5 ms·

"Breakfast is the most important meal of the day" is one of the most ingenious lies ever crafted for commercial gain.

by jb1991 2y ago

nikkwong 2y ago
It's a metabolic fact that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. What consumers are marketed to consume for breakfast is another story.
- xcv123 2y ago
  > It's a metabolic fact that breakfast is the most important meal of the day Based on what scientific evidence? Some do better without breakfast.
  - nikkwong 2y ago
    See my comment above
    - xcv123 2y ago
      Yes those papers show that it is good to skip breakfast. Replied above.
- pokot0 2y ago
  How so? On HN you state facts with references usually.
  - nikkwong 2y ago
    See my comment above
- jb1991 2y ago
  It is not at all a fact, though it was widely disbursed as one for many decades in the 20th century. In fact, recent studies have proven quite the opposite, that it has almost no effect on health or mortality if someone eats or skips breakfast. There are a few exceptions, like people who are at risk of heart failure should not skip meals, but for the vast majority of the public, skipping breakfast actually has proven to have some benefits.
  - nikkwong 2y ago
    Your claim is in direct contradiction to the current state of the literature. The scientific community is in consensus around the fact that late meal timing is damaging to metabolic health. Meal timing should be aligned to the body's circadian clock, which is the most active early in the day and becomes more dormant as the day progresses. People who delay caloric intake later into the day and into the evening have worse glucose control (a meal eaten in the evening can carry twice the glycemic impact as it does compared to in the morning). They also have increased triglycerides, increased levels of obesity, markers of oxidative stress, increased gut microbiota and hormone dysregulation, etc [1]. As a system, our bodies are more active in the morning than they are in the evening, which most people can identify with, so this shouldn't be surprising. It's not clear if, by skipping breakfast and decreasing caloric intake, but thereby delaying the feeding window, a beneficial effect for some individuals exists. Most of the data points in the opposite direction, but maybe, for the extremely metabolically fit individual who shovels glucose into cells like a snowplow, it's less problematic? I'm just positing, but we don't have good evidence for that. What we do have evidence for is that those who engage in IF but do it with a delayed eating schedule generally have worse health outcomes. Some references: [1] "Late eating decreased glucose tolerance, resting energy expenditure, and carbohydrate oxidation as compared to early eating. Besides, the cortisol profile was blunted for late eating as compared to early eating, similarly to that found under acute stress situations [11]. Eating late also affected the daily rhythms of peripheral temperature, towards a similar pattern to that found in overweight/obesity women which was related to metabolic alterations" Timing of Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner. Effects on Obesity and Metabolic Risk (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6893547/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6893547/) "Dietary patterns that feature meal timing outside of the regular daytime hours can contribute to circadian disruption as food is metabolised in opposition to internal daily rhythms and can feedback on the timekeeping mechanisms setting these rhythms. Epidemiological evidence examining the impact of late meal timing patterns is beginning to suggest that eating at night increases the risk of weight gain over time" The Impact of Meal Timing on Risk of Weight Gain and Development of Obesity: a Review of the Current Evidence and Opportunities for Dietary Intervention (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9010393/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9010393/) There are many.. so I encourage you to look into it yourself.
- JoeAltmaier 2y ago
  I haven't eaten breakfast regularly for thirty years. Ride a bike very day, healthy as a horse. For a kid maybe, they are small and can run out of fuel so quickly. But after the age of maybe fifteen, forget it.
  - xcv123 2y ago
    > But after the age of maybe fifteen Fifteen year olds are still growing, in the anabolic phase, so they should eat more often if they have the appetite. Forget it when you are a fully grown adult.
  - nikkwong 2y ago
    Anecdata is interesting but it is not actual data :-)
    - JoeAltmaier 2y ago
      Usually true. But it is an apparent aberration of a wanna-be hard rule. A single data point is important if it refutes a rule.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
OutOfHere 2y ago
There is evidence that it is not a lie: PMCID: PMC10465444 PMID: 36869181 Habitually Skipping Breakfast Is Associated with the Risk of Gastrointestinal Cancers: Evidence from the Kailuan Cohort Study (2023) > Results: During a median follow-up of 5.61 (5.18 ~ 6.08) years, 369 incident GI cancer cases were identified. Participants who consumed 1–2 times breakfasts per week exhibited an increased risk of stomach (HR = 3.45, 95% CI: 1.06–11.20) and liver cancer (HR = 3.42, 95% CI: 1.22–9.53). Participants who did not eat breakfast had an elevated risk of esophageal (HR = 2.72, 95% CI: 1.05–7.03), colorectal (HR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.34–4.01), liver (HR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.23–4.71), gallbladder, and extrahepatic bile duct cancer (HR = 5.43, 95% CI: 1.34–21.93). In the mediation effect analyses, BMI, CRP, and TyG (fasting triglyceride-glucose) index did not mediate the association between breakfast frequency and the risk of GI cancer incidence (all P for mediation effect > 0.05). > Conclusions: Habitually skipping breakfast was associated with a greater risk of GI cancers including esophageal, gastric, colorectal, liver, gallbladder, and extrahepatic bile duct cancer. There is actually a lot more evidence in favor of breakfast if you follow the related links on the aforementioned PMID page.
- jb1991 2y ago
  Interesting, I’ll have to read that one. There was another study discussed here several months ago that had the opposite conclusion.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    > that had the opposite conclusion. I will believe it when I see it! Meanwhile, here are some more studies showing a benefit of breakfast. It is certainly possible that there are confounding factors, but the relative risks of ignoring the data are too high. --- Meta-Analysis of Relation of Skipping Breakfast With Heart Disease (2019) (PMID: 31326073) > The primary meta-analysis combining HRs for Q1 (first quartile, most skipping breakfast) versus Q4 (fourth quartile, least skipping breakfast) from 3 studies together with other HRs/ORs demonstrated that skipping breakfast was associated with the significantly increased risk of heart disease (pooled HR/OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.40; p = 0.001). In sensitivity analyses combining HRs for Q2 (second quartile, second most skipping breakfast) versus Q4 or HRs for Q3 (third quartile, second least skipping breakfast) versus Q4 from 3 studies together with other HRs/ORs, the association of skipping breakfast with the increased risk of heart disease in the primary meta-analysis was confirmed. In conclusion, skipping breakfast is associated with the increased risk of heart disease. Association between skipping breakfast and risk of cardiovascular disease and all cause mortality: A meta-analysis (2020) (PMID: 32085933) > Results: Skipping breakfast was associated with elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (relative risk 1.22 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.35) and all cause mortality (relative risk 1.25 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.40) compared with eating breakfast regularly. > Conclusion: Skipping breakfast increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all cause mortality. Eating breakfast regularly may promote cardiovascular health and decrease all cause mortality.

