“One such study, conducted at a New York hospital, divided obese patients into three groups; over four weeks, one got high-fiber oatmeal for breakfast, one got no-fiber Frosted Flakes, and a control cohort skipped breakfast altogether.”
So, one group got a high-carbohydrate breakfast, one got a really high-carbohydrate breakfast, and one got nothing?
I’m no anti-carb fanatic, but the methodology seems a bit flawed to me. In fact, I’m not convinced that Slug’s obese mouse doesn’t have the right idea.
I always suspected “Breakfast is the most important meal of the day” was an advertising ploy started in the 60’s by the Carnation Instant Breakfast marketers…
I’ve always wondered: if breakfast is the most important meal of the day, which one is number two and which one is number three. If I’m going to skip a meal, which one should it be? I’m guessing lunch.
And wouldn’t that make for great advertising for lunch meats (and similar lunch-only products): don’t forget, lunch is the third most important meal of the day!
A big breakfast was the norm back when people routinely did heavy manual labor all day: farmers, lumberjacks, mill workers, etc. We still eat like that even though now few people burn off that many calories.
I’m a little surprised the value of eating something before doing work (mental or otherwise) hasn’t been well established yet. It seems logical. And if fasting from 7pm until noon the next day doesn’t adversely affect performance, what in the world would be the hypothesized explanation for that?
Powers &8^]
My understanding is that most breakfast cereals are very high in sugar. Eating this stuff for breakfast would (all other things being equal) lead to becoming overweight. Conversely, eating a few rounds of toasted wholemeal bread with just a scrape of butter or margarine (and a cup of black tea or coffee!) would not.
So it is important to distinguish between WHAT is eaten for breakfast.
It is also important to factor in what people eat between breakfast time and lunch time. If people nibble away at chocolate and biscuits this will lead to them becoming overweight. Maybe people who skip breakfast are more inclined to nibble at other stuff (because they are hungry). Hence the apparent relationship between no-breakfast and obesity.
My personal view is that a breakfast which is not laden with sugar is a GOOD THING because it:
a) prevents lack of concentration, due to hunger pains, during the morning,
b) reduces the temptation to eat sugar-rich snacks, during the morning
c) saves you the money you would otherwise have spent on chocolate and buscuits
I actually think this is probably the major driver for people in wealthy industrialised countries being overweight. We are conditioned socially (and even arrange our lives around) the ‘Three Meals a Day’. No longer needed.
When you add in the fact that because of the ready availability of (good) inexpensive food these days we are all eating far more food, and burning off far less. So much so that there is a major industry built up around burning off excess calories - fitness/exercise/weight-loss.
The first, FIRST, rule about weight loss - don’t eat so much. You can dress it up in many ways - it all comes down to the same thing.
You rightfully mock “is associated with” as weaker than “correlates,” and then later you blithely throw in “has been linked to” as if it should carry some weight. Clear research demonstrates that most of us are better off skipping breakfast. I know I am.
I think a lot of people are eating more. I see office workers snacking all morning, going off to TGI Chilibee’s for a lunch that makes a Big Mac and fries look spartan, then snacking in the afternoon. I should think that most start the day with a “light” breakfast (you know, pastry or a bowl of sugar) and end it with a substantial dinner. And maybe some more snacks.
In the time I spent “down on the farm,” weren’t none of us eating like that. Not in southeastern Oklahoma, at any rate (where and when it’s proper cold, you do need more; sometimes a whole lot more).
Don’t knock fats and carbs. After all, if you eat ONLY rabbit, you DIE!
The fat rat’s breakfast is actually mine. ~300 calories of assorted stuff that isn’t cold cereal. It holds me over to a midday dinner…and that’s about it apart from a late snack (or supper, as we used to call it).
(I confess, I did have a big egg feast late yesterday resulting from a mishap involving a new carton of eggs and gravity.)
Eat quality* food when you are hungry**, but don’t have snacks all day, as you would be spending too much energy digesting. Get some daily exercise in.
