Because you might just ignore all the breakfast studies

By Evan-Amos (his work) [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons

As was my tradition, in December I restore old favorites from years. This year we will look back at 2016.

Ugh, breakfast stories.

As frustrating as nutrition is, as with health journalists and nutrition gurus, there seems to be no middle ground, with breakfast being either meaningful or meaningless.

So I'll tell you what's pointless … "breakfast"studies.

I put breakfast at prices, because almost everything is it good for you or not morning studies seem to look at breakfast as a whole.

It seems that regardless of the endpoint chosen (whether it's weight, appetite, hunger, fainting, heart disease, insulin, school performance, whatever) what a person eating for breakfast will be of great importance, and only by studying whether or not a person has eaten breakfast will he knock on the Froot Loops cups with steel oxen made from almonds and Pop Tarts with summer vegetable omelets.

My experience, born out of a dozen years of working with thousands of weight management patients, was that for many, a protein-rich breakfast benefits full-day satiety, while a bowl of over-processed, sugar-rich carbs. And please note, I said most, not all.

After all, breakfast matters to some and not to others, and if you are curious about what is important to you, what you choose to eat for breakfast is going to play an important role in your response.

And for the love of all the sanctuaries, please, please, stop mentioning "breakfast"studies, whether you or yourself are in favor or con, as if they are able to draw conclusions about the utility of breakfast as a whole.