Skipping Breakfast Might be Just Fine, According to a New Study

[IDemo]

An old and beloved adage says “breakfast is the most important meal of the day,” but new research suggests that it might need to retire.

According to a new study recently published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, skipping breakfast might be just fine. It challenges the long-standing belief that starting your day with the right combination of healthy foods is the best strategy for all day energy, improved focus and concentration and overall well-being for a busy day.

This is actually not the first study to provide evidence that breakfast-eaters fare no better than non-breakfast-eaters (the evidence says, basically, breakfast is a wash, you could take it or leave it). While some previous studies have suggested that skipping breakfast could lead to heart disease down the line, this new study provides evidence that, at least in the short term, opting for big meal later in the day fares you no better or worse than bulking up on nutrition first thing in the morning.

One study tracked 300 people who skipped breakfast and proved they had no reduction in health over time.

http://diabetesinsider.com/breakfast-just-another-meal/35078

-This comes as no surprise to me. I haven't normally had breakfast for decades.

[Arkansas Granny]

1. I haven't eaten breakfast since I was in high school,

except for when I was pregnant or nursing. Food just doesn't appeal to me when I wake up. Just coffee, please, and I'll wait for lunch.

[pinboy3niner]

2. Nice to know we have morans conducting our studies

The human body needs fuel to function. They're really publishing something that says starting out with no fuel is a good thing?

[PADemD]

4. Fuel for the RW who want to cut school breakfasts.

[Cairycat]

19. Yes, this is a real worry

It might be debatable whether schoolchildren need breakfast, but this lunch lady knows there are many children who do depend on meals at school. Cutting back to just lunch would mean one more meal that many kids miss. Breakfast is more easily provided at school than supper.

[hlthe2b]

5. Yes. Their "outcome" chosen is ridiculous. It should have been a short term outcome, like...

blood glucose levels--particularly given how much of our population is at risk for type II diabetes or pre-diabetic. They reference another study that may have looked at that, but this one that they are giving all the attention, apparently did not.

Then there is the definition of "no-breakfast"... because all those coffee or tea with milk/cream ARE actually getting some "nourishment" and stabilization of blood sugar--especially if they are using cream with its higher fat content.


To try to answer this question based on some definition of "long term health" is really off the mark, IMO.

[Silent3]

8. Not that I'd change a thing based on one study...

...and, in fact, am quite ready to go get some breakfast as soon as I finish typing this, but the validity of this study isn't going to hinge on something as simple as "The human body needs fuel to function".

Clearly people who don't eat breakfast don't stop functioning, they don't collapse on the floor out of a lack of energy. We all have pretty deep energy reserves to keep going for quite a while without a fresh supply of fuel. The health issue isn't about whether you get fuel or not, but whether it makes a health difference where you get your fuel from and when you get it, plus a whole other host of complicated things that are going to change in your body's biological rhythms based on when you're processing the calories you're consuming.

[pinboy3niner]

11. No, no one drops dead from not eating breakfast

But just because we can function on reserves for a time is no reason to advocate that.

[Silent3]

14. But it might be a reason not to worry about it either. *Might* be.

That's why people study these things rather than thinking they can just guess the right answer without observation and experimentation.

[pinboy3niner]

17. I wouldn't go too far out on a limb to defend this study if I were you

In itself it dosn't really mean much. That's why scientists replicate studies and experiments, to see how things hold up when tested. Often, studies can turn out to be total crap.

[Silent3]

20. Where did I defend this particular study?

That you think I'm going out on a limb to defend it only shows that you're totally missing the point of what I'm saying.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. I doubt they were studying starving people.

Most of us in the US are carrying plenty of 'fuel reserves' already, and could stand to 'fuel up' less often as it is.

[Fred Sanders]

29. You have a lot of fuel stored up in your body, it is extracted as needed by your body that has

evolved to tolerate times of famine, it can tolerate skipping a breakfast.

This was probably one of a handful of studies not sponsored by a corporation....connect the dots.

