What about breakfast?

On the one hand, breakfast has been presented as “the most important meal during the whole day”, but on the other, it's getting more common to omit this meal on purpose, in order to improve some metabolic parametres and to speed up fat burning. Both, the followers and opponents of eating breakfast present multiple arguments in favour of their beliefs. Against both groups, I would like to base this article on quite interesting scientific data, which will show different light to the “breakfast dilemma”.

You should definitely read:

Trying to lose weight? Have an egg for breakfast!

Myths about the results of omitting breakfast

The popular belief stating that “breakfast is the most important meal of the day” is certainly problematic to defend, because it's hard to set the precise and universal criteria, which would let us make such judgements. Frankly speaking, it's impossible to show objectively, that e.g. breakfast is more important meal than dinner. This aspect hasn't been measured scientifically, which is not surprising – creating academic dissertation on that matter seems rather pointless. Whatever the outcome of such disagreement would be, there has occurred once “the cult of eating breakfast” and, even though it may be justified, majority of the arguments, which are supposed to be its justification, seem to be doubtful.

For example, you can hear a statement, that breakfast is a meal which should “provide energy for the whole day”. Such statement may reach our imagination, but is rather illogical. The source of energy is food – it's a fact, but our daily energy demand is so big, that it's hard to satisfy it within one meal. Even if it was possible to do with breakfast, it would mean that we should not eat further meals, because otherwise, we would reach energy overbalance, which would mean the increase of body mass. Therefore, creating the ranking of importance of meals is problematic and rather not advisable.

Similarly, it's hard to defend the belief, according to which omitting breakfast causes the body to go into the “starving stage” and start saving energy. So, if you omit breakfast and eat the second planned meal, the body is supposed to gather energy supplied by that meal in a form of body fat. Well, such belief is simply peculiar. It's like saying that if you don't get your November's salary on your bank account, you will save the December's one... In reality, you would probably use the money from savings in November, however, in December you would definitely not prioritise putting aside the money from the salary – even if you really wanted that, it's rather impossible to resign from buying food, fuel and paying bills... Human body is not that stupid, too, and it acts rationally.

Obviously there are plenty of similar theories, like the one described above, and most of them are either unjustified, or they are, but really poorely. Of course, it does not mean that there aren't any rational arguments for eating breakfast. There are and they seem to be quite interesting and convincing. But it's about not referring to doubtful sources and illogical justifications, when it comes to considering this topic, because it makes this matter ridiculous... It's significant that also the “opponents” of eating breakfast claim similarly possible thesis.

Instead of copying such gossips, it's good to consider in what way the consumption or avoidance of breakfast influences, e.g. hunger control and the use of energy during the whole day, as well as how it influences physical efficiency and the parametres, such as insulin sensibility.