http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3758103/


High-fat breakfasts: Not the answer
Whole-grain foods best fuel for the day
By Karen Collins, R.D.
Updated: 5:46 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2003

Amidst the on-going interest in low-carbohydrate diets, high-fat sausage and bacon breakfasts have been making a comeback. Yet many fans don’t realize that other breakfast choices can bring even better results when it comes to losing weight.

Although high-fat meats are promoted in some weight-loss diets, a large national study of several different types of breakfast found that regular “meat-and-egg eaters” had the highest total daily calorie consumption of all groups studied. The Body Mass Index (BMI, a measure of body fatness) of members of this group was also one of the highest in the study; it was second only to those in the group that skipped breakfast.

Studies like this can’t prove that the high-fat breakfasts actually cause people to eat more calories all day and to weigh more, only that these things are associated. Although this is a new study, it examines food consumption in the early 1990s. Perhaps at the time of the study, those who ate lots of sausage and bacon for breakfast were those who, not placing much value on healthy eating, chose high-fat, high-calorie choices all day long. Possibly, this type of breakfast would not send overall calorie consumption out of bounds – if people then made careful food choices throughout the rest of the day.

Not only about weight-loss
But the concern about high-fat breakfasts is not only about weight. Some people who tried meat-and-egg breakfasts for the first time say that they have more energy than they did with their usual morning breakfast habits. Further questioning shows that many of these people are comparing these heartier breakfasts to former habits of skipping breakfast or choosing a breakfast filled with the refined carbohydrate foods that are low in fiber and supply scarcely any protein. So it should be no surprise that their new, heartier breakfasts leave them feeling better than they had with their old habits.

There is another option. Several studies have shown that people who start the day with a high-carbohydrate breakfast that is also high in fiber report the highest levels of alertness immediately after breakfast and throughout the morning. Men in a study earlier this year reported more hunger satisfaction and less fatigue after a breakfast based on complex carbohydrates than after one heavier on refined sugars.

These breakfasts of less refined carbohydrates tend to satisfy people’s hunger longer throughout the morning, too, especially if some protein is included. But that protein can be in the form of nonfat or reduced-fat milk or yogurt, lean turkey, vegetarian breakfast “meat,” or even a sprinkle of heart-healthy nuts.

Whole-grains beat doughnuts
So when you hear people say that they “feel so much better” with breakfasts filled with high-fat meat, remember to ask, “Better than what?” A breakfast of doughnuts and coffee cannot be expected to provide the fuel you get from a bowl of whole-grain dry cereal or a cooked whole-grain cereal like oatmeal, or a few slices of whole-wheat toast spread with peanut butter, with some fruit to accompany any of these options. Even breakfasts with a healthy image may not be as nutritious as you think. Some low-sugar cereals are made of low-fiber, refined grain. And juice provides important nutrients, but it’s not adding much fiber to your diet.

You don’t have to choose between a breakfast that gets you going and a breakfast that keeps your good health going. Research has linked diets high in meat, which raise consumption of saturated fat and animal protein, with a greater risk of heart disease, cancer and other health problems. Save the high-fat meats for occasional use, and aim for breakfasts high in the most nutritious carbohydrate foods.

I'm currently entering my pre-maintenance phase, and as I experiment with adding back various foods I'd be interested to know what dry cereals are consider to be "whole grain" versus refined grains.

For dry cereals, is there some way to interpret the label to get a feel for this? Or some special ingredient to look for or avoid?

Thanks,
Dan

I'd like to ask this 'RD' the same thing.

'Whole grain breakfasts are better than WHAT?"

Yep, they're better than refined flour doughnuts.

But better than a wholesome, nutrient-dense breakfast of eggs and meat, let's say? Does the research answer that? Nope. Never even asked the question. She just drags up the old 'saturated fat is 'linked' somehow to bad things. Of course, note that she doesn't provide any data for that.


Besides, the 'whole grain' thing is a very vague and misleading concept.

The term 'whole grain' should technically apply ONLY to the complete, intact kernels of grain. Not ground, not cracked, not pulverized, not cut, not rolled, not steamed, not ANYTHING. If it doesn't look like a pile of seeds it's NOT whole grain.

Which means something like traditional Irish Oatmeal, which you have to soak overnight, and cook for a half hour the next morning. (Instant oatmeal is rolled, steamed, dried and smashed. It's not technically a whole grain anymore.) Or think of intact flax seeds, or intact wheat berries. Which are rarely available anywhere. In fact, whole grains as they appear in nature are virtually inedible. You have to soak them for a long time, or boil the bejesus out of them.

Most 'RDs' however, include any food that takes the entire grain, then grinds, extrudes, pulverizes, or otherwise refines it.

So the industrial 'whole wheat' breads qualify. So do tons of those
'whole grain' breakfast cereals.

Check out the glycemic index of 100% whole wheat bread. It's about the same as Wonder Bread.

