This reads like "I don't eat breakfast, so here's the reasons why I'm right." Studies that support his conclusion, while flawed, are probably right. Studies that oppose it are obviously tainted by various problems.
The fact that research shows that breakfast is actually beneficial for children is hand-waved away because 'reasons'.
This is honestly just a low-quality, cherry-picked opinion piece by someone who really doesn't like breakfast.
>This reads like "I don't eat breakfast, so here's the reasons why I'm right."
Actually he gives very reasoned arguments and comments on meta-studies showing that he is right -- not that breakfast is bad, but in that it doesn't make any difference, and if it does nobody has clearly shown it.
(a) . In a paper published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2013, researchers reviewed the literature on the effect of breakfast on obesity to look specifically at this issue. They first noted that nutrition researchers love to publish results showing a correlation between skipping breakfast and obesity.
(b) However, they also found major flaws in the reporting of findings. People were consistently biased in interpreting their results in favor of a relationship between skipping breakfast and obesity. They improperly used causal language to describe their results. They misleadingly cited others’ results. And they also improperly used causal language in citing others’ results.
(c) Few randomized controlled trials exist. Those that do, although methodologically weak like most nutrition studies, don’t support the necessity of breakfast.
(d) Further confusing the field is a 2014 study (with more financial conflicts of interest than I thought possible) that found that getting breakfast skippers to eat breakfast, and getting breakfast eaters to skip breakfast, made no difference with respect to weight loss. But a 1992 trial that did the same thing found that both groups lost weight. A balanced perspective would acknowledge that we have no idea what’s going on.
(e) Many of the studies are funded by the food industry, which has a clear bias. Kellogg funded a highly cited article that found that cereal for breakfast is associated with being thinner. The Quaker Oats Center of Excellence (part of PepsiCo) financed a trial that showed that eating oatmeal or frosted cornflakes reduces weight and cholesterol (if you eat it in a highly controlled setting each weekday for four weeks).
Your comment however, reads exactly like you describe his, but for the opposite preference.
Well there is no shortage of people who like breakfast (or are in charge of selling people breakfast) and hand wave about it being "the most important meal of the day". The truth is probably people have different metabolisms and if you are hungry in the morning you should eat and if you are not you shouldn't.
And that's almost exactly what this post suggests:
> 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 don't eat breakfast, so here's the reasons why I'm right.
Its more like "I don't eat breakfast, because I'm not hungry at that time". In your haste to paint the author as biased, you ended up sounding the same.
It seems pretty clear our understanding of diet is still in its infancy and news sites need to stop reporting every small piece of diet evidence as advice people should follow. Journalists in general need to do a much better job of explaining how robust new evidence is.
In each article they break down what the actual study was, how robust the evidence is and what it says in the context of other research which you never see in mainstream press.
For example, this article traces a flurry of headlines in the mainstream press about the importance of breakfast back to the original research and critically looks at the evidence in depth: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/08August/Pages/Breakfast-not%20t... It nearly always end in "needs further study" but it's sad there's no incentive for news outlets to have more accurate science reporting.
I agree with your sentiment, but I think it's important messages like this are out there to, at least, hamper the spread of unsupported messages like breakfast "being the most important meal". There's an insane amount of nutritional bullshit out there that has been perpetuated for generations.
I'm sure there are many breakfast food manufacturers who would vehemently disagree with this article.
I recall hearing a story about how the father of modern public relations and propaganda (Eddie Bernays) played a key role in making sure that bacon and eggs were a part of an American breakfast. You can watch him in this interview explain how he created and manipulated a poll of 5,000 physicians to convince the public they should be eating a heavy breakfast consisting of bacon and eggs.
Bacon and eggs is still better than a sugar-blasted bowl of breakfast cereal, which it seems we are thankfully getting away from as the default breakfast.
You are correct in that the American breakfast as we know it is one largely (in many senses of the word) invented to make us consume more.
Italian breakfast is a shot of espresso. Maybe a croissant if you're really that hungry. Then you get a monster lunch at noon.
Neither system is superior, it's just what works in either culture. Which is to say, there is no universal nutrition advice since everyone's body and microbiome and working culture is different. Pick and choose what works for you because only you process the food you eat.
'What made breakfast into a distinct meal dominated by cold cereal? Ad campaigns like the one that coined the phrase "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" in 1944.'
Yikes, I hate to be "that" person, but when I pulled up that link it was worse than a paywall. They said I can either subscribe, or whitelist them on my adblocker. No preview of the content or anything.
No thanks, I'll take a pass on the malware this time and just read the comments from people willing to get through on here.
