4.5 Article

Breakfast size is related to body mass index for men, but not women

Journal

NUTRITION RESEARCH
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 240-245

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nutres.2010.03.006

Keywords

Breakfast; Survey; Dietary practice; BMI; Men; Prudent lifestyle; Affluent lifestyle

Funding

  1. Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia
  2. Sanitarium Health Food Company
  3. Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to examine the effect of self-reported breakfast size, daily eating, and other health habits on body mass index (BMI). We hypothesized that a consumption of a substantial breakfast compared with skipping or small breakfasts would be associated with lower BMI. Three independent, cross-sectional, screening surveys were conducted by Sydney Adventist Hospital in 1976, 1986, and 2005 in the surrounding community. The archived survey forms of 384 men and 338 women in 1976, 244 men and 229 women in 1986, and 270 men and 62 women in 2005 were randomly selected. Body mass index was determined from height and weight measured by hospital staff. The reported amount consumed at breakfast was one of several eating habits that predicted BMI for men but not women. It explained 5% to 6% of the variance in male BMI in all 3 years examined. As the reported breakfast amount increased, men's BMI decreased. Lifestyle confounders including vegetarianism and physical activity did not affect this relationship. However, the consumption of breakfast was significantly positively associated with consumption of cereals, bread, fruit, and spreads, while coffee consumption was significantly associated with smaller breakfasts or breakfast skipping. The consumption of relatively large breakfasts may influence BMI in men, and its promotion may help reduce the prevalence of obesity in Australia and elsewhere. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available