Claims that breakfast is a health panacea may be unsupported(vox.com)
vox.com
Claims that breakfast is a health panacea may be unsupported
https://www.vox.com/2019/2/1/18206873/breakfast-diet-weight-loss
75 comments
Skipping breakfast just means increasing the time interval between starting your fast after dinner and breaking your fast during break-fast, call it whatever you want.
I find it funny how many people dislike the term intermittent fasting. To me it’s just as silly as the people who attach their whole being to a diet like those living the “Keto life”. Keto and IF are effective ways of losing weight for lots of people including me, but it all just comes down to calorie in calorie out at the end of the day.
I find it funny how many people dislike the term intermittent fasting. To me it’s just as silly as the people who attach their whole being to a diet like those living the “Keto life”. Keto and IF are effective ways of losing weight for lots of people including me, but it all just comes down to calorie in calorie out at the end of the day.
Consuming breakfast takes tome so I’ve skipped for awhile now. When I get hungry I usually drink a cup of tea black. I eat an early lunch around 11.30am so that does me until dinner at 6pm. I find a cycle of predictiveness allows me to keep a regular weight which trends downwards if I don’t deviate.
I also avoid snack machines at work by never having loose change. I also avoid ‘free food’ unless fruit. Keep sugar to a minimum so no soda and no visits to drive through or donut shops. No soda either.
I also avoid snack machines at work by never having loose change. I also avoid ‘free food’ unless fruit. Keep sugar to a minimum so no soda and no visits to drive through or donut shops. No soda either.
"Free" snacks in the office cost us a lot.
Nutritional guidelines have very short lives compared to every other field of science. It's such a minefield of contradictions.
Astonished how many pretend a topic so complicated by biology/genetics and routinely proven wrong can be easily broken down into simplistic good/bad buckets (and of course they definitely got it right this time)
Saturated fats and salt are next in line to fall, despite how hard the entrenched old guard of health authorities want to ignore the new evidence.
Astonished how many pretend a topic so complicated by biology/genetics and routinely proven wrong can be easily broken down into simplistic good/bad buckets (and of course they definitely got it right this time)
Saturated fats and salt are next in line to fall, despite how hard the entrenched old guard of health authorities want to ignore the new evidence.
First it was fat, so we got low fat products and the sugar replaced it. Now sugar is the enemy, so low carb high fat (Keto). Next will be protein.
Put fat and sugar together and you get very palatable foods (like ice cream). It makes sense that removing either would help control weight.
Protein already came and passed. That's why cereal breakfast was introduced to avoid proteins in the early 1900s.
Ironically the man behind the campaign against protein was called Dr Kellogs and you can guess which company he founded.
There's a great documentary called In Defence of Food. Check it out.
Ironically the man behind the campaign against protein was called Dr Kellogs and you can guess which company he founded.
There's a great documentary called In Defence of Food. Check it out.
Diet studies are some of the most corrupt in American science, given the huge amount of money at stake based on what the American public eats. It’s not unusual to discover that the academic who releases a study proclaiming the magical power of <Food Group> is actually receiving money from the <Food Group> association.
Lifestyles and activity levels have dramatically changed. Eating breakfast everyday and consuming high levels of carbohydrates is actually a good idea, if you do manual labor on a farm.
Western lifestyles are relatively sedentary, yet our brains are consuming more information than ever. Mental processes have nutritional needs and we're stabbing in the dark as to how to approach this problem. People have not figured out the best regimen for this new lifestyle.
Western lifestyles are relatively sedentary, yet our brains are consuming more information than ever. Mental processes have nutritional needs and we're stabbing in the dark as to how to approach this problem. People have not figured out the best regimen for this new lifestyle.
Replacement religions?
>Nutritional guidelines have very short lives compared to every other field of science. It's such a minefield of contradictions.
Like psychology. And I'm sure there are many other examples.
Like psychology. And I'm sure there are many other examples.
Nutritional science seems worse, but I think that's because real (not pop) psychologists seem to be giving up on simple good/bad and fad advice.
There is so much of this in nutrition because there is profit motive via the food industry.
There is so much of this in nutrition because there is profit motive via the food industry.
Drugs are another industry. We will look back at SSRIs and benzos the same way we look at lobotomy now.