I'd be interested to know whether the author eats in the evening. I don't think he mentioned one way or another. I don't eat anything after a light dinner and I usually wake up very hungry. I'm not saying one way is better than the other, but if someone typically sleeps 6 to 8 hours starting at, say, Midnight, and the last meal prior to retiring was at 7 PM, that is 12-13 hours without food.
I usually fast for 16 hours a day, and I don't wake up hungry at all. Usually I only start to get hungry around the ~14-15 hour mark.
Hunger is something that can be trained, not simply a static phenomenon. There's a reason you get hungry when you smell something delicious. If you eat every day shortly after waking up, I'd certainly expect to be hungry at that time.
I typically go from 1900-2000 (dinner) to 1200 (lunch) the next day. Everyone is different, and then there's the fact that this is daily habit training. I start getting hungry around 1100 and 1800, because ¡surprise!, I typically eat about an hour later. I have no doubt that if I started eating breakfast when I woke up, I'd probably wake up hungry also.
EDIT: I should also point out that I trained myself to fast during college. One day a week I wouldn't eat at all. Now, when I get hungry, the feeling will last for a little bit then go away.
What is wrong with 12-13 hours without food? During the month of Ramadan Muslims do not eat or even drink for about that time and medical studies found no harm in general in doing that.
Honestly, fasting for >16 hr/d >> eating breakfast, in my experience. Pet-theory is that you get a lil' neurotransmitter upregulation as an added benefit ;)
Anecdata, but I've found the same. I have more energy and better performance (for physical activity and cognitive activity) when I fast for the majority of the day.
Not a fan of gimmicky diets but my eating pattern seems similar to "the warrior diet", look it up if you're curious. I just think that in nature (if we were wild humans) we wouldn't have access to a huge meal right out of bed, We'd have to work hard all day to hunt and gather our food, then celebrate as a group with a food orgy around the fire.... okay I got a bit carried away :P
Agreed. I fast before working out in the morning, and usually break the fast by noon. On weekends I'll often eat breakfast and then fast the rest of the day.
I'm a woman, and on birth control, so fasting doesn't mess with my hormones so much, but I read that women tend to respond to fasting with heightened color vision and vivid sensorial experiences, which I can anecdotally confirm.
That said, I can only practice intermittent fasting for one to two days at a time before it starts negatively affecting my workouts and attention span.
Intermittent fasting is one of my favorite productivity hacks.
To anybody who decides they're going to try it: If you've gone through years of "6 meals a day" and suddenly fast for 24 hours, you're gonna have a bad time. Take it slow. Otherwise you'll feel cold, irritable, and distracted and will assume fasting is something only masochistic sociopaths can do.
My breakfast was magical - amazing smoked kippers, marmalade and toast, freshly roasted and ground filter coffee, a handful of fresh berries, and that was just the first course!
People who are college students, young professionals, esp. developers and entrepreneurs often work late into the night, either because they're partying or because they want to put that one problem to bed before they go themselves.
They often eat small snacks at night. Some wake up early, some wake up late, but many rush to work and forget breakfast.
As a result, their bodies adjust to intermittent fasting, and they actually have good calorie intake. Provided they don't eat junk food.
People who have been doing that since their early 20s are for the most part not overweight.
That's my theory. You could also do intermittent fasting by skipping dinner, but few night owls would do that. Instead, they eat dinner and some snacks at night, it digests overnight and they aren't hungry in the morning.
Breakfast became "magical" to me when I started eating high-protein breakfasts - basically eggs and bacon or sausage instead of cereal. The years I ate cereal for breakfast, I was battling to stay awake until lunch time. I felt so sleepy in class. Years later I moved to San Francisco and started eating eggs almost every day in SoMa cafes. I could not believe the difference. I was wide awake and had so much more energy.
I recently re-introduced chicken into my diet after 12 years after being a vegetarian. I started eating chicken breast for breakfast instead of the usual toast and peanut butter, and the difference in my energy level is astounding. I'm no longer carb-foggy, my digestion is much better, and I don't have to eat again until well into the afternoon or evening.
As somebody who does weight lifting I can say from my experience that I performed much worse back then when I didn't take the time to eat a breakfast before going to the fitness studio.
I actually even had to stop the training sometimes because I had to vomit. (probably too low blood sugar)
During that time I made very slow progress.
Since I started to eat breakfast 2-3 hours before training I never had any issues and I also gain more weight (muscles)
> Since I started to eat breakfast 2-3 hours before training I never had any issues and I also gain more weight (muscles)
I think this is the important part. Breakfast (the morning meal) isn't the critical factor, it's having the nutrients (proteins, sugars, etc.) in your body when you need it. If you worked out in the evening, like me, you'd probably find that a decent sized lunch + a small mid-afternoon snack would be fine, breakfast optional.