This is exactly why I posted the article. Some things are just not making sense around whole grains. I am working on putting together a South Beach diet type plan and they are so non-specific with the foods. It's going to take a few months to research, go back out to the stores and figure out exactly what is ok/what is not.
Speaking from my own personal experience I found that Eggs will keep me happy until lunchtime whereas the "whole grain" cereals did not. I was reading up on the GI/GL of cereals recently and was so shocked to find some of the "healthy" cereals like Special K and Total were medium to high on the glycemic index. I guess they cant be that good for you after all! I think all bran is the only cereal that I have found in my research that is sort of low GI/GL. Old fashioned oatmeal is listed in south beach, but I have yet to verify that.

I agree. The whole grain thing is very fuzzy.

Personally, I get along just fine without grains, but if you prefer to experiment with them, I would suggest:

1. Favoring the most natural forms possible. Which means, if it didn't grow that way, don't eat it. Did you ever see multi-grain cheerios growing in a field? Every see a whole wheat pita tree? Go with wheat berries, amaranth, quinoa, stuff like that.

2. Prepare the grains in traditional ways. Which don't involve machinery. See: http://www.westonaprice.org/foodfeatures/be_kind.html

3. Keep quantities moderate. Think in terms of a cup per meal. Not bowls or buckets.

This study was based on people eating eggs and meat in the 1990s. I'll bet with those eggs and meat they were also eating a heaping pile of hash browns and at least two slices of toast.

Before I started low-carbing, I ate a very high fibre breakfast and I was asleep by 10am. Now that I am eating my chorizo and eggs, sans hash browns and toast, for breakfast everyday, I stay awake all morning with energy to spare.

I wish they would compare apples to apples and give us the whole scoop.

My opinion is that this article is the same old complex carbohydrate yada yada.

What about the issue that human beings evolved for millions of years on a diet completely free of any grain of any kind? Hunter gatherers ate the meat they caught and the berries/plants that they gathered in season. Only in the last few thousand years have grains been introduced, which is far too short a time for us to have evolved a digestion capable of coping efficiently, and now that we are "required" to base our diets on 50% or more of complex carbohydrates (for complex carbs, read complex *sugars*) the human body is rebelling en masse! Grains are at the root of many of the diseases of modern civilisation that we hear about - IBS, diabetes, obesity, heart disease and even many cancers.

I say avoid grains!! We don't need them!

Just my 2 cents!

This dietician says meat and egg breakfasts are bad, but only shows that whole grains are better than refined sugar.

I happen to really like steel-cut oats (hot cereal) for breakfast and at 12g net carbs per serving I plan to make them a fairly regular part of my maintenance diet. However, I know from my own experience that they're not as satisfying as eggs and cheese for breakfast. (Which seems odd, because steel-cut oats are substantial and really "sit" in your stomach.) Perhaps I can have a bowl of oatmeal and an egg on the days I want grains for breakfast.

I agree with everyone else here -- sure, whole grain cereal is better than a donught. Duh! But I have never found any cold cereals to be satisfying. (Tasty, sure. Filling, no.)

Also, in my pre-Atkins days when I splurged on eggs for breakfast my plate always included carbs like pancakes, hash browns, etc. I think the people in this study would be the same way.

This article is such irresponsible propaganda that it barely warrants a response.

Talk about specious, reaching conclusions... "research" has linked meat & egg type breakfast with high bmi and heart disease. Well duh. Unless you are purposely controlling your carbohydrates, it has been well established that the insulin surges coming from the home fries and bread and oj also included in your breakfast will only be exacerbated by the fat from the meat and eggs.

The fat isn't the cause of the problems, the wacky sugar and insulin is. Surveying groups who are eating high fat meals but not specifically controlling carbohydrates, and then trying to draw conclusions about controlled carb is just irresponsible journalism.

They say controlled carb high fat breakfasts make you feel better only compared to "very refined" breakfasts; news flash: they increase energy more than "less refined" high carb breakfasts, too. Besides, most "whole grains" are in reality not whole grains, but instead they are slightly less processed grains. Less is better when it comes to processing, but none at all is best.

Sorry, but no sale. Give me a nice cut of meat, a spinach egg and cheese omelet, or some cheese nuts and berries. You know, real unprocessed food that your body actually has to work to break down? Thanks!

Exactly. I went the breakfast whole-grain route for years, and felt like crap all day--and of course, continued to gain weight.

Gimme cheese, sausage and eggs any day.

Emily

I can't agree with the original statement that suggested that eating a high fat high protein breakfast meant I continued to eat more throughout the day and thus gained weight. Quite the opposite is true. I have my nutrient dense eggs and bacon breakfast with a bit of cheese and I don't feel any hunger at all until almost dinner time (meaning evening meal not English lunch). If anything I am eating less not more because of my hearty breakfast. Cereal breakfasts had me starving for more after about an hour and a half. Then I ate some more - almost 2 meals before lunch. Now how is that helping me to reduce my weight and keep my sugars stable? I know which method I prefer.