"Breakfast is the most important meal of the day" is one of the most ingenious lies ever crafted for commercial gain.

by jb1991 2y ago

"Breakfast is the most important meal of the day" is one of the most ingenious lies ever crafted for commercial gain.

It's a metabolic fact that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. What consumers are marketed to consume for breakfast is another story.

xcv123 2y ago
> It's a metabolic fact that breakfast is the most important meal of the day Based on what scientific evidence? Some do better without breakfast.
- nikkwong 2y ago
  See my comment above
  - xcv123 2y ago
    Yes those papers show that it is good to skip breakfast. Replied above.
pokot0 2y ago
How so? On HN you state facts with references usually.
- nikkwong 2y ago
  See my comment above
jb1991 2y ago
It is not at all a fact, though it was widely disbursed as one for many decades in the 20th century. In fact, recent studies have proven quite the opposite, that it has almost no effect on health or mortality if someone eats or skips breakfast. There are a few exceptions, like people who are at risk of heart failure should not skip meals, but for the vast majority of the public, skipping breakfast actually has proven to have some benefits.
- nikkwong 2y ago
  Your claim is in direct contradiction to the current state of the literature. The scientific community is in consensus around the fact that late meal timing is damaging to metabolic health. Meal timing should be aligned to the body's circadian clock, which is the most active early in the day and becomes more dormant as the day progresses. People who delay caloric intake later into the day and into the evening have worse glucose control (a meal eaten in the evening can carry twice the glycemic impact as it does compared to in the morning). They also have increased triglycerides, increased levels of obesity, markers of oxidative stress, increased gut microbiota and hormone dysregulation, etc [1]. As a system, our bodies are more active in the morning than they are in the evening, which most people can identify with, so this shouldn't be surprising. It's not clear if, by skipping breakfast and decreasing caloric intake, but thereby delaying the feeding window, a beneficial effect for some individuals exists. Most of the data points in the opposite direction, but maybe, for the extremely metabolically fit individual who shovels glucose into cells like a snowplow, it's less problematic? I'm just positing, but we don't have good evidence for that. What we do have evidence for is that those who engage in IF but do it with a delayed eating schedule generally have worse health outcomes. Some references: [1] "Late eating decreased glucose tolerance, resting energy expenditure, and carbohydrate oxidation as compared to early eating. Besides, the cortisol profile was blunted for late eating as compared to early eating, similarly to that found under acute stress situations [11]. Eating late also affected the daily rhythms of peripheral temperature, towards a similar pattern to that found in overweight/obesity women which was related to metabolic alterations" Timing of Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner. Effects on Obesity and Metabolic Risk (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6893547/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6893547/) "Dietary patterns that feature meal timing outside of the regular daytime hours can contribute to circadian disruption as food is metabolised in opposition to internal daily rhythms and can feedback on the timekeeping mechanisms setting these rhythms. Epidemiological evidence examining the impact of late meal timing patterns is beginning to suggest that eating at night increases the risk of weight gain over time" The Impact of Meal Timing on Risk of Weight Gain and Development of Obesity: a Review of the Current Evidence and Opportunities for Dietary Intervention (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9010393/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9010393/) There are many.. so I encourage you to look into it yourself.
JoeAltmaier 2y ago
I haven't eaten breakfast regularly for thirty years. Ride a bike very day, healthy as a horse. For a kid maybe, they are small and can run out of fuel so quickly. But after the age of maybe fifteen, forget it.
- xcv123 2y ago
  > But after the age of maybe fifteen Fifteen year olds are still growing, in the anabolic phase, so they should eat more often if they have the appetite. Forget it when you are a fully grown adult.
- nikkwong 2y ago
  Anecdata is interesting but it is not actual data :-)
  - JoeAltmaier 2y ago
    Usually true. But it is an apparent aberration of a wanna-be hard rule. A single data point is important if it refutes a rule.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