I have also found that eating 2-3 hours before training (not necessarily breakfast) is optimal for full energy during the workout.
Being hungry is something that I'm very used to, but in the gym it's extremely counterproductive. Couldn't perform with more than ~85-90% of my maximum strength and just aborted the whole workout.
I used to not eat breakfast. I'd be starving at 11:45am when it was time to go out to lunch with my coworkers.
I decided to make some changes in my diet so I wasn't so hungry for lunch and could make better choices. Started eating a healthy breakfast every morning.
I was starving by 12:00pm.
So, for my anecdatel point, I think it has more to do with when your body expects food than actual hunger.
There's nothing magical about the way the author dismiss breakfast either. In the end it's an article where the author says that "breakfast research is flawed" and "I don't like breakfast".
I'm disappointed on how the author missed intermittent fasting which, even not being scientific consensus, has many studies in favor of not breaking the fast.
[+] [-] mmastrac|9 years ago|reply
The fact that research shows that breakfast is actually beneficial for children is hand-waved away because 'reasons'.
This is honestly just a low-quality, cherry-picked opinion piece by someone who really doesn't like breakfast.
[+] [-] coldtea|9 years ago|reply
Actually he gives very reasoned arguments and comments on meta-studies showing that he is right -- not that breakfast is bad, but in that it doesn't make any difference, and if it does nobody has clearly shown it.
(a) . In a paper published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2013, researchers reviewed the literature on the effect of breakfast on obesity to look specifically at this issue. They first noted that nutrition researchers love to publish results showing a correlation between skipping breakfast and obesity.
(b) However, they also found major flaws in the reporting of findings. People were consistently biased in interpreting their results in favor of a relationship between skipping breakfast and obesity. They improperly used causal language to describe their results. They misleadingly cited others’ results. And they also improperly used causal language in citing others’ results.
(c) Few randomized controlled trials exist. Those that do, although methodologically weak like most nutrition studies, don’t support the necessity of breakfast.
(d) Further confusing the field is a 2014 study (with more financial conflicts of interest than I thought possible) that found that getting breakfast skippers to eat breakfast, and getting breakfast eaters to skip breakfast, made no difference with respect to weight loss. But a 1992 trial that did the same thing found that both groups lost weight. A balanced perspective would acknowledge that we have no idea what’s going on.
(e) Many of the studies are funded by the food industry, which has a clear bias. Kellogg funded a highly cited article that found that cereal for breakfast is associated with being thinner. The Quaker Oats Center of Excellence (part of PepsiCo) financed a trial that showed that eating oatmeal or frosted cornflakes reduces weight and cholesterol (if you eat it in a highly controlled setting each weekday for four weeks).
Your comment however, reads exactly like you describe his, but for the opposite preference.
[+] [-] jonknee|9 years ago|reply
And that's almost exactly what this post suggests:
> 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.
[+] [-] ksk|9 years ago|reply
Its more like "I don't eat breakfast, because I'm not hungry at that time". In your haste to paint the author as biased, you ended up sounding the same.
[+] [-] duaneb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|9 years ago|reply
It seems that your comment is equally handwavy :)
[+] [-] bluthru|9 years ago|reply
As a casual observer of this topic, it seems like breakfast is necessary for humans who want to grow: kids and people adding muscle mass.
If you want to lose weight or maintain breakfast can probably be skipped.
[+] [-] IIlllIllIIIIlII|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanwilson|9 years ago|reply
I love this website for health science news and wish there were more like it: http://www.nhs.uk/news/Pages/NewsIndex.aspx
In each article they break down what the actual study was, how robust the evidence is and what it says in the context of other research which you never see in mainstream press.
For example, this article traces a flurry of headlines in the mainstream press about the importance of breakfast back to the original research and critically looks at the evidence in depth: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/08August/Pages/Breakfast-not%20t... It nearly always end in "needs further study" but it's sad there's no incentive for news outlets to have more accurate science reporting.
[+] [-] maxerickson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgetsusername|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steego|9 years ago|reply
I recall hearing a story about how the father of modern public relations and propaganda (Eddie Bernays) played a key role in making sure that bacon and eggs were a part of an American breakfast. You can watch him in this interview explain how he created and manipulated a poll of 5,000 physicians to convince the public they should be eating a heavy breakfast consisting of bacon and eggs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLudEZpMjKU
[+] [-] douche|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rm_-rf_slash|9 years ago|reply
Italian breakfast is a shot of espresso. Maybe a croissant if you're really that hungry. Then you get a monster lunch at noon.
