Meta-analysis: Breakfast might not be a good strategy for weightloss

2»

Replies

  • Pickle107
    Pickle107 Posts: 153 Member
    I'm starving by breakfast. I have 2 versions depending on my projected calorie intake the rest of the day. If I need a low cal breakfast, I have tinned fruit and yoghurt and I'm hungry by 11am. If I don't, I'll have porridge and tinned fruit but I feel so much better for it. I would definitely snack on rubbish if I didn't eat first thing.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I guess I'm (nearly) the only one who thinks it's worthwhile to do and publish an analysis of multiple studies**, in order to summarize the case against the oft-published*** idea that eating breakfast is important for weight loss.

    Agreed, I'm a little surprised by this thread direction.

    @AnnPT77, @kimny72 I agree with both of you, and I'm also surprised at the direction the thread has taken.
  • MichelleSilverleaf
    MichelleSilverleaf Posts: 2,027 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I guess I'm (nearly) the only one who thinks it's worthwhile to do and publish an analysis of multiple studies**, in order to summarize the case against the oft-published*** idea that eating breakfast is important for weight loss.

    ** which, not surprisingly, happen to be of the typical quality of weight-management studies (because better ones are way hard and really expensive)
    *** in popular-press sources

    Breakfast is important to me so that I don't screw up all my (few remaining) social relationships (by intense crankiness-induced verbal hostility) in the hours before lunch; so that I don't fall asleep in the middle of driving down the highway to the river or Y; and so that I don't hit a wall during the rowing or the spin class.

    Imma keep eating breakfast.

    The conclusion just says "don't add breakfast in order to lose weight", not "don't eat breakfast if you want breakfast".

    ;););)

    P.S. I have no problem with assistant professors (or whatever stage they're at) doing publications like this, which take relatively little time, but provide the most reasonable information summary that's realistic currently, in order to beef up their vitae and improve their chances of receiving tenure, and of receiving funding for more in-depth studies.

    Agreed, I'm a little surprised by this thread direction. To me it seems like this group did some summarizing research to give a little pushback to "breakfast is important for dieters".

    To me the conclusion quoted above pretty much says that. IMHO they are saying "Stop telling people they have to eat breakfast, that eating breakfast is integral to successful weight loss, because it's not." <shrug>

    My problem isn't with the conclusion but the shoddy studies used to justify it.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    Aren't these the same people who reported on the Lustig low carb being better for weight loss maintenance? Lost me there with this meta...
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Aren't these the same people who reported on the Lustig low carb being better for weight loss maintenance? Lost me there with this meta...

    I don't think so. Here are the Google Scholar publication lists for the authors. There are far too many articles to list here, but I don't see anything about "Lustig low carb". In fact, most of the publications for these authors appear to be related to osteoarthritis and epidemiology:

    Katherine Sievert: https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=mWsLfZEAAAAJ&hl=en

    Sultana Monira Hussain: https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?hl=en&user=1Zk1P1oAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

    Matthew J Page: https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?hl=en&user=YNUamsYAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

    Yuanyuan Wang: https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?hl=en&user=rsTBcKEAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

    Harrison J Hughes - Can't find publication list, title is "Junior Doctor"

    Mary Malek - Can't find publication list, title is "Medical Student"

    Flavia Cicuttini - https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?hl=en&user=DmSoAcMAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    For those questioning the value of the data, it might be worth checking out some of the publications by the third author. This kind of data analysis must be his specialty:

    Assessing risk of bias in studies that evaluate health care interventions: recommendations in the misinformation age
    MJ Page, I Boutron, C Hansen, DG Altman, A Hróbjartsson
    Journal of clinical epidemiology 97, 133-136

    Mapping of global scientific research in comorbidity and multimorbidity: A cross-sectional analysis
    F Catala-Lopez, A Alonso-Arroyo, MJ Page, B Hutton, ...
    PloS one 13 (1), e0189091

    A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials (RoB 2.0)
    J Savovic, M Page, R Elbers, A Hrobjartsson, I Boutron, B Reeves, ...
    TRIALS 18

    Dealing with effect size multiplicity in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses
    JA López‐López, MJ Page, MW Lipsey, JPT Higgins
    Research synthesis methods 9 (3), 336-351
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,162 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I guess I'm (nearly) the only one who thinks it's worthwhile to do and publish an analysis of multiple studies**, in order to summarize the case against the oft-published*** idea that eating breakfast is important for weight loss.