OutOfHere 2y ago

There is evidence that it is not a lie: PMCID: PMC10465444 PMID: 36869181 Habitually Skipping Breakfast Is Associated with the Risk of Gastrointestinal Cancers: Evidence from the Kailuan Cohort Study (2023) > Results: During a median follow-up of 5.61 (5.18 ~ 6.08) years, 369 incident GI cancer cases were identified. Participants who consumed 1–2 times breakfasts per week exhibited an increased risk of stomach (HR = 3.45, 95% CI: 1.06–11.20) and liver cancer (HR = 3.42, 95% CI: 1.22–9.53). Participants who did not eat breakfast had an elevated risk of esophageal (HR = 2.72, 95% CI: 1.05–7.03), colorectal (HR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.34–4.01), liver (HR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.23–4.71), gallbladder, and extrahepatic bile duct cancer (HR = 5.43, 95% CI: 1.34–21.93). In the mediation effect analyses, BMI, CRP, and TyG (fasting triglyceride-glucose) index did not mediate the association between breakfast frequency and the risk of GI cancer incidence (all P for mediation effect > 0.05). > Conclusions: Habitually skipping breakfast was associated with a greater risk of GI cancers including esophageal, gastric, colorectal, liver, gallbladder, and extrahepatic bile duct cancer. There is actually a lot more evidence in favor of breakfast if you follow the related links on the aforementioned PMID page.

jb1991 2y ago
Interesting, I’ll have to read that one. There was another study discussed here several months ago that had the opposite conclusion.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  > that had the opposite conclusion. I will believe it when I see it! Meanwhile, here are some more studies showing a benefit of breakfast. It is certainly possible that there are confounding factors, but the relative risks of ignoring the data are too high. --- Meta-Analysis of Relation of Skipping Breakfast With Heart Disease (2019) (PMID: 31326073) > The primary meta-analysis combining HRs for Q1 (first quartile, most skipping breakfast) versus Q4 (fourth quartile, least skipping breakfast) from 3 studies together with other HRs/ORs demonstrated that skipping breakfast was associated with the significantly increased risk of heart disease (pooled HR/OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.40; p = 0.001). In sensitivity analyses combining HRs for Q2 (second quartile, second most skipping breakfast) versus Q4 or HRs for Q3 (third quartile, second least skipping breakfast) versus Q4 from 3 studies together with other HRs/ORs, the association of skipping breakfast with the increased risk of heart disease in the primary meta-analysis was confirmed. In conclusion, skipping breakfast is associated with the increased risk of heart disease. Association between skipping breakfast and risk of cardiovascular disease and all cause mortality: A meta-analysis (2020) (PMID: 32085933) > Results: Skipping breakfast was associated with elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (relative risk 1.22 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.35) and all cause mortality (relative risk 1.25 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.40) compared with eating breakfast regularly. > Conclusion: Skipping breakfast increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all cause mortality. Eating breakfast regularly may promote cardiovascular health and decrease all cause mortality.