Neither system is superior, it's just what works in either culture. Which is to say, there is no universal nutrition advice since everyone's body and microbiome and working culture is different. Pick and choose what works for you because only you process the food you eat.
[+] [-] Cozumel|9 years ago|reply
http://priceonomics.com/how-breakfast-became-a-thing/
[+] [-] swanson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MOARDONGZPLZ|9 years ago|reply
No thanks, I'll take a pass on the malware this time and just read the comments from people willing to get through on here.
[+] [-] markbnj|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaggederest|9 years ago|reply
Hunger is something that can be trained, not simply a static phenomenon. There's a reason you get hungry when you smell something delicious. If you eat every day shortly after waking up, I'd certainly expect to be hungry at that time.
[+] [-] jdmichal|9 years ago|reply
EDIT: I should also point out that I trained myself to fast during college. One day a week I wouldn't eat at all. Now, when I get hungry, the feeling will last for a little bit then go away.
[+] [-] _0w8t|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pizza|9 years ago|reply
Thoughts?
[+] [-] brahmwg|9 years ago|reply
Not a fan of gimmicky diets but my eating pattern seems similar to "the warrior diet", look it up if you're curious. I just think that in nature (if we were wild humans) we wouldn't have access to a huge meal right out of bed, We'd have to work hard all day to hunt and gather our food, then celebrate as a group with a food orgy around the fire.... okay I got a bit carried away :P
[+] [-] magicbeanss|9 years ago|reply
I'm a woman, and on birth control, so fasting doesn't mess with my hormones so much, but I read that women tend to respond to fasting with heightened color vision and vivid sensorial experiences, which I can anecdotally confirm.
That said, I can only practice intermittent fasting for one to two days at a time before it starts negatively affecting my workouts and attention span.
[+] [-] clessg|9 years ago|reply
To anybody who decides they're going to try it: If you've gone through years of "6 meals a day" and suddenly fast for 24 hours, you're gonna have a bad time. Take it slow. Otherwise you'll feel cold, irritable, and distracted and will assume fasting is something only masochistic sociopaths can do.
[+] [-] gravypod|9 years ago|reply
Because wouldn't that be the time you "break" your "fast".
[+] [-] askyourmother|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] internaut|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EGreg|9 years ago|reply
People who are college students, young professionals, esp. developers and entrepreneurs often work late into the night, either because they're partying or because they want to put that one problem to bed before they go themselves.
They often eat small snacks at night. Some wake up early, some wake up late, but many rush to work and forget breakfast.
As a result, their bodies adjust to intermittent fasting, and they actually have good calorie intake. Provided they don't eat junk food.
People who have been doing that since their early 20s are for the most part not overweight.
That's my theory. You could also do intermittent fasting by skipping dinner, but few night owls would do that. Instead, they eat dinner and some snacks at night, it digests overnight and they aren't hungry in the morning.
[+] [-] paulpauper|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atonse|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StavrosK|9 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syleh_6Aopw
[+] [-] UK-AL|9 years ago|reply
But don't barrage me with "it's the most important meal of the day" old wife tales, when you don't understand my lack of hunger.
[+] [-] wmccullough|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcoffland|9 years ago|reply
This is the real piece of truth in this article.
[+] [-] beamatronic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] magicbeanss|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DominikR|9 years ago|reply
I actually even had to stop the training sometimes because I had to vomit. (probably too low blood sugar)
During that time I made very slow progress.
Since I started to eat breakfast 2-3 hours before training I never had any issues and I also gain more weight (muscles)
[+] [-] Jtsummers|9 years ago|reply
I think this is the important part. Breakfast (the morning meal) isn't the critical factor, it's having the nutrients (proteins, sugars, etc.) in your body when you need it. If you worked out in the evening, like me, you'd probably find that a decent sized lunch + a small mid-afternoon snack would be fine, breakfast optional.
[+] [-] antisthenes|9 years ago|reply
Being hungry is something that I'm very used to, but in the gym it's extremely counterproductive. Couldn't perform with more than ~85-90% of my maximum strength and just aborted the whole workout.
[+] [-] geoka9|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rconti|9 years ago|reply
I used to not eat breakfast. I'd be starving at 11:45am when it was time to go out to lunch with my coworkers.
I decided to make some changes in my diet so I wasn't so hungry for lunch and could make better choices. Started eating a healthy breakfast every morning.
I was starving by 12:00pm.
So, for my anecdatel point, I think it has more to do with when your body expects food than actual hunger.
[+] [-] talles|9 years ago|reply
I'm disappointed on how the author missed intermittent fasting which, even not being scientific consensus, has many studies in favor of not breaking the fast.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]