Only when we have much better things of course. Progress is being made.
The thing about nutritional science is that progress seems like it's just not being made at all. We go from fad to fad.
The thing about nutritional science is that progress seems like it's just not being made at all. We go from fad to fad.
When I was young and without a daily schedule, I'd typically end up eating two meals a day. Something like brunch and something like dinner.
In adult life, with a typical schedule, I just skip breakfast and have lunch and dinner like everybody else. It's not a problem at all. Getting up and pretty much immediately having something to eat is just a habit. Sometimes I might get a little hungry before it's time for lunch. Then I have a fruit and that's it.
I don't think this is bad for my capacity at work at all. Ive done the breakfast routine as well, so I know what it's like. I always notice that I'm not working at full speed when I for example haven't slept well or if I'm about to come down with a cold, so I think I would be able to tell if skipping breakfast was having an impact.
In adult life, with a typical schedule, I just skip breakfast and have lunch and dinner like everybody else. It's not a problem at all. Getting up and pretty much immediately having something to eat is just a habit. Sometimes I might get a little hungry before it's time for lunch. Then I have a fruit and that's it.
I don't think this is bad for my capacity at work at all. Ive done the breakfast routine as well, so I know what it's like. I always notice that I'm not working at full speed when I for example haven't slept well or if I'm about to come down with a cold, so I think I would be able to tell if skipping breakfast was having an impact.
Drinking at least two liters of water per day - unsupported
Eating an apple a day - unsupported
Saturated fats causing increased cholesterol, thus leading to heart failure - unsupported
It seems that almost everything we've been told since childhood to be healthy has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Eating an apple a day - unsupported
Saturated fats causing increased cholesterol, thus leading to heart failure - unsupported
It seems that almost everything we've been told since childhood to be healthy has no scientific basis whatsoever.
> Eating an apple a day - unsupported
It's pretty indisputable that fruit and vegetable consumption reduces CVD, increases mental well-being, and lowers weight.
> Saturated fats causing increased cholesterol, thus leading to heart failure
Previous evidence certainly overestimated the impact of saturated fats, especially vis-a-vis processed carbohydrates. However there's no doubt that saturated fat still increases CVD mortality vis-a-vis unsaturated fats.
One of the biggest pitfalls in thinking about nutrition is asking "is food group X good or bad?" The real question is food group X good or bad in comparison to what? After all if people reduce the percent of X in their diet they have to replace it with something else. Beef is "good for you" if the marginal substitute is cupcakes, but "bad for you" if the marginal substitute is salmon.
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4490.full.pdf+html [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/0802795 [3] https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2016... [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5475232/
It's pretty indisputable that fruit and vegetable consumption reduces CVD, increases mental well-being, and lowers weight.
> Saturated fats causing increased cholesterol, thus leading to heart failure
Previous evidence certainly overestimated the impact of saturated fats, especially vis-a-vis processed carbohydrates. However there's no doubt that saturated fat still increases CVD mortality vis-a-vis unsaturated fats.
One of the biggest pitfalls in thinking about nutrition is asking "is food group X good or bad?" The real question is food group X good or bad in comparison to what? After all if people reduce the percent of X in their diet they have to replace it with something else. Beef is "good for you" if the marginal substitute is cupcakes, but "bad for you" if the marginal substitute is salmon.
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4490.full.pdf+html [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/0802795 [3] https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2016... [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5475232/
This is absolutely correct and I don't know why anyone would try to deny it. We've known most of these things for a long time, as well as having multiple studies reinforce it, including recent ones.
Filling out your meals with more plant based foods instead of avoiding those foods while eating lots of low quality meat will have measurably better outcomes:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/255644.php
Filling out your meals with more plant based foods instead of avoiding those foods while eating lots of low quality meat will have measurably better outcomes:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/255644.php
> It's pretty indisputable that fruit and vegetable consumption reduces CVD, increases mental well-being, and lowers weight.
I'd dispute part of that -- fruit contains significant amounts of sugars, and eating a lot of fruit will result in weight gain.
Eating a lot of vegetables is almost definitely a healthy option, and weight gain is unlikely.
I'd dispute part of that -- fruit contains significant amounts of sugars, and eating a lot of fruit will result in weight gain.
