As with most of these studies, it’s junk science:
At 8:30 in the morning for four weeks, one group of subjects got oatmeal, another got frosted corn flakes and a third got nothing. And the only group to lose weight was … the group that skipped breakfast. Other trials, too, have similarly contradicted the federal advice, showing that skipping breakfast led to lower weight or no change at all.
Emphasis mine. I guess it didn’t occur to them to have a group that got a healthy breakfast, like bacon and eggs.
But at least they do admit that observational studies are worse than worthless.
“Regardless of the evidence though, it might be important for you to recognize the value of eating breakfast due to its frequent inclusion of higher fiber containing foods,” her e-mail said. “As you are no doubt aware, Americans eat only about half of the recommended amount of dietary fiber.”
Umm, recommended by who? And based on what science?
Seriously, an article about the arbitrariness of “government dietary guidelines” includes that and no one thought, you know, maybe we might be getting too close to Onion territory there??
Regardless of the evidence though, it might be important for you to recognize our intentions are good, and we work hard, and we need to keep getting paid. As you are no doubt aware.
Not to mention that she’s talking about wheat cereal or bread, rather than foods that are actually high in fiber. Americans aren’t likely to start eating legumes and vegetables for breakfast.
Fiber is a good way to stop constipation and get the bowels moving again. But you do not need to eat cereal to do it.
Fruit and vegetable fiber is typically good enough and has a milder effect. Then again eating fat also alleviates constipation. So maybe they should recommend people to eat fat instead?
IMHO, the most accurate dietary advice is to use government dietary advice as a negative indicator.
The government is, after all, every bit as good at nutrition as it is at everything else.
Americans have become cynical about nutritional studies. The fault, I believe, lies with scientifically stupid journalists and over-zealous university public relations departments.
The distinctions between observational studies and more rigorous studies are never explained in so-called journalism. The rational result of this is that you have people who throw up their hands and say, “everything in moderation.”
The latest red meat study was another crap observational study, but that didn’t stop the headlines telling us not to eat red meat.