    ** which, not surprisingly, happen to be of the typical quality of weight-management studies (because better ones are way hard and really expensive)
    *** in popular-press sources

    Breakfast is important to me so that I don't screw up all my (few remaining) social relationships (by intense crankiness-induced verbal hostility) in the hours before lunch; so that I don't fall asleep in the middle of driving down the highway to the river or Y; and so that I don't hit a wall during the rowing or the spin class.

    Imma keep eating breakfast.

    The conclusion just says "don't add breakfast in order to lose weight", not "don't eat breakfast if you want breakfast".

    ;););)

    P.S. I have no problem with assistant professors (or whatever stage they're at) doing publications like this, which take relatively little time, but provide the most reasonable information summary that's realistic currently, in order to beef up their vitae and improve their chances of receiving tenure, and of receiving funding for more in-depth studies.

    Agreed, I'm a little surprised by this thread direction. To me it seems like this group did some summarizing research to give a little pushback to "breakfast is important for dieters".

    To me the conclusion quoted above pretty much says that. IMHO they are saying "Stop telling people they have to eat breakfast, that eating breakfast is integral to successful weight loss, because it's not." <shrug>

    My problem isn't with the conclusion but the shoddy studies used to justify it.

    Do you believe there are better quality studies the could've included, but didn't?

    I didn't explore this question, but it didn't seem that the studies they drew upon were unusually poor quality, for studies in this domain.

    One can only meta-analyze studies that exist. I don't think that renders the meta completely without value, since part of the coverage of the meta is pointing out the poor quality of the underlying studies.
  • MichelleSilverleaf
    MichelleSilverleaf Posts: 2,027 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I guess I'm (nearly) the only one who thinks it's worthwhile to do and publish an analysis of multiple studies**, in order to summarize the case against the oft-published*** idea that eating breakfast is important for weight loss.

    ** which, not surprisingly, happen to be of the typical quality of weight-management studies (because better ones are way hard and really expensive)
    *** in popular-press sources

    Breakfast is important to me so that I don't screw up all my (few remaining) social relationships (by intense crankiness-induced verbal hostility) in the hours before lunch; so that I don't fall asleep in the middle of driving down the highway to the river or Y; and so that I don't hit a wall during the rowing or the spin class.

    Imma keep eating breakfast.

    The conclusion just says "don't add breakfast in order to lose weight", not "don't eat breakfast if you want breakfast".

    ;););)

    P.S. I have no problem with assistant professors (or whatever stage they're at) doing publications like this, which take relatively little time, but provide the most reasonable information summary that's realistic currently, in order to beef up their vitae and improve their chances of receiving tenure, and of receiving funding for more in-depth studies.

    Agreed, I'm a little surprised by this thread direction. To me it seems like this group did some summarizing research to give a little pushback to "breakfast is important for dieters".

    To me the conclusion quoted above pretty much says that. IMHO they are saying "Stop telling people they have to eat breakfast, that eating breakfast is integral to successful weight loss, because it's not." <shrug>

    My problem isn't with the conclusion but the shoddy studies used to justify it.

    Do you believe there are better quality studies the could've included, but didn't?

    I didn't explore this question, but it didn't seem that the studies they drew upon were unusually poor quality, for studies in this domain.

    One can only meta-analyze studies that exist. I don't think that renders the meta completely without value, since part of the coverage of the meta is pointing out the poor quality of the underlying studies.

