Like most health magazines, the NYT health column, Well, is really good at taking iffy studies and generalizing them even more. This article, which was featured this weekend, claims that breakfast doesn't decrease a person's caloric intake later in the day and is positively correlated with daily caloric intake.
The main message of the article addresses the notion that some people treat breakfast as a free-for-all, thinking that they can compensate for whatever calories they eat at breakfast with calories not consumed later in the day, when this really isn't the case. And yeah, if you're eating 500 calories at breakfast, it's probably an unhealthy and fat-laden breakfast anyway so of course you're going to keep snacking during the day. The article, especially the last paragraph, almost encourages people to skip breakfast entirely when it really should be preaching a balanced and filling breakfast. By emphasizing the caloric value and not the quality of a breakfast undermines its importance.
My other gripe with the article is that it throws in the fact that people who eat breakfast tend to have a higher level of physical activity at the very end with no discussion. If an article going to talk about caloric intake, it's irresponsible to not talk about expenditure.
The bottom line is that the article addresses an important issue of how breakfast calories play a role in a diet, but no props to NYT for spinning it in such an unhealthy way.
3 comments:
My perspective on this: if you eat a lot, you're going to be fat. If you eat less, you will be less fat.
And as a corollary to that, if you can't even control how MUCH you eat, how are you supposed to even consider what BALANCE of foods you're eating? In my opinion the potential efficacy of absolute calorie intake control is much higher than that of nutrient control, as far as obesity is concerned. This isn't people like you or me who need the advice, remember.
I disagree. I think having access to a truly balanced and nutritious meal, which is naturally fulfilling, will help someone who doesn't have portion control. The reason why some people eat so much is precisely the fact that their high-calorie potato chips or frappuccinos aren't fulfilling, causing them to reach for that second bag or cup. But if you satiate them on nutrition-dense foods they'll eat less naturally without the need for an absolute caloric control.
Obviously I'm not taking into account the lack of immediate rewards and (what can be) the high costs of nutritious foods. But the banal "eat your whole grains and veggies" has a lot going for it.
I'm not sure what you mean by nutrients, but as far as hunger and cravings are concerned I'm pretty sure it all boils down to proteins vs. carbohydrates vs. fats. Pound for pound, eating all the whole grains and leafy vegetables in the world will not fill you up as much as a steak. Of course, which one of those is healthiest is a different matter. But I just think it's plain wrong to claim that eating something with no protein but a bunch of fiber or vitamins will fill you up just as much as a hunk of meat with no nutrients in it.
This isn't an Atkins diet or anything, it's just choosing the foods that will keep you from hunger the longest. I just think that when it comes to the people that really need the most help, maybe it's counterproductive to idealize their diet. Start from the basics and then work up from there.
Also, it's important not to forget that, as far as essential vitamins and minerals are concerned, even the unhealthiest eaters are getting at least a fair dose nowadays since so much of the food we eat in the US is artificially fortified. Sure, it's not natural, but at least we're getting it.
Post a Comment