Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:28:31.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences in responses to breakfast between breakfast eaters and breakfast skippers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2012

S. Reeves ,
J. Huber ,
T. Smith ,
M. Villegas-Montes ,
J. Elgumati  and
L. Halsey
S. Reeves
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Research Centre, University of Roehampton, London, SW15 4JD
J. Huber
Affiliation:
University of Northampton, Park Campus, Boughton Green Road, Northampton, UK, NN2 7AL, UK
T. Smith
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Research Centre, University of Roehampton, London, SW15 4JD
M. Villegas-Montes
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Research Centre, University of Roehampton, London, SW15 4JD
J. Elgumati
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Research Centre, University of Roehampton, London, SW15 4JD
L. Halsey
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Research Centre, University of Roehampton, London, SW15 4JD
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Abstract
Information
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Volume 71 , Issue OCE2: Summer Meeting hosted by the Irish Section, 16–19 July 2012, Translational nutrition: integrating research, practice and policy , 2012 , E146
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Studies have shown that body mass index (BMI) in breakfast eaters is typically lower than that of breakfast skippers either as a result of differences in energy intake( Reference Utter, Scragg and Mhurchu 1 ) or energy expenditure (EE)( Reference Timlin, Pereira and Story 2 ). Since evidence available is unable to clarify the mechanisms that link BMI with regular breakfast consumption( Reference Halsey, Huber and Reeves 3 ), our study aimed to explain this association with an experimental trial to establish underlying differences between breakfast eaters and breakfast skippers that were normal weight and overweight, by assessing resting metabolic rate (RMR), post-breakfast EE, blood glucose, hunger, physical activity and ‘morningness’ (an indicator of personal circadian rhythm). Ethical approval was granted by the University of Roehampton.

Data were collected from 37 participants and were organised into four groups: Group 1 low BMI breakfast eater, Group 2 low BMI breakfast skipper, Group 3 high BMI breakfast eater, Group 4 high BMI breakfast skipper. Douglas bags, blood samples and hunger ratings were collected at baseline and every 30 min for 3 hours following a carbohydrate based breakfast. Physical activity and food intake were assessed with seven day diaries and morningess using the Composite Morningess questionnaire( Reference Barton, Costa and Smith 4 ).

† Metabolic equivalent task. **Groups 3 & 4 greater than 1 & 2 (p<0.01), *3 lower than 1 (p<0.05), a2 & 4 lower than 1 (p<0.01), b3 & 4 lower than 1 & 2 (p<0.01).

The overweight groups 3 & 4 had higher BMI's, lower RMR and lower EE (both) per kg per day than the normal BMI groups 1 & 2. There were no significant differences in energy intakes between groups. Breakfast skippers were notably less hungry during the morning (P=0.01), consumed more caffeine per day (P=0.04) and also tended to show less morningness (P=0.06); thus it is possible that there are physiological and behavioural predispositions that determine breakfasting habits. Further work will compare all groups in both breakfast and non-breakfast conditions.

This work was supported by Kellogg's.

References

1. Utter, J, Scragg, R, Mhurchu, C et al. (2007) J Am Diet Assoc 107, 570–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Timlin, M, Pereira, MA, Story, M et al. (2008) Pediatrics 121, e638–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Halsey, L, Huber, J, Reeves, S et al. (2012) Pub J Health Nutr 15, 238–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Barton, J, Costa, G, Smith, L et al. (1995) Work & Stress 9, 4–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

†