[wdewind]

I don't mean to be negative but this is another useless nutrition paper. It shows effects we already know about, and it doesn't show them in more convincing ways than previous studies, and it then it misinterprets the relevance of these results for a headline.

You can't get anything useful if you focus the entire window on the post prandial. The body is complex and caloric balancing is not a simple thing. Studies that focus on appropriate (24 hrs+) periods of time never measure any difference. Not only that their own study showed that:

> Low-calorie breakfast increased feelings of hunger (P < .001), specifically appetite for sweets (P = .007), in the course of the day.

So for many people who don't eat a large breakfast your compliance is going to be impacted. Anyone familiar with nutritional science will tell you that compliance is a much bigger deal than eeking out tiny theoretical shifts in calories by shifting meal times, which even if you could prove were real would absolutely not be worth it if it broke your overall compliance.

Outside of that, this isn't a novel finding. We already have small pilot studies showing this stuff that have the same problems. Repeated science is often underrated, but these results are uncontroversial, they are just over interpreted and old.

> Extensive breakfasting should therefore be preferred over large dinner meals to prevent obesity and high blood glucose peaks even under conditions of a hypocaloric diet.

Like, sorry, no that's absolutely not a fair conclusion of these results. It's just not.

[Someone1234]

> I don't mean to be negative but this is another useless nutrition paper. It shows effects we already know about

So I'm going to put you in the "nay" camp regarding the importance of reproducibility[0] in science? Kind of funny that half the time nutritional science gets criticized because it isn't reproduced/reproducible enough and the other half because it is "useless" to reproduce the same findings. Cannot win.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility#Reproducible_r...

[wdewind]

Did you read my entire comment? Feel like I addressed this here:

> We already have small pilot studies showing this stuff that have the same problems. Repeated science is often underrated, but these results are uncontroversial, they are just over interpreted and old.

In general I am strongly in favor of reproducing science, this study doesn't really test anything helpful for either outcome though.

[kbutler]

The more important part of the introductory comment was "then it misinterprets the relevance of these results for a headline."

The effect is known, and known to be insignificant. Generating headlines for reproducing a known insignificant effect is not helpful.

[BurningFrog]

You're right about the importance of reproduction!

But that doesn't mean a study simply confirming established science should be presented as dramatic news.

[balfirevic]

If they skipped the "misinterpret the relevance of results for a headline" maybe they would have gotten a friendlier reception.

[Medicalidiot]

To add to your comment, they measure calorie expenditure throughout the day but seemingly stop collecting data throughout the night (23:00 to 7:00). Their conclusion that breakfast is better isn't because they compared the data from the day to night, but because they didn't have any data throughout the night.

Maybe I'm stretching this, but I want more calorie expenditure while I'm sleeping and having the highest amount of somatotropin in my body so it can mobilize proteins and facilitate healing.

Your compliance point is salient. I can recommend every single therapy in the book, but getting a patient to take a drug let alone at the correct time and correct dosage to maintain therapeutic index, is an art.

[wdewind]

Exactly, this stuff needs to be monitored either intensely for 24 hours (or maybe even longer), or periodically for longer periods of time (days, weeks, months). What they did doesn't really give us useful data other than "directionally this is an area for more investigation."

[matwood]

Agree. I’ve been doing TRF for a couple years now by skipping breakfast. I’ve had great results and compliance is relatively easy. Even if there are some additional benefits by skipping dinner instead, I would never to be able to remain complaint.

With that said, my largest meal of the is usually lunch, and it’s the meal I’ll include carbs if I’m including them that day. Dinner is usually protein and veggies.

[perl4ever]

I got the idea somewhere that it makes a huge difference if you engage in 20 minutes or so of light activity after every meal rather than sitting or lying down. Some paper even suggested it makes a significant difference in calories burned, not because the exercise burns a lot of calories per se, but because it keeps your body in a mode of processing food reasonably quickly in order to be prepared for physical activity.

[Tade0]

> Anyone familiar with nutritional science will tell you that compliance is a much bigger deal than eeking out tiny theoretical shifts in calories by shifting meal times, which even if you could prove were real would absolutely not be worth it if it broke your overall compliance.

Hear, hear. It's like with reducing our carbon footprint by becoming vegetarian vs just reducing meat consumption - the former is more often than not abandoned after a few years.