Myths Surround Breakfast and Weight: New York Times

toutmonpossible

"[N]ew research shows that despite the conventional weight-loss wisdom, the idea that eating breakfast helps you lose weight stems largely from misconstrued studies.

"Only a handful of rigorous, carefully controlled trials have tested the claim, the new report, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found. And generally they conclude that missing breakfast has either little or no effect on weight gain, or that people who eat breakfast end up consuming more daily calories than those who skip it."

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/myths-surround-breakfast-and-weight/?hp&pagewanted=all

lsmsrbls

Thank you for sharing!

I think this is fascinating:

The study was fairly small and limited, involving only 52 overweight adult women, but it suggested that as far as breakfast is concerned, the most important factor in weight loss may be how drastically you change your routine. “Those who had to make the most substantial changes in eating habits to comply with the program achieved better results,” the authors wrote in their paper.

And I found the part below really disturbing. It suggests that the peer review process should perhaps explicitly require digging through referenced studies.

Through the years, the equivocal findings were wildly misinterpreted. Dr. Allison and his colleagues found about 50 subsequent articles on breakfast and body weight in the medical literature that cited the Vanderbilit research. Of those papers, 62 percent cited the findings inaccurately, and they were almost exclusively biased in favor of the idea that eating breakfast protects against weight gain.

mzenzer

"or that people who eat breakfast end up consuming more daily calories than those who skip it."[/b]

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/myths-surround-breakfast-and-weight/?hp&pagewanted=all

Really OMG! They eat MORE calories. Well duh! Doesn't mean that's a bad thing. Eat more, move more, lose more.

Mr_Knight

The modern style of breakfasting is just that - modern. Humans don't "need" it and did just fine without it for the entire course of their evolution.

MattUFCP90X

Its logic that your body goes into fat storing mode when you deprive it from calories. Thus eating breakfast is important to help keeping your body in an anabolic state. The more your body thinks it wont get food the more fat you will store and the less muscle you will build.

Thomasm198

Its logic that your body goes into fat storing mode when you deprive it from calories. Thus eating breakfast is important to help keeping your body in an anabolic state. The more your body thinks it wont get food the more fat you will store and the less muscle you will build.

Because one person thinks it is logic does not make it scientific fact.

You could also say that it is logic that if you skip breakfast you will force your body to consume fat stores to get its energy.

bound4beauty

Its logic that your body goes into fat storing mode when you deprive it from calories. Thus eating breakfast is important to help keeping your body in an anabolic state. The more your body thinks it wont get food the more fat you will store and the less muscle you will build.

Um....NO. That's false logic. There's no truth to the notion that your body starts to store fat after being deprived of food for a few hours. That's nonsense. There are several topics here on the starvation mode myth and that's exactly what it is...a myth.

Confuzzled4ever

I am sticking to the "it depends on the person" mind set. I do better when I eat breakfast. Eat less, lose more. I know people who never eat breakfast and manage to lose weight..

When I skip breakfast I eat more later to compensate for it or I don't eat enough period.. talking under 1,000 calories. (700 or less sometimes)

Don't need a lot.. usually a shake.. but it definitely assisted me.

JoRocka

I don't do well eating RIGHT away- but I can't make it to lunch usually. I get super nauseated sick.

Being physically just hungry- its your body's first reaction to a change in the system. All that intial hunger pain means is "this is what time you usually eat"

But yeah- big shocker- XXXX calories- in 24 hours. Eat them when you like.

I personally don't like breakfast- I like eating around 10 AM... then gnoshing my way through the day. I usually have a fairly large late night snack (often ice cream) of 2-300 calories around 11PM-12 ish- (I don't get home from the gym till almost 1130 usually.

So it is what it is. I look and feel great. I feed my body when I have time and it fits into my schedule.

leebesstoad

The problem isn't necessarily eating breakfast. One survey I saw said about 80-85% of Americans claim to eat breakfast on a routine basis (most days). Yet we have a large obesity problem. It isn't THAT we eat breakfast. It's WHAT we eat for breakfast. The sweet rolls, the danishes, the pastries, the all-you-can-eat breakfast buffet, the high calorie, high sugar, high fat breakfast is what is wrong. I saw one iced honey bun at 7-11 the other day at the front counter. Selling for about a buck. It had 820 calories. Just one package. Fast, cheap, easy and deathly to most people's waist line.

Personally, I can't imagine not eating breakfast now. I never used to, but eating 5-6 times a day has been all the difference for me. But even more important is what I eat and making smart choices. That's where eating breakfast can help. At least it helps me.

shannashannabobana

I think this is fascinating:

The study was fairly small and limited, involving only 52 overweight adult women, but it suggested that as far as breakfast is concerned, the most important factor in weight loss may be how drastically you change your routine. “Those who had to make the most substantial changes in eating habits to comply with the program achieved better results,” the authors wrote in their paper.

That is very interesting. Granted, it's a small study, but is this potentially a reason why things like paleo/cutting out specific foods (which are often made much fun of on this board) might actually work? Because it makes enough of a change that it's harder to slip into old habits?

I would love to see more research on this.

And as a natural non-breakfast eater, I was so happy when I heard that the original studies on this were bunk. Now if I'm a little hungry I'll have a piece of cheese, otherwise nothing.

JoRocka

The problem isn't necessarily eating breakfast. One survey I saw said about 80-85% of Americans claim to eat breakfast on a routine basis (most days). Yet we have a large obesity problem. It isn't THAT we eat breakfast. It's WHAT we eat for breakfast. The sweet rolls, the danishes, the pastries, the all-you-can-eat breakfast buffet, the high calorie, high sugar, high fat breakfast is what is wrong. I saw one iced honey bun at 7-11 the other day at the front counter. Selling for about a buck. It had 820 calories. Just one package. Fast, cheap, easy and deathly to most people's waist line.

Personally, I can't imagine not eating breakfast now. I never used to, but eating 5-6 times a day has been all the difference for me. But even more important is what I eat and making smart choices. That's where eating breakfast can help. At least it helps me.

sweet rolls and danishes and pastries are all fine.

As long as you don't eat to much of it. WHAT we eat isn't the problem. IT"S HOW MUCH WE EAT.

That being said- the people (it seems to me in my highly no scientifically verified study) that the people that gravitate toward eating those types of higher processed foods- eat like that all the time- and they also have no idea what the calorie content is- and they have no idea why they are hungry 1 hour later even though they just ate. Their choice is poor- and the quantity is poor.

it wouldn't be bad if they ate said danish- then went and had chicken and veggies for lunch and a light dinner... but they have said danish- then have said burger king or whatever- then have Ruby Star Chinese buffet for dinner. no concept of caloric intake and no concept of what 1000 calories looks like. That behavior tends to walk hand in hand- quiet often.

But the pastires themself? harmless