What? Where did this theory come from? Haven't we learned recently that periodic fasting is better for you? And if you use skipping breakfast as a method of caloric restriction?
Yeah, first I heard breakfast was good for you, so I always ate breakfast, then I read it’s better not to eat breakfast because of some fasting effects, so I stopped eating breakfast. Now this article says it’s related to heart disease.
I give up on these food studies; the findings never seem to be consistent. I think I’m just going to eat whenever I’m hungry (which isn’t that often).
The whole premise is flawed. We know certain people are more prone to heart disease or need more of this or that. If that's the case I can't see how some sort of conclusion can be made about when to eat. Some people are going to work better with breakfast and others are going to work better without.
This study [1] might relate to it: Intermittent Fasting in Cardiovascular Disorders—An Overview.
In section 7 the authors expose pros and cons of intermittent fasting, specifying that for elderly individuals it might be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, while for the rest of the population it is generally associated with a decreased risk.
This was my thought process as well. First "Crap, I should start eating breakfast" then quickly to "or maybe I should restructure my life so I have the spare time and mindfulness to sit down for 15 minutes and eat breakfast."
Skipping breakfast comfortably implies you ate enough to cover the gap at dinner, which is probably too much in a time when your body is using minimal energy?
"meta-analysis of currently available epidemiological studies"
A.k.a., not capable of determining causality. May be a bit closer to a Ouija board than a randomized controlled trial.
This conforms to my bias as I'm a breakfast person; it's my largest meal of the day. But this kind of evidence is not a good basis on which to change your behavior. It's done because the data for it is available, not because it's probative. Like looking for your keys under the streetlight because that's where the light is.
14 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 39.3 ms ] threadI give up on these food studies; the findings never seem to be consistent. I think I’m just going to eat whenever I’m hungry (which isn’t that often).
In section 7 the authors expose pros and cons of intermittent fasting, specifying that for elderly individuals it might be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, while for the rest of the population it is generally associated with a decreased risk.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6471315/
Can we think of any bias for why people with heart disease might skip breakfast, e.g. older people don't eat breakfast for some reason?
A.k.a., not capable of determining causality. May be a bit closer to a Ouija board than a randomized controlled trial.
This conforms to my bias as I'm a breakfast person; it's my largest meal of the day. But this kind of evidence is not a good basis on which to change your behavior. It's done because the data for it is available, not because it's probative. Like looking for your keys under the streetlight because that's where the light is.
It can of course be poorly used.
What are the ethics of putting people in an experimental group that you hypothesize has higher morbidity?