Eating a lot of vegetables is almost definitely a healthy option, and weight gain is unlikely.
Don't confuse unsupported with no scientific basis. The scientific method allows for making hypothesis that are later demonstrated to be false. It can absolutely be the case that the old recommendations were the best we knew at the time from science, and be unsupported today.
>It can absolutely be the case that the old recommendations were the best we knew at the time from science, and be unsupported today.
It can also absolutely be the case that old recommendations were a mix of old wives tales (with no scientific basic whatsoever), bad papers (replicated and taken as gospel without reproducibility and further study) and studies sponsored by the food industry to promote this or that foodstuff...
It can also absolutely be the case that old recommendations were a mix of old wives tales (with no scientific basic whatsoever), bad papers (replicated and taken as gospel without reproducibility and further study) and studies sponsored by the food industry to promote this or that foodstuff...
No, the saturated fat argument was pure bullshit from day 1. Ansel Keys cherry picked his data and did not do his multivariate analysis correctly. He then went on to bully and threaten anyone who disagreed with him for the rest of his life.
we tend to believe that scientists belong to a different breed of humans who do not hold grudges, aren't greedy, biased etc. The reality is completely different, unfortunately.
Dietary science performs so ridiculously poorly compared to every other branch of science, that I can't simply chalk it up to the inherent nature of scientific progress. There are a lot of variables and complex systems, yes, but you get whiplash from the way so many of these hypotheses turn out to be absolute bullshit every few years. Really the lesson should be that no one should place much confidence at all in any of these ideas until they've actually been supported by many sources for a very, very long time. Branding these things as "current scientific knowledge" is exactly the kind of thing that gets people doubting science, and it's an insult to the rest of science.
Just saw this comment on a Facebook page dedicated to science:
"Late last year, an analysis of 1.7 million people found you were 25 percent less likely to develop the condition if you had your appendix removed. Now a bigger study says the complete opposite. Believe it or not, this is science working
I had to take Health class in middle school and high school, and it didn't include any of these claims. Even if it had, my health education (while admittedly not great) consisted of a lot more than just 3 facts.
what your middle school Health class contained or didn't contain does not change the fact that these are very widely accepted facts in society.
What’s the downside to drinking 2 litres of water/day, 1 apple/day and cutting back on the saturated fats?
I figure you may as well.
I figure you may as well.
Well, no one said there is a downside - maybe there is, we simply don't know. Just like we do not know whether drinking two liters of water does have any benefit at all.
Recently, I have read an article which claimed that one should only drink water when their body demands it, you know, like becoming thirsty. The problem is, in most of the popular science circles these kinds of urban myths are propagated almost as if they were basic nutritional facts. I would personally think some mega-companies, such as Nestle, would be really interested in propagating the myth of the necessity of consuming at least two liters of water.
Recently, I have read an article which claimed that one should only drink water when their body demands it, you know, like becoming thirsty. The problem is, in most of the popular science circles these kinds of urban myths are propagated almost as if they were basic nutritional facts. I would personally think some mega-companies, such as Nestle, would be really interested in propagating the myth of the necessity of consuming at least two liters of water.
also, you might be interested in researching why cutting back saturated fats might not be as beneficial as it has been claimed for decades now. Actually, there is a new kid in town - ketogenetic diet.
For anyone considering skipping breakfast but finding themselves too hungry, I would recommend trying it anyway. When I eat breakfast regularly I get hungry at that time of day, but once I’ve skipped it for a week or two then my body seems to get used to it and I no longer get hungry at that time.
Also, black coffee for me helps suppress my appetite.
Also, black coffee for me helps suppress my appetite.
Hunger is an interesting feeling. The tide sweeps in, hunger emerges like a wave, a call for action on the horizon. It reaches a crescendo, and then collapses, and disappears. At least, that's how my "routine hunger" feels: eat at time A on day 1, and you'll be hungry at time A on day 2.
The thing to remember about hunger as a craving is that it'll always pass if you leave it alone. Have a cup of water and let it go.
(please note: this is only referring to short term hunger sensations. there is a longer term hunger, but it feels different, more subtle but more all-encompassing)
The thing to remember about hunger as a craving is that it'll always pass if you leave it alone. Have a cup of water and let it go.