Vegetables, fruit, legumes, beans, water, whole grains, nuts, seeds, tofu, soy, etc., no junk**
**Not craving
*** candy, milk, cake, chips, pretzels, crackers, white bread, soda, juice, white pasta, meat, fish, chicken, ice cream, oils, white rice, almost 70% of the supermarket
Three meals a day (with no bad habit snacking) works if you give yourself quality nutrients and have equal volume for all three. Any meal is skippable if you are indeed eating quality food for the other two, and are not hungry.
I can skip breakfast if I have to but I feel way better though out the day if I eat in the morning. If I do skip breakfast I become unbearably hungry after 3-4 hours and even when I finally eat I feel not quite myself the whole day. Even when I used to only eat two meals a day I always ate breakfast.
I always thought the idea behind a substantial breakfast was that you’re more likely to actually burn off your breakfast calories (and to a lesser extent, your lunch calories), as you’re awake and active after you eat them. Dinner, on the other hand, seems to be one where you’re mostly sedentary afterward and then go to sleep.
I think part of the problem is that the times of the meals are off- if I eat at 7:30, then I’m hungry before say… 12, so I end up eating more at noon, and then eat later in the evening, which is also bad. I suspect that eating at 7:30, then 11:30, and then maybe 5, followed by a light snack (maybe an apple or something) at about 8 would be best.
This was not quite the case. One group got a healthful breakfast, consisting of fiber and whole grain. The other got an unhealthful breakfast, consisting of oodles of sugar with some refined grains. FWIW. years ago I would never eat before a race because the literature at that time was that all the glucose you need for a race can be obtained at dinner, and the time span between breakfast and the race is not sufficient to absorb the sugar. I would not eat even before a marathon, and I ran Boston twice which started at noon, and Chicago 7 times which (when I ran them) started at 10 AM. IIRC. Did not seem to adversely affect my results. I do not do that much running now but I always work out in the morning, either running, cycling, tennis and weights. If I sleep in a little late. I will skip breakfast. Does not seem to make any difference. More important than when you eat is what you eat.
I always thought that the type breakfast we eat today is a modern invention (post-industrialism); not only because I don’t have any apetite minutes after waking up, but also because I can’t picture cave men or hut men waking up to a smorgosboard and start eating away first thing in the morning.
Then when I started to read a lot of 19th century Russian authors, I noticed that characters never eat breakfast. The well off begins the day typically with a walk or something of the sort, and perhaps an hour or two later they have some light breakfast, more or less “having tea”.
More interesting though is that the farmers do the same. They go up, get dressed, and go to work. Then after a few hours work they eat breakfast.
Naturally I have taken this as a proof that I am always right. Always.
Just speaking from experience, I used to eat breakfast, typical stuff. Then at some point I wanted to lose some weight, so I cut out breakfast entirely and was back to my ideal weight which was around 170 lbs I think on one doctor visit. I later went to eating things like Grapenuts cereal and high protein cereal and I went up to 197 lbs when the next time I went to the doctor.
So that’s when I cut breakfast again and doing well. Usually once I stop eating breakfast for about a week, I’ll stop getting hungry in the morning and never think a thing of it. Couple of years back I also cut out drinking any kind of soda pop and just drink water which also worked out well including making grocery shopping easier.
Oddly enough, I think I do much better throughout the day without breakfast. I do make it on occasion though, eggs…etc but I just learned to keep certain foods on moderation, so maybe once a month or so I’ll eat breakfast. What I never understood was how some people can eat sugar junk for breakfast and still function without feeling like crap. Last time I ate a donut, I felt like crap later that day, same with candy bars and such so I just don’t eat them.
I never claimed that they were equivalent. Only that they were both starchy.
A bowl of oatmeal has a goodly amount of fiber (plus a bit of protein, fat, iron, etc.), but it’s still mostly starch. Typically, only about 15% of the total carbohydrate is dietary fiber, but I’m sure it can vary quite a bit.
The point is that carbohydrates make you hungry. Or not. It depends on whom you ask.
Prior to the 20th century, breakfast ran the gamut from a bowl of gruel to meat and beer, depending on where you were and what you could afford. The current starch-heavy American breakfast seems to owe a great deal to the post-war boom in convenience foods.
Same here. Morning chores come first. Or, at least, they did.
Ever read the serving size for Grape Nuts? The suckers are dense.