    I don't think there are better studies, one thing Dr. Yoni Freedhoff has pointed out in the past is that there aren't many studies done on subjects like this, or good ones. A study that bases its data on only a week's worth of it doesn't seem like a great study to me. I mean it's common advice given here to newbies that one needs at least 4 weeks of data to determine if what they're doing is working or not.
  • Gisel2015
    Gisel2015 Posts: 4,185 Member
    Jruzer wrote: »
    I'm enjoying everyone's comments on this.

    The message is that breakfast isn't necessary, and may even be detrimental, to weight loss. Many of us regular posters already take this as truth, but the idea that "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" is well-established in western society outside the narrow confines of MFP.

    Think of all the new posters who say "I don't like breakfast, but I know I have to eat something because BitMIMotD." For every poster who writes this on MFP and hears our responses that breakfast isn't necessary, there are probably a hundred thousand non-MFP dieters who believe that they have to eat within an hour of waking up or that dire consequences will follow.

    If studies can get this info more out to the mainstream, including GPs, RDs, "nutritionists", interested laypeople, all the better.

    (And keep in mind that these kinds of reviews are very important for scientific understanding - any one study or experiment doesn't prove anything definitively. It's the collective understanding reached by multiple investigators, confirmed by peer review, and repeated multiple times, that finally gets to scientific understanding.)

    It is necessary for my tummy and that is the only thing important to me. I eat a light breakfast everyday because I am hungry in the AM since I have been "fasting" for 12 hours or more (I don't snack at bed time). I would have a hard time managing my morning hours without some good combination of carbs, protein and healthy fat in my body.

    I lost the 12 lbs extra lbs that I had gained eating breakfast, while also eating breakfast, and I been keeping them off for nine years, also eating breakfast.

    There is no right or wrong, just personal preference and necessity.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I guess I'm (nearly) the only one who thinks it's worthwhile to do and publish an analysis of multiple studies**, in order to summarize the case against the oft-published*** idea that eating breakfast is important for weight loss.

    ** which, not surprisingly, happen to be of the typical quality of weight-management studies (because better ones are way hard and really expensive)
    *** in popular-press sources

    Breakfast is important to me so that I don't screw up all my (few remaining) social relationships (by intense crankiness-induced verbal hostility) in the hours before lunch; so that I don't fall asleep in the middle of driving down the highway to the river or Y; and so that I don't hit a wall during the rowing or the spin class.

    Imma keep eating breakfast.

    The conclusion just says "don't add breakfast in order to lose weight", not "don't eat breakfast if you want breakfast".

    ;););)

    P.S. I have no problem with assistant professors (or whatever stage they're at) doing publications like this, which take relatively little time, but provide the most reasonable information summary that's realistic currently, in order to beef up their vitae and improve their chances of receiving tenure, and of receiving funding for more in-depth studies.

    Agreed, I'm a little surprised by this thread direction. To me it seems like this group did some summarizing research to give a little pushback to "breakfast is important for dieters".

    To me the conclusion quoted above pretty much says that. IMHO they are saying "Stop telling people they have to eat breakfast, that eating breakfast is integral to successful weight loss, because it's not." <shrug>

    My problem isn't with the conclusion but the shoddy studies used to justify it.

    Do you believe there are better quality studies the could've included, but didn't?

    I didn't explore this question, but it didn't seem that the studies they drew upon were unusually poor quality, for studies in this domain.

    One can only meta-analyze studies that exist. I don't think that renders the meta completely without value, since part of the coverage of the meta is pointing out the poor quality of the underlying studies.

    Better studies would depend on search methodology and how they identified articles - that is included in the article - it wasn’t horrible but it def shapes their hypothesis - since they only looked at ones (iirc) that contained breakfast, obesity and like 1 other key word

    My problem (in general) and this is with nutrition/diet studies as a whole - it many only use very small groups so the results often times aren’t scalable to a larger scaler and the use of self reporting - doing controlled population studies unless in some kind of institute are nigh impossible