Yes it's true.
Offer breakfast to lunch for breakfast, cereals, muffins, juices and milk for 2.5 years and compared to children in schools that do not offer those morning mornings, their weights end up being "significantly higher".
These are the results of a study published recently at JAMA Pediatrics, and indeed, they do not seem to be surprising.
First, breakfast was offered to all children, regardless of whether that was, as the Hobbits says, second breakfast
But more to this point, one would expect that he would not have breakfast with cereals, muffin, juice and milk to have a positive impact on weight or health (and I should have devoted time to point out that the study authors were not responsible for which schools chose to feed their students)?
Since I have been ranunted many times, what a person is eating for breakfast is likely to be of great importance for saturation, health, weight and what you have. I have also gone through the dangers of concrete meals of specific meals (in this case the highly processed carbohydrates rinsed with a bunch of liquid calories) and then we perceive the benefits of "breakfast"as a meal.
Food insecurity is real, and finding the means to ensure that children eat healthy meals is commendable, but children who are already at increased risk of chronic diseases, meals that may increase the risk of developing chronic diseases, interest, and since , as one of the authors of the study Kate Bauer notes on Twitter,
"all breakfasts met the requirements of the federal breakfast program"
surely one wonders if America's Federal School Breakfast Program could stand for some review?