(please note: this is only referring to short term hunger sensations. there is a longer term hunger, but it feels different, more subtle but more all-encompassing)
> The thing to remember about hunger as a craving is that it'll always pass if you leave it alone. Have a cup of water and let it go.
Another option is to use a clock instead of gut feeling. I ignore the hunger until the clock tells me it's been 5 hours since my last meal.
Another option is to use a clock instead of gut feeling. I ignore the hunger until the clock tells me it's been 5 hours since my last meal.
If breakfast means sugar loaded crap shown on the pictures there, then do yourself a favor and skip it. If your lunch looks similar, skip it too.
Eat if you're hungry or your doctor tells you too. And when you eat, eat good food.
I don't understand why people overcomplicate it. The only difference is if you're trying to lose or gain weight, in which case it makes sense to watch how much and what you eat, when is less important. Follow your body's cues, and plan ahead so you have good options when you're hungry.
Personally, my body isn't ready for breakfast for an hour or two after I wake up, but my kids like to eat as soon as they get up, so I get up earlier so my mealtime matches my kids. I get up between 5-6, and my kids get up around 7:30, so breakfast at 8 works for both of us. Before I had kids, I'd wake up later, skip breakfast entirely, and have an early lunch (11 or so).
Afaict, the "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" came from breakfast makers (dairy, cereal, etc), not medical research. Breakfast can be important, if you're hungry in the morning.
I don't understand why people overcomplicate it. The only difference is if you're trying to lose or gain weight, in which case it makes sense to watch how much and what you eat, when is less important. Follow your body's cues, and plan ahead so you have good options when you're hungry.
Personally, my body isn't ready for breakfast for an hour or two after I wake up, but my kids like to eat as soon as they get up, so I get up earlier so my mealtime matches my kids. I get up between 5-6, and my kids get up around 7:30, so breakfast at 8 works for both of us. Before I had kids, I'd wake up later, skip breakfast entirely, and have an early lunch (11 or so).
Afaict, the "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" came from breakfast makers (dairy, cereal, etc), not medical research. Breakfast can be important, if you're hungry in the morning.
> Eat if you're hungry or your doctor tells you too. And when you eat, eat good food.
> I don't understand why people overcomplicate it.
Because it is, in fact, more complicated in practice. For one thing, it can take significant effort to isolate and distinguish hunger that signals need to eat for calories, the sensations produced by habitual expectation of food, cravings due to specific needs but not general caloric needs, and even thirst.
> The only difference is if you're trying to lose or gain weight, in which case it makes sense to watch how much and what you eat, when is less important.
When can actually be quite important if you are trying to do anything with law with your day besides losing weight when trying to lose, since managing to maintain a calorie deficit while mitigating the impact of the adverse effects of such a deficit and the associated stress on other activities is nontrivial.
> Follow your body's cues
Your body’s cues are setup to promote overeating when that is possible, because humans aren't actually evolved for constant, reliable food surplus but alternation between surplus and insufficiency.
> I don't understand why people overcomplicate it.
Because it is, in fact, more complicated in practice. For one thing, it can take significant effort to isolate and distinguish hunger that signals need to eat for calories, the sensations produced by habitual expectation of food, cravings due to specific needs but not general caloric needs, and even thirst.
> The only difference is if you're trying to lose or gain weight, in which case it makes sense to watch how much and what you eat, when is less important.
When can actually be quite important if you are trying to do anything with law with your day besides losing weight when trying to lose, since managing to maintain a calorie deficit while mitigating the impact of the adverse effects of such a deficit and the associated stress on other activities is nontrivial.
> Follow your body's cues
Your body’s cues are setup to promote overeating when that is possible, because humans aren't actually evolved for constant, reliable food surplus but alternation between surplus and insufficiency.
Following your body's cues really doesn't work for everyone. Some people are just hungry all the time and have to learn to ignore those urges.
I love the table with 'breakfast foods'. This is so telling on the difference between diets in cultures and why obesity is such an issue in the US.
With the exception of the joghurt there is not a single food in this table that I or most of my friends in Germany would eat for 'breakfast'.
With the exception of the joghurt there is not a single food in this table that I or most of my friends in Germany would eat for 'breakfast'.