[Cha]

3. It's gotta depend on the individual.. I'm not hungry after sleeping all night.. I have brunch and

supper at night... gives me all the fuel I need. But, that doesn't mean others don't wake up ravenous and can't wait to get to the breakfast table.

[CBGLuthier]

6. I eat two hours after I get out of bed and after I walk 2 miles.

The stupidest assumption is that everyone is exactly the same and functions exactly the same.

[sendero]

7. Yet another "medical science fact"...

... shot to hell. That's why physics is science and much "medical science" is opinion based on incomplete subjective data dressed up as fact.

Nutrition is the worst. First, meats and grains and especially dairy are good for you. Then all fats are bad for you. Then some fats are bad for you. Then different fats are bad. Then dairy is bad. Then carbs are bad for you. I'm waiting for protein to be bad for you, it has to be coming up.

[Silent3]

13. Nothing is "shot to hell", this is just part of the long process of gathering data.

If people jump at every new study as if "this is the new truth!" that's their stupid misunderstanding of the scientific process. You have to sit back and wait to see replication of results and the formation of consensus before things like "incomplete subjective data dressed up as fact" are sorted out, the more so the more complicated the subject and the more difficult it is to isolate variables.

The only reason to ever respond quickly to scientific results is if the room for different interpretations of the data is small and the downside risk of ignoring them is too high. That's hardly ever going to be the case for anything in nutrition apart from things like the discovery of fast-acting poisons.

Popular media coverage of the results of individual scientific studies does an absolutely terrible job with this stuff.

[randome]

21. Amen!

It's the new, newer truth!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[BeyondGeography]

9. I love my breakfast

Would rather eat a late-ish lunch and skip dinner. If you don't do physical labor, two meals is enough. Loading up at night, sitting on a couch and then sleeping can make you fat.

[Laelth]

10. Interesting. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[randome]

12. If you eat crap for breakfast, of course skipping it will help.

And that's what most people eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner: crap full of preservatives, processed sugars and carcinogens.

But I agree with the posters who have pointed out both that everyone is different and that the human body does just fine fuel-wise without breakfast.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Gore1FL]

15. Glad to hear this. My first meal is often when most are on their third meal.

especially during the week.

[ReRe]

16. They're "helping" us transition...

... into a lower standard of living.

Maybe adults can go down to two squares a day, but NOT CHILDREN. If children go to school in the morning with an empty stomach... well we all know what happens with that.

[randome]

22. The brain needs nutrition.

For adults, maybe if you had an especially large meal the day before, it doesn't make sense to have breakfast. But we all need to listen to our bodies more carefully to determine that. Children are not adept at that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[ReRe]

28. That's right..

... kid's metabolisms are going gangbusters in the middle of the night.
Wish mine worked like that. I'd sleep allot more.

[IDemo]

18. Just as a sample size of one here,

I just passed the 50 year mark with Type 1 diabetes. My A1C numbers are consistently in the low 5's, meaning at or very near a non-diabetic's. This figure is used to gauge overall blood glucose levels over the past few months. I have no signs of neuropathy, and my eyes are "phenomenal", according to the last ophthalmologist I saw. My blood pressure and cholesterol numbers are excellent.

I am not hungry when I get up, and in fact, the idea of putting food on my stomach makes me queasy. I get two meals daily, almost without exception home cooked. I'm not feeling the angst of some over this study. They aren't claiming that breakfast is harmful, just that it may not have the importance which has been the gospel of nutrition for a long time.

[Fuddnik]

23. Now you're making me hungry.

[valerief]

24. Sounds like a study for rationale to cut school food funding. nt

[Delmette]

25. I understand both sides.

I have two sons. Even as toddlers one would not eat until mid-morning, the other would get out of bed and run to the kitchen. As adults they haven't changed one bit. Just do what is right for you.

[NRaleighLiberal]

26. Whatever. I just love breakfast!

Eating healthy morning food has helped me maintain my 60 lb weight loss for 3 years now.