There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast • Hacker News Board

Re: There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast

#101

Post by coldtea » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #69

coldtea wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This reads like "I don't eat breakfast, so here's the reasons why I'm right." Actually he gives very reasoned arguments and comments on meta-studies showing that he is right -- not that breakfast is bad, but in that it doesn't make any difference, and if it does nobody has clearly shown it. (a) . In a paper published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2013, researchers reviewed the literature on the e…

(a), (b), (d), and (e) are where he's argued that support for "breakfast is good" is methodologically weak, but then he goes and brings out (c) as an argument for his conclusion, while also being methodologically weak at the same time. You've also neglected to mention (f), where the author discusses studies that show that breakfast is beneficial to children and then handwaves both of them away: > What about the argum…

>but then he goes and brings out (c) as an argument for his conclusion, while also being methodologically weak at the same time.

Here's the thing though: he has every scientific and methodological right to do so.

It's those making a claim (that breakfast is good) that have to prove it.

If they fail to provide evidence for their claim, those who like the author merely point out that their research is weak don't have to prove breakfast is neutral.

Re: There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast

#102

Post by ethbro » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

gukov wrote: post #70

douche wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bacon and eggs is still better than a sugar-blasted bowl of breakfast cereal, which it seems we are thankfully getting away from as the default breakfast.

Everyone healthy is sightly insulin resistant in the morning. Cereal is not a good idea then. Actually, it's never a good idea.

Do you have any citations on morning insulin resistance? Even a starting point would be appreciated. If not, I can search myself. I'm curious, as I just recently switched from a cereal-heavy w/ coffee breakfast to a strictly-smoothie w/o coffee breakfast (likely high in simple sugars, but I try to blend in at least something dark green). Initial results seem positive.

Re: There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast

#103

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

jonknee wrote: post #46

mmastrac wrote: post #5

This reads like "I don't eat breakfast, so here's the reasons why I'm right." Studies that support his conclusion, while flawed, are probably right. Studies that oppose it are obviously tainted by various problems. The fact that research shows that breakfast is actually beneficial for children is hand-waved away because 'reasons'. This is honestly just a low-quality, cherry-picked opinion piece by someone who really…

Well there is no shortage of people who like breakfast (or are in charge of selling people breakfast) and hand wave about it being "the most important meal of the day". The truth is probably people have different metabolisms and if you are hungry in the morning you should eat and if you are not you shouldn't. And that's almost exactly what this post suggests: > The bottom line is that the evidence for the importance…

It probably depends a lot on when people eat dinner. I sometimes eat dinner at 5-6pm and then I definitely need breakfast. If I eat at 8-9pm, I usually skip breakfast. But I've sort of stopped with the whole "you must have 3 meals per day" at these designated increments and I simply eat when I'm hungry, regardless of the time.

Re: There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast

#104

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #91

stonemetal wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, just because breakfast is a compound word doesn't mean it must exactly match the two words it is composed of. Spearmint isn't mint leaves tied to a spear, Carhop doesn't involve jumping in any way, and understand doesn't involve standing anywhere let alone under anything.

Some compound words do, however, like firetruck. It's a truck. For fire. Breakfast falls into that category.

[deleted]

Re: There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast

#105

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:47 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #40

douche wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bacon and eggs is still better than a sugar-blasted bowl of breakfast cereal, which it seems we are thankfully getting away from as the default breakfast.

Of course that's not what they taught us in school, which was that we were supposed to have a pile of carbs with more carbs sprinkled on top and wash it down with carb juice and milk. Bacon and eggs would kill you by clogging your heart with pan drippings.

Don't forget the advertisements that touted Sugary Cereal X as a "part of this complete breakfast"--which was not something that anyone would actually add cereal to if they already had one.

All the ads showed the bowl of cereal next to a 12oz glass of milk, an 8oz glass of orange juice, buttered toast, a colorful piece of fruit, maybe some jelly on the toast, and the cereal box. All the kids who actually ate it just got the cereal with some milk poured over it. It was dumped directly down the gullet with a funnel, because you only had 8 minutes left to get to the school bus stop, which was a 5 minute walk from your front door.

Re: There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast

#106

Post by usrusr » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

rco8786 wrote: post #35

tptacek wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Breakfast isn't magical" isn't a polarized position. The polar opposite of "breakfast is magical" is "breakfast is evil", a position this article is at pains not to take.

I'm not sure that "evil" is the opposite of "magic"

It's the perfect opposite if you look at both words the way you have to look at them when they appear in writing about nutritional science. There, both could only ever be used as deliberate exaggerations of the healthy/unhealthy dichotomy, because neither Hogwarts nor James Bond supervillains have a place there.

