Is it Healthier to be Fatter or to Sometimes not Eat Breakfast?

By Kevin

I'm looking for leads here.

Over the past two months, I have frequently gone to work before the rest of the family awakens. To not make noise, I leave without eating breakfast -- usually some cereal, juice, and a bagel or toast, sometimes much more evil foods. By not eating these several hundred calories, I have lost roughly seven pounds over that period (and I'm still overweight). Note that not eating breakfast doesn't effect the size of the lunch or dinner I have... Naturally and thankfully, my wife is concerned that I'm eating too little.

So my questions are, what are the relevant margins here? And what are the costs and benefits at those margins? Am I hurting myself by not eating breakfast more than benefiting myself with lower weight? Can science answer these questions?

UPDATE: I think we can score one for the Healthier to be Fatter team.

-- February 7, 2006 7:56 AM |

Comments

Brandon Berg wrote:

Search the archives of Art De Vany's blog for "intermittent fasting." According to him, short, irregular periods of stress (e.g., skipping meals) can prompt the body to overcompensate, thereby improving health. But if you're eating cereal, juice, and a bagel or toast for breakfast most days, meal frequency probably shouldn't be your biggest concern.

Also, the study doesn't say that excess adiposity isn't unhealthful--it says that a moderate reduction in dietary fat doesn't seem to have any health benefits. Contrary to popular belief, there is not a strong positive correlation between dietary fat intake and obesity.

-- February 10, 2006 10:13 PM ∞

Post a comment