Sadly, a lot of yoghurt nowadays is also loaded with sugar.
This is a surprisingly good article. It addresses "confus[ing] correlation with causation", addresses the "sponsored by Kellogg" problem, and hammers on the bad breakfast issue:
"So if you’re going to eat breakfast, seek out foods that give you the vitamins and nutrients you need to stay healthy, like fruits, vegetables, fiber-rich cereals, and eggs. Steer clear of desserts masquerading as breakfast, like high-sugar granola or yogurt."
"So if you’re going to eat breakfast, seek out foods that give you the vitamins and nutrients you need to stay healthy, like fruits, vegetables, fiber-rich cereals, and eggs. Steer clear of desserts masquerading as breakfast, like high-sugar granola or yogurt."
Healthcare Triage made a wonderful video on the topic : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syleh_6Aopw
The channel is run by Aaron Caroll : Professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, the Vice Chair for Health Policy and Outcomes Research and the Director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research.
The channel is run by Aaron Caroll : Professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, the Vice Chair for Health Policy and Outcomes Research and the Director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research.
Ensemble averaging has not worked well for me when it comes to dieting. I’m at a point where I’ve found what works well for me: high protein Mediterranean eat when I’m hungry. I tried skipping breakfast and wound up being skinny-fat. I tried keto and got fat and muscular. You might fit cleanly into a bin, like me, you might not.
What is "skinny-fat"? Is it an issue of uncontrolled weight fluctuations?
It means your BMI is “normal”, but it’s normal because you lack muscle to offset having more fat than ideal.
I believe it's using "fat" as a catch-all term for an unhealthy body composition. You appear skinny but lack muscle. I don't think you necessarily have to have "hidden" excess fat to be called this term.
Thinner and softer; noodle arms. You can be thin or lean, but skinny-fat is marked by soft muscle.
Typically it's more like thin but with poor muscle definition. Not overweight but not fit.
But assuming the gp was exercising with weights etc, they might mean that they felt they weren't overweight but were carrying excess fat in certain areas, or considered themselves bloated.
But assuming the gp was exercising with weights etc, they might mean that they felt they weren't overweight but were carrying excess fat in certain areas, or considered themselves bloated.
Skipping breakfast is my doctor-approved way of keeping my weight in check. I found myself eating a few hours after dinner, so I still have three meals a day, just not at the traditional times. And like others have said here, hunger is almost never a problem. And drinking water is a great way to satisfy the occasional hunger.
I'm more likely to skip dinner. I'm too much of a morning person to skip breakfast.
They only go into the effects on your health regarding weight loss/gain, but I feel like I get a mental boost on mornings when I eat breakfast (either traditional American or Mediterranean style, never sugar cereal or whatever). The days I eat breakfast, I feel more focused. When I skip it, I’m on the express train to A.D.D. Town.
Last time I read an article, it was "Death of the Calorie". That article tries to imply that simple counting "calories" doesn't actually measure health's correlation to "diets".
[deleted]
should be titled "eating cereal for breakfast" as it's specifically about cereal
other kinds of breakfast (full-English etc) are healthy
other kinds of breakfast (full-English etc) are healthy
Full English is healthy ?
I know we have come full circle with regard to protein and fats, but having that much fried food all at once doesn't seem like a the most healthy thing.
It usually comes with baked beans - the sauce has a high sugar content.
I don't eat particularly healthily myself, but saying full-English is healthy just sounds like nonsense.
I know we have come full circle with regard to protein and fats, but having that much fried food all at once doesn't seem like a the most healthy thing.
It usually comes with baked beans - the sauce has a high sugar content.
I don't eat particularly healthily myself, but saying full-English is healthy just sounds like nonsense.
It is healthy-ish, depending exactly what you have, how you cook it and quantity and how frequently you have it. The healthy version will look significantly different than the greasy spoon version dripping in oil.
I’ll do a full english with scrambled eggs, sourdough toast, mushrooms in a little butter, home cooked beans, 2 rashers of rindless bacon with a tiny amount of oil fried or grilled, maybe a slice of black pudding, I may even put avocado on the toast.