Re: There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast

#107

Post by mynameisvlad » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #76

>I don’t eat breakfast...In fact, I’m rarely hungry until about lunchtime. So, other than a morning cup of coffee, I don’t eat much before noon. This is fairly amusing. First, coffee is a well known appetite suppressant. Second, unless coffee is black it is probably far from zero calories, with dairy and sugar maybe between 200-300 [empty] calories which would be in the ball park of bacon and an egg. Of course some s…

You're grossly inflating those calorie numbers.

A grande Starbucks cappuccino is 120 calories. Nonfat brings it down to 80. A grande dark roast at Starbucks is 5 calories, 1 tsp of sugar is 16 calories, and 1oz of milk is 12 calories. Unless you're drinking milk and sugar with a splash of coffee, you won't get anywhere near 200-300 calories.

Even a peppermint mocha with whipped cream - pretty much one of the sweetest drinks you'll find at Starbucks - only has 440 calories, so you'd need to really add a lot of syrups to get to >600.

Re: There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast

#108

Post by jonknee » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:50 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #90

bgilroy26 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The truth is probably people have different metabolisms and if you are hungry in the morning you should eat and if you are not you shouldn't. Bodies don't always cooperate, if you are going to exercise strenuously in a given day you had better eat some kind of breakfast whether your body feels like it or not. Breakfast is always going to be the opportunity to eat when you have more of the day ahead of you. That's tr…

> Bodies don't always cooperate, if you are going to exercise strenuously in a given day you had better eat some kind of breakfast whether your body feels like it or not. I've done many multi-day hikes and a 24 mile one-day hike. I can confirm that eating breakfast before setting out in the morning is absolutely crucial. Like the old saying goes, an army marches on its stomach. I'm normally not hungry in the morning,…

> I've done many multi-day hikes, and a 24 mile one-day hike. I can confirm that eating breakfast before setting out in the morning is absolutely crucial. Like the old saying go, an army marches on its stomach.

Shockingly, people are different. I much prefer a snack on the trail to breakfast before.

Re: There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast

#109

Post by will_brown » Mon, May 23, 2016, 5:53 PM UTC

gutnor wrote: post #82

will_brown wrote: post #76

>I don’t eat breakfast...In fact, I’m rarely hungry until about lunchtime. So, other than a morning cup of coffee, I don’t eat much before noon. This is fairly amusing. First, coffee is a well known appetite suppressant. Second, unless coffee is black it is probably far from zero calories, with dairy and sugar maybe between 200-300 [empty] calories which would be in the ball park of bacon and an egg. Of course some s…

> This is fairly amusing. Or not. The effect of caffeine as an appetite suppressant is nowhere close to letting you skip a meal (that's what we are talking about when saying breakfast, not 5 corn flakes with a sip of milk). A lot of people take their tea/coffee without sugar and the calorie content of a table spoon of milk is negligible.

>The effect of caffeine as an appetite suppressant is nowhere close to letting you skip a meal

I don't know what you mean by saying caffeine doesn't let someone skip a meal, no one is asking permission. Most can skip a meal with or without caffeine, but the caffeine would only help curb hunger pains in those few hours before lunch. I am not suggesting caffeine has some magical properties (though we all know it does).

>A lot of people take their tea/coffee without sugar and the calorie content of a table spoon of milk is negligible.

Ok lets use your example of how a lot of people take their tea/coffee. A Starbucks 16oz coffee with no sugar and just 2% milk still has over 100 calories (120), just shy of a 12oz coke (140).

Clearly, whether or not that is negligible is sadly a matter of opinion more than science, because you say it is and I say its not. Consider this though, while sugar in coke is no doubt the larger health issue, you won't find to many people who say the amount of empty calories from a coke every day over a year is negligible (maybe just the Coke people themselves, but they will also say the sugar isn't an issue). Nevertheless, what you define as negligible calories is still more than an egg, still more than 2 pieces of bacon...and none of the nutritional value.

Re: There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast

#110

Post by SomeCallMeTim » Mon, May 23, 2016, 6:01 PM UTC

nkohari wrote: post #74

sd8f9iu wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, how are they obnoxious? They're asking you to pay for a service. I wish there were more paywalls in online journalism. Low-quality ad-funded journalism is how we get clickbait and crap like the Huffington Post.

Do you subscribe to all of the sites with paywalls?

Not the grandparent, but I don't run an ad blocker, which is how I "pay" for the sites. I do run NoScript, but I'll enable sites like the NYT.

It's sad how the entitlement mentality convinces people that they not only have the right to consume all media on the web for free, but they also have the absolute, inalienable right to view it without looking at ads. Because the

It seems very juvenile to me. "I want everything for free, even if it does cost money to create, and if I can't have it free, I'm going to post to complain about it!"