weight loss-breakfast food-eating breakfast & dieting
Will Eating Sugary Foods for Breakfast Make You Fat?
Article Copyright by Diet Bites
Aren't you sick of being told that you can't eat this, and you can't eat that by the Weight Loss Community - more specifically those with doctorates behind their names - most of who just happen to have a book out that you can buy for a teensy $24.95? This flame was fanned when one of the major headlines listed at my Internet Service Provider recently was "Eating Sugary Foods For Breakfast Will Make You Fat"
This 'scientific study' involved kids; some were given sugary breakfast foods, others were given a non-sugary breakfast. According to the study, the kids who ate the 'non-sugary' breakfast ate less for lunch.
Don't you feel a bit sorry for Sugar? Virginal, white, innocent-looking, sweet-tasting, constantly-controversial, little-white-sands-of-tasty-goodness Sugar? Sugar is a bit like sharks; it's been blamed for far more deaths and ills than have actually occurred - from causing 'sugar diabetes' to creating hyperactivity in kids (which in another recent study was proven wrong, but that's another story....).
Back to THIS story. I emailed the editor and asked what were the results for dinner. The response: the kids were only studied through lunch.
Holes in this 'scientific study' include:
- What did each of the kids eat the evening before the day of the test?
- How many calories were contained in the breakfasts of those kids who ate 'non-sugary food' and 'less food for lunch'?
- This group appeared to focus on sugar. Was it actually the sugar impact OR the fiber impact that resulted in the kids' lunch n' munch?
- Were all the kids about the same in weight, height and age? Yes, age - because just a few months between age in children can impact diet.
- Were the kids evenly divided according to girls/boys? If the study resulted in the girls eating less for lunch, that's actually normal.
- Did the kids who ate less for lunch end up eating more for dinner?
The article went on to provide a recipe for muesli which contained almost 400 calories for 3/4 cup with 12 grams of fat. In my letter, I commented, "Just one more comment regarding the muesli recipe provided alongside of the article. This 'healthy mix' contains almost 400 calories per 3/4 cup and about 12 grams of fat. With milk, that's about 500 calories! Bring on the Cocoa Krispies......." (The author of the article virtually stabbed the whingy out of chocolate covered cereal.)
The response to my comment was, "I believe that the point of the article was that the glycemic index of the muesli is such that it lowers hunger sufficiently to more than "allow for" the calories involved."
No kidding, Sherlock! Point in fact, is that anything an individual eats that contains 500 calories - from a Chez Whiz Burritoe to the muesli recipe will definitely fill that tum tum up!
Furthermore, we can either have 3/4 cup of the muesli recipe OR 3 eggs, 3 slices of bacon and 2 pieces of toast PLUS jam and skimmed milk OR, three glazed donuts. Oh yeah, the donuts do indeed have sugar, but after 3, I don't think me, Dr. X or the average person is going to eat a plethera of food come lunchtime.
Perhaps the study didn't prove that eating non-sugary foods stiffled lunch food consumption RATHER eating a high-calorie breakfast contributes to eating less for lunch. Just a thought on a report that's standing on pretty shaky legs.
This story hits at an ironic time, as earlier this week, it was announced
that doctors/scientists are 'rethinking' previous recommendations that restrict
many foods in the diet, such as bacon.
|
|
|
