Is Skipping Breakfast a Good Idea?
- Thread starter IMT staff
- Start date
Like I thought, calorie and macro intake was not tracked or specifically mandated in a clinical setting. A questionnaire isn't the most reliable method of evidence gathering.
halfwit
I like turtles.
Isn't this more of a stress induced by prolonged fasting type event anyway? I get the idea that IF can work if macros are met, but I also know that there is a strain placed on the body by doing so. At least I think that's what you're hinting at.
IMT staff
Official Sponsor
I think I am missing your point here?
Megatron28
Moderator
Aren't a lot of people promoting Intermittent Fasting these days? If I recall correctly, you posted an article on it not too long ago.
My point and what I'm hinting at is there's no one right way to diet. A blanket statement about breakfast being necessary bc it can increase risk of CVD ignores many other factors. First off this Harvard study used questionnaires, subjects were not given food and calories and macros not tracked so I fail to see how diet and lifestyle factors can be accounted for with the subjects themselves reporting things. We know many many people often underestimate or over estimate their food intake.
Then there's the issue that skipping breakfast isn't exactly "going in and out of starvation" and many of these side effects listed in the OP are only found in fasts of 24hrs or more. The researcher Heilbronn also found in several ADF (alternative day fast) studies that muscular glucose uptake and insulin resistance were improved, although admittedly this is in the acute setting not chronic.
There is also evidence that fasting and/or calorie restriction improves BDNF (Brain-derived neurotrophic factor). You can prevent and/or lessen the progression of neurodegenerative disorders by inhibiting the decline of BDNF and fasting is one method of increasing BDNF activity.
My point is: this study has a fundamental flaw and yes, there are many benefits to eating a breakfast upon waking but there are also many benefits to fasting too so a more complete picture cAn be painted and give both sides of the issue. I believe the pros and cons will lead you to make the decision of what to follow based on convenience and consistency, whichever method fits one's lifestyle and they can be consistent with.
halfwit
I like turtles.
Fair enough, I know better than to argue with you on this topic.
Although I would like to see if this correlation holds true with a better data set in which the participants were held to equivalent macronutrient and caloric intakes. 
Fair enough, I know better than to argue with you on this topic.
Hell no, I'd love for you or IMT to debate it, maybe I'm missing something or maybe you guys know something I don't. I'm just presenting the evidence that I know to add to the pool so an informed decision can be made. That's my main gripe with this Harvard study, if they controlled the intake as part of the study and not simply sent out questionnaires it would alleviate the biggest problem right off the bat. Questionnaires, especially those related to food intake, are NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate.
IMT staff
Official Sponsor
Im sorry I do not share your view, I do not look at a study for its faults, I look at it for what I can learn from it, and there is no doubt, QUE or not there was some correlation.
Trying to rip apart the study and find one situation that does not hold true does not strip all the merit from the study. Then again it is not absolute either.
Its possible the study could be wrong, its also possible that I will win the lotto tomorrow
Also remember we are talking about average people here......they probably don't understand how to count their macro's anyway.
Last edited:
Im sorry I do not share your view, I do not look at a study for its faults, I look at it for what I can learn from it, and there is no doubt, QUE or not there was some correlation.
Trying to rip apart the study and find one situation that does not hold true does not strip all the merit from the study. Then again it is not absolute either.
Its possible the study could be wrong, its also possible that I will win the lotto tomorrow
Also remember we are talking about average people here......they probably don't understand how to count their macro's anyway.
I respectfully have to disagree. There are many thousands of studies that are not applicable, have incorrect methods, come to faulty conclusions that the data does not support, have improper equipment to measure or don't take into account the sensitivity needed for certain measurements of data, and a host of other factors that could easily discredit a study or at least it's applicability to something.
I understand where you're coming from but correlation does not prove causation and I know you never stated causation but it can be implied from the tone of the article. One faulty thing doesn't necessarily strip the merits of a study but in nutrition, as I previously mentioned, questionnaires are NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate in obtaining data points for caloric/macro intake. That's not a minor fault in a study such as this, it could be potentially catastrophic to the study and it's findings and conclusions.
I hope you do win the lottery tomorrow and decide to share
but that's a red herring as far as I'm concerned. And so bc they can't count their macros how does a simple questionnaire accurately gauge diet and lifestyle factors? Plus this is being posted on a BB/AAS forum where most do know how to track macros (they may not all do it but most know how to do it).
Also why would you not want to look at a study's faults to better asses it's relevance? If I posted a study saying Santa clause is real would you not look for faults in the study but trust it on the surface? Way too many studies are not wholly applicable to what they're made out to be and way too many people are incorrectly interpreting conclusions from data sets that don't back up the conclusion n
IMT staff
Official Sponsor
I respectfully have to disagree. There are many thousands of studies that are not applicable, have incorrect methods, come to faulty conclusions that the data does not support, have improper equipment to measure or don't take into account the sensitivity needed for certain measurements of data, and a host of other factors that could easily discredit a study or at least it's applicability to something.
I understand where you're coming from but correlation does not prove causation and I know you never stated causation but it can be implied from the tone of the article. One faulty thing doesn't necessarily strip the merits of a study but in nutrition, as I previously mentioned, questionnaires are NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate in obtaining data points for caloric/macro intake. That's not a minor fault in a study such as this, it could be potentially catastrophic to the study and it's findings and conclusions.
I hope you do win the lottery tomorrow and decide to share
And so bc they can't count their macros how does a simple questionnaire accurately gauge diet and lifestyle factors? Plus this is being posted on a BB/AAS forum where most do know how to track macros (they may not all do it but most know how to do it).
Also why would you not want to look at a study's faults to better asses it's relevance? If I posted a study saying Santa clause is real would you not look for faults in the study but trust it on the surface? Way too many studies are not wholly applicable to what they're made out to be and way too many people are incorrectly interpreting conclusions from data sets that don't back up the conclusion n
Your taking this way too seriously, I am off too bed
Its not a study saying your gonna die, it simply suggests eating breakfast in the morning is good for you. I know there are plenty of studies that are out of context, this one however is not, and honestly Harvard rarely puts out anything biased and is usually on the forefront of medical news.
Your one of the guys that if it is not 100% completely set in stone, then the study is worthless. Most people that have this opinion can be short sighted and not realize the value of the information, although maybe not 100%.
Instead of saying what they did completely wrong, tell us how you could set the parameters of the study?
I feel like I am talking with someone I just hired out of college, and they know everything already
There is study, and then there is real world, and coincidentally you say, the people who didn't eat breakfast, who had increased risk, there was something else to blame? I don't believe in coincidence. But that is the argument my professor in college would have gave me
Last edited:
IMT staff
Official Sponsor
I find it odd you do not know the company you keep so frequently, this could not be further from the truth. The amount of people looking at your post is far more than the people actually posting.............. even in the AAS most don't know how to diet, thats why they are using AAS
I find it odd you do not know the company you keep so frequently, this could not be further from the truth. The amount of people looking at your post is far more than the people actually posting.............. even in the AAS most don't know how to diet, thats why they are using AAS
Touché but that just further illustrates my point about the lack of control in the study and I find it odd as well that you don't critically evaluate a study and it's legitimacy before posting it. I guess we just agree to disagree. I really enjoy reading your posts in the testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) section and I'm not trying to start shit so I hope I don't come off that way
Last edited:
Similar threads
