Eating breakfast doesn't help against obesity

[Jwolf]

Another myth debunked. At best there's an association between people who eat breakfast and weight control, but no evidence of causation. So someone TRYING to lose weight won't necessarily do better by eating breakfast unless they also change the rest of their eating habits.

Why am I not surprised?

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss ... management

Original paper:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early ... 0.abstract

[turd ferguson]

Step 1: state straw man premise
Step 2: debunk straw man
Step 3: ???
Step 4: profit!!!

[MINITEE]

The problem "I see" on a daily basis interacting with people and discussing how they eat, is that the breakfast eaters eat well through the day.

The "non" breakfast eaters tend to go far too long without eating and binge on crap through the day.

Not at all scientific, just a general observation from talking to a lot of different people about eating habits/timing all the time.

No one ever said that eating breakfast would stop you from being obese that I was aware of.

[Jo-Jo]

The problem "I see" on a daily basis interacting with people and discussing how they eat, is that the breakfast eaters eat well through the day.

The "non" breakfast eaters tend to go far too long without eating and binge on crap through the day.

Not at all scientific, just a general observation from talking to a lot of different people about eating habits/timing all the time.

No one ever said that eating breakfast would stop you from being obese that I was aware of.

I'll pipe in as "perhaps" an exception.
I rarely eat breakfast...I've been this way since childhood...my mother applauded the day Carnation Instant Breakfast was invented in the 60's because I could get this down...eating solids before about 10:30 a.m has never agreed with me. When I race this is a bit of an issue because I know I should get some calories in way before I normally would...and it's a challenge for me.
I don't binge or eat crap during the day. And I rarely eat snacks at night.

[MINITEE]

The problem "I see" on a daily basis interacting with people and discussing how they eat, is that the breakfast eaters eat well through the day.

The "non" breakfast eaters tend to go far too long without eating and binge on crap through the day.

Not at all scientific, just a general observation from talking to a lot of different people about eating habits/timing all the time.

No one ever said that eating breakfast would stop you from being obese that I was aware of.

I'll pipe in as "perhaps" an exception.
I rarely eat breakfast...I've been this way since childhood...my mother applauded the day Carnation Instant Breakfast was invented in the 60's because I could get this down...eating solids before about 10:30 a.m has never agreed with me. When I race this is a bit of an issue because I know I should get some calories in way before I normally would...and it's a challenge for me.
I don't binge or eat crap during the day. And I rarely eat snacks at night.

That's why I said "tend"... of course not everyone eats like that, but a disproportionate number that I happen to see or talk to do.
Now, given I am almost always talking to people who have a weight loss goal... my observation is far from scientific.

[La]

I think Jen's comment about correlation/causation is an important one. It's not because someone eats breakfast that they are better able to maintain their weight, just that those people tend to make better food choices overall.

http://www.drsharma.ca/obesity-presumpt ... kfast.html
http://www.drsharma.ca/nothing-cut-and- ... kfast.html

Incidentally, in the case of breakfast eating, there is indeed a large amount of epidemiological data showing less obesity in people who eat breakfast – this however cannot be interpreted to show that eating breakfast prevents obesity or promotes weight loss – that would be assuming causality, which is simply not possible to deduce from such studies.

Indeed, the highest quality data from the few randomised controlled trials on this issue (n=8), ranging in duration from 1 week to 3 school years are largely inconsistent, with one study even suggesting that whether eating or skipping breakfast is more effective for weight loss may depend on the individual’s typical breakfast habits.

So, although I would still maintain that regularly eating a nutritious breakfast may be the best way to start a day, whether or not this will help avoid or better manage your weight is likely to very much vary between individuals.

Jo-Jo, I think you are just blessed with a body type that wouldn't allow you to gain weight no matter how poorly you ate.

[Ironboy]

I wonder if any of the studies factor in the content of the breakfast.

A high carb cinnamon bun is far different story than a high protein omelette.

[Jo-Jo]

Jo-Jo, I think you are just blessed with a body type that wouldn't allow you to gain weight no matter how poorly you ate.

