4 ms·
As the quality of the included studies was mostly low, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Given that the quality of the included studies was most
by DrScump 8y ago
As the quality of the included studies was mostly low, the findings should be interpreted with caution.
Given that the quality of the included studies was mostly low, I choose to ignore this paper altogether, and I'm perplexed as to why it was done in the first place.
Garbage in, garbage out.
- Someone 8y agoThis study isn’t garbage. It studies stuff, and draws the conclusion that it is garbage. That doesn’t in any way imply this study itself is garbage. The lesson to take away from this is ”we don’t know whether having breakfast has any effect on weight”. That is (slightly) interesting news, as many (popular) articles on weight loss claim skipping breakfast is bad (example: https://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/why-breakfast-is-key-to-weight-loss.aspx https://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/why-breakfast-is-key-t...)
- DrScump 8y agoThe lesson to take away from this is ”we don’t know whether having breakfast has any effect on weight” The lesson I took was that "we don't know whether the effect of breakfast on weight is meaningful (let alone measurable) because we chose crappy data, which means that the question may or not be answerable with better data." To me, it's worse than not doing the study at all and saving those resources for actual science. many (popular) articles on weight loss claim skipping breakfast is bad I agree, and that's why I read this in the first place. Meta-analyses using studies with no relevant controls (such as distinguishing the time-restricted feeding effect) are mostly worthless.