the vessels, so always the same places, end so on). One thing reading his blogs is that he makes it abundantly clear that it is not a simple problem. But medicine kinda fell into a dogma about it. Anyway, yeah, the people not having breakfast, why is that? Maybe they are not going to be early, getting up early, and having time to eat breakfast. Maybe they are stressing themselves and not getting sleep. And a lot of repair happens during sleep. And Kendrick also talks about how the internal scabs in the arteries would be broken down gradually in a healthy person, but in some people this doesn't happen, so they eventually get too big and break off and cause a stroke, It is fascinating stuff. A quite entertaining blog is nothing else.

  2. Re:stupid studies by speedplane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And here's a study just last year saying breakfast doesn't matter. This is typical. Decades of nutritional studies have often turned out useless and in many cases harmful. Hard to trust anything now. Gotta just trust your gut.

    That's a pun, but it's often true. Pay close attention to how your body reacts to what you put into it. It's the best feedback mechanism we have.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
  3. Re:Question by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:Question by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.