I "practised" poor eating habits from age 18 to 24....I weighed 25 pounds more than I do now

I'm fortunate that I truly don't have a sweet tooth so calorie laden desserts are not something I crave...mind you...your trifle was pretty heavanly

I know a lot of people over eat when stressed...I have the opposite reaction...I lose my appetite.

[fingerboy]

Calories in vs calories out.

Everything else is a gimmick people use to convince themselves they're doing the right thing. Maybe it works, probably it doesn't.

[Jwolf]

No one ever said that eating breakfast would stop you from being obese that I was aware of.

People have been saying essentially that for years. That's the point. People assumed there was some scientific merit to it, but really it was just simple association.

[Ironboy]

Calories in vs calories out.

Everything else is a gimmick people use to convince themselves they're doing the right thing. Maybe it works, probably it doesn't.

I'm sure the Sugar Lobby will be happy to hear this.

[La]

Calories in vs calories out.

Everything else is a gimmick people use to convince themselves they're doing the right thing. Maybe it works, probably it doesn't.

I'm sure the Sugar Lobby will be happy to hear this.

As my WW leader says, your body isn't a bank account, it's a science experiment. It's actually more complicated than "calories in vs. calories out."

[Jwolf]

Calories in vs calories out.

Everything else is a gimmick people use to convince themselves they're doing the right thing. Maybe it works, probably it doesn't.

I'm sure the Sugar Lobby will be happy to hear this.

As my WW leader says, your body isn't a bank account, it's a science experiment. It's actually more complicated than "calories in vs. calories out."

This reminds me of another article about sugar that I will also post under another topic: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/ ... cohen-text

[fingerboy]

Calories in vs calories out.

Everything else is a gimmick people use to convince themselves they're doing the right thing. Maybe it works, probably it doesn't.

I'm sure the Sugar Lobby will be happy to hear this.

As my WW leader says, your body isn't a bank account, it's a science experiment. It's actually more complicated than "calories in vs. calories out."

Sorry, what is WW and sugar lobby? weight watchers?

CIvCO is simplistic, but it's the core. You're not going to do as well eating 3,000 cal from fat or sugar a day as you will from complex carbs, but you can eat all the best food in the world and if you don't burn it off, it won't evaporate. You're body will burn what you put in, and won't want you don't let it burn. If you put in better fuel, you may get better results, but it will still burn it.

On the other side of the equation, when you work out, working out in the 'fat zone' is a bunch of lard. In theory, at those sub optimal paces, you may burn 0.025% more 'fat', but if you spent 0.025% more time in the intense side, you'd burn more cal, and absolute fat (this is coming from discussions with Alex Hutchinson and general relativity).

Also time on your feet is not equivalent. Strictly from a caloric perspective, time + effort =/= same metabolic rate for adjustments in time and effort. Aka walking a mile does not burn the same as running a mile, nor does that to sprinting a mile.

Finally most people grossly misjudge how many calories they actually burn from 'exercise'. People thinking walking a flight or 5 flights of stairs did something for them. Maybe burned 5 cal. It's kind of sad. But you have to work hard and (as in my point above) to really get any benefit. I went on a 9km walk with my friends, wearing my hr monitor and watch. I burned maybe 550cal for the whole thing. It was hilly too. People going for walks in the evening is more for fun than burning off dinner etc. An evening stroll for 3km, will probably burn 183cal.

So there are metrics involved, but I find more people start playing games with equations to help them, sometimes (and eventually) those who lack the motivation to get it done, miss key factors and don't see the forest for the tree.

[turd ferguson]

Calories in vs calories out.

Everything else is a gimmick people use to convince themselves they're doing the right thing. Maybe it works, probably it doesn't.

I'll assume you're correct, but isn't that oversimplifying? The body might be an engine, but unlike my car engine, its an engine with emotions, moods, cravings, high and low spots in the day, feelings of satiety, etc.