I’ll do a full english with scrambled eggs, sourdough toast, mushrooms in a little butter, home cooked beans, 2 rashers of rindless bacon with a tiny amount of oil fried or grilled, maybe a slice of black pudding, I may even put avocado on the toast.
It's probably fine if you're going to spend the next 12 hours plowing a field with a team of oxen.
Yeah I came here to make the same observation, this article is, as most things on HN, very US-centric. Being a european I've mostly eaten granola, porridge, müsli or sandwiches with cheese and meat for breakfast. But I've still always heard that breakfast is an important meal, without any association to cereal.
Just the fact that I'm hungry in the morning when I wake up should be an indicator.
Everyone's mileage may vary.
Just the fact that I'm hungry in the morning when I wake up should be an indicator.
Everyone's mileage may vary.
I'm never hungry in the morning. That should be an indicator that I should skip breakfast, which I often do.
I always thought the focus on breakfast came from our peasant roots. My ancestors were field workers and eating a huge breakfast + lunch made sense from an energy input standpoint.
That's another factor that this summary (and possibly the cited research) ignores. What do you do before lunch? The two people in the video appear to be knowledge workers.
I'm in the UK, and since being a kid I've always heard "breakfast is the most important meal of the day". This was never specifically about cereal, but that's what most kids in the UK eat for breakfast - especially given at the time we were all told fat was evil, and would basically kill us.
Nowadays I don't eat breakfast, as it helps control my weight, and TBH I don't miss it. When I started doing this, I thought about those "truths" I'd been fed as a kid, and suspected they came out of paid-for pseudoscience. A year or so ago I actually looked into this, and sure enough, all these claims about breakfast are from studies sponsored by Kellogs, other cereal brands, or companies closely associated with them.
Governments base policy on these kind of claims, and over time they become unquestioned "truths" - paid-for, corporate science shilling really is an absolute fucking scourge on society.
Nowadays I don't eat breakfast, as it helps control my weight, and TBH I don't miss it. When I started doing this, I thought about those "truths" I'd been fed as a kid, and suspected they came out of paid-for pseudoscience. A year or so ago I actually looked into this, and sure enough, all these claims about breakfast are from studies sponsored by Kellogs, other cereal brands, or companies closely associated with them.
Governments base policy on these kind of claims, and over time they become unquestioned "truths" - paid-for, corporate science shilling really is an absolute fucking scourge on society.
Maybe you're hungry in the morning _because_ you eat breakfast
More healthy than skipping breakfast?
It depends.
Growing people may need to eat more frequently.
Personally I like to have breakfast at my first break at 10am, so I’m fasting for longer each day. I’m not that far off 40, and if I’m honest I probably don’t need an evening meal either.
Growing people may need to eat more frequently.
Personally I like to have breakfast at my first break at 10am, so I’m fasting for longer each day. I’m not that far off 40, and if I’m honest I probably don’t need an evening meal either.
The articles title is:
Eating breakfast is not a good weight loss strategy, scientists confirm
And then goes on to say:
if you’ve been eating breakfast to stave off weight gain
Did I miss something?
Eating breakfast is not a good weight loss strategy, scientists confirm
And then goes on to say:
if you’ve been eating breakfast to stave off weight gain
Did I miss something?
And this is inconsistent how?
Same quote, more context:
> if you’ve been eating breakfast to stave off weight gain, researchers are increasingly learning that breakfast might have the opposite of the desired effect — it can promote more calorie consumption and weight gain.
Same quote, more context:
> if you’ve been eating breakfast to stave off weight gain, researchers are increasingly learning that breakfast might have the opposite of the desired effect — it can promote more calorie consumption and weight gain.
Eating isn’t a weight loss strategy.
In other news, circles are round. Film at 11.
In other news, circles are round. Film at 11.
You missed that people might do things for no scientific reason?
My 1 person study concludes that breakfast cereal tastes terrible. I'd much rather have yogurt or eggs for breakfast.
Absolutely painfull. And completely USA-centric. Not a reference to the rest of us.
Reminded me of a USian article that was making the rounds a while ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/08/magazine/eate...
I'll still have breakfast at the weekends as its more of a social thing then, but on the usual 9-5 rat race I just skip it and save 10-20 mins of my day usually spent getting/making + eating breakfast. I even skip before a morning workout - so far no problems after many years doing it.