I might be the sort of person that gets emotional at 11 a.m. when I get tired and frustrated from a morning of work. If I can eat a 200 calorie bagel for breakfast to either avoid the low spot later in the morning or at least be full when it occurs, maybe I can avoid a midmorning calorie bomb that I'm eating because I'm emotional, not because I'm hungry.

Saying that its calories in and calories out ignores the next question - how do I manage calories in?

[turd ferguson]

No one ever said that eating breakfast would stop you from being obese that I was aware of.

This is my point on "straw man" I made above. Its the laziest form of science writing.

Here's a very different quote from later in the article:

Weight-management issues aside, breakfast is almost universally recognized as contributing to good physical and mental energy throughout the day. For the many runners who get in their miles soon after waking, a high-quality post-run breakfast plays a key role in recovery.

That wouldn't make a very good headline.

[Ironboy]

Fat mobilizes in the absence of insulin.

Fat is stored in the presence of insulin.

Eating dietary fat, protein and high fibre carbohydrates result in no insulin production or very little insulin production.

Easting processed sugars and grain results very high insulin production.

Calories in = calories out may necessarily be true, but calories in - calories out <> calories stored as fat.

[deerdree]

No one ever said that eating breakfast would stop you from being obese that I was aware of.

This is my point on "straw man" I made above. Its the laziest form of science writing.

Actually, the first part of the published study (I've just had a chance to look at the full article) was to demonstrate that this assumption exists in the media and elsewhere:

"Lay-media, scientific, and government sources were searched for statements about breakfast and obesity to establish that the PEBO is widely believed. To evaluate our perception that the PEBO is only a presumption rather than an empirically supported scientific conclusion, scientific databases were searched for empirical human research about the PEBO. In addition, studies were reviewed from one published meta-analysis and 3 sys- tematic reviews (5–8)." [PEBO = proposed effect of breakfast on obesity]

The result?

"The PEBO is widely stated as true
We identified numerous statements and recommendations encouraging individuals to eat breakfast with the express purpose of influencing obesity. These recommendations came from popular health icons (12) and respected web-based health in- formation outlets (13) and even the United States Surgeon General (14) (Table 2). Some statements included uncertainty (14), whereas other statements were hyperbolic and attributed unfounded behaviors to skipping breakfast [eg, “raiding the vending machine” (15)], and still other statements created spe- cific temporal constraints on when breakfast must be consumed (16). A satellite symposium at Nutrition Society’s 2012 summer meeting was even titled “How does breakfast help manage bodyweight?” (22) Although we cannot conclude that there is universal agreement in lay-media, government, and scientific- opinion leaders from these exemplars, we concluded that the PEBO is widely presumed true, as previously suggested (1)."

I think that's a neat aspect of the study - that they actually measured whether this assumption exists before setting out to disprove it.

[deerdree]

I wonder if any of the studies factor in the content of the breakfast.

yes, some of them did.

[turd ferguson]

No one ever said that eating breakfast would stop you from being obese that I was aware of.

This is my point on "straw man" I made above. Its the laziest form of science writing.

Actually, the first part of the published study (I've just had a chance to look at the full article) was to demonstrate that this assumption exists in the media and elsewhere:

"Lay-media, scientific, and government sources were searched for statements about breakfast and obesity to establish that the PEBO is widely believed. To evaluate our perception that the PEBO is only a presumption rather than an empirically supported scientific conclusion, scientific databases were searched for empirical human research about the PEBO. In addition, studies were reviewed from one published meta-analysis and 3 sys- tematic reviews (5–8)." [PEBO = proposed effect of breakfast on obesity]

The result?

"The PEBO is widely stated as true
We identified numerous statements and recommendations encouraging individuals to eat breakfast with the express purpose of influencing obesity. These recommendations came from popular health icons (12) and respected web-based health in- formation outlets (13) and even the United States Surgeon General (14) (Table 2). Some statements included uncertainty (14), whereas other statements were hyperbolic and attributed unfounded behaviors to skipping breakfast [eg, “raiding the vending machine” (15)], and still other statements created spe- cific temporal constraints on when breakfast must be consumed (16). A satellite symposium at Nutrition Society’s 2012 summer meeting was even titled “How does breakfast help manage bodyweight?” (22) Although we cannot conclude that there is universal agreement in lay-media, government, and scientific- opinion leaders from these exemplars, we concluded that the PEBO is widely presumed true, as previously suggested (1)."

I think that's a neat aspect of the study - that they actually measured whether this assumption exists before setting out to disprove it.

I stand corrected - the abstract didn't refer to that part of the study and obviously I didn't read the study.

[Ironboy]

I wonder if any of the studies factor in the content of the breakfast.

yes, some of them did.

Thanks PhDee. Now I wonder what they mean by "normal breakfast"

[deerdree]

I wonder if any of the studies factor in the content of the breakfast.

yes, some of them did.

Thanks PhDee. Now I wonder what they mean by "normal breakfast"

For the study in the above table that mentions "normal breakfast", the original article (Leidy) refers to it as a normal-protein breakfast. Much clearer! "Normal breakfast" to me could mean that you left the participants to eat whatever they wanted (which would obviously muddle the results).



Leidy seems to publish a lot on the subject of protein-rich meals - breakfast and otherwise. One that caught my attention and was interesting to me (as a smoothie drinker) was a study that found that "subsequent food intake was greater when protein was consumed as a beverage v. a solid meal". I guess that's sort of intuitive - people like to chew and such. Interesting to see the research.

[La]

Leidy seems to publish a lot on the subject of protein-rich meals - breakfast and otherwise. One that caught my attention and was interesting to me (as a smoothie drinker) was a study that found that "subsequent food intake was greater when protein was consumed as a beverage v. a solid meal". I guess that's sort of intuitive - people like to chew and such. Interesting to see the research.

As a habitual protein-smoothie for breakfast drinker (home made, not store-bought), I'm starting to re-think whether this is the best breakfast for me. I was trying to move away from cereal as I wanted fewer carbs, more protein, and something portable. Smoothies fit the bill. They do a good job from a restoring blood sugar perspective, but after having one around 7AM, by 9:30 or 10 I need some yogurt/fruit or something.

[AjaxRunner]

Fat mobilizes in the absence of insulin.

Fat is stored in the presence of insulin.

Eating dietary fat, protein and high fibre carbohydrates result in no insulin production or very little insulin production.

Easting processed sugars and grain results very high insulin production.

Calories in = calories out may necessarily be true, but calories in - calories out <> calories stored as fat.

This to me indicates the problem that almost always occurs in these discussions. Weight loss and health and athletic performance get combined.

Losing weight is not necessarily healthy, nor easy. But if I found a way to eat only 1200 calories a day, I would lose weight, even if those calories were only from refined sugar. Most people would agree that this would probably not be a healthy diet in the long run, even if it might bring me to a weight (or BMI) that is considered "healthy".

Calories in vs calories out also doesn't take into account cravings etc., as has been pointed out above. However, that doesn't take away that the concept itself (for weightloss) really is that simple.

For many of these discussion to have merit, they need to be very carefully framed, or you very quickly start comparing apples and oranges.

[La]

I wonder if any of the studies factor in the content of the breakfast.

yes, some of them did.

Thanks PhDee. Now I wonder what they mean by "normal breakfast"

So, the question I've got for you is whether or not having bowlfuls of sugar or plates of highly refined white flour might in turn lead you to more difficult dietary struggles and, as a consequence, higher weights?

The medical literature isn't much help. Most studies evaluating breakfast's impact on fullness tend to only measure hunger levels and dietary intake at lunch. Yet, don't most of us also eat dinner?

In fact, my experiences with literally thousands of patients has found that if a person is going to struggle consequent to an inadequate breakfast (skipping it altogether, having too few calories or insufficient protein), it's going to be in the late afternoon, evening or nighttime. Therefore, studies that look at the impact of breakfast consumption on lunchtime hunger may well miss evening munchies.

Full article here: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/bl ... our-weight