早餐要吃好？其實(shí)不吃也無妨 Sorry, There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast

I don’t eat breakfast. It’s not that I dislike what’s offered. Given the choice of breakfast food or lunch food, I’d almost always choose eggs or waffles. It’s just that I’m not hungry at 7:30 a.m., when I leave for work.

我不吃早餐。這并非因?yàn)槭澄锊缓衔缚凇Ｈ绻屛疫x，不論早餐還是晚餐，我?guī)缀跻欢〞?huì)吃雞蛋或者華夫餅。問題是，早上7點(diǎn)半出門上班時(shí)，我根本就不餓。

In fact, I’m rarely hungry until about lunchtime. So, other than a morning cup of coffee, I don’t eat much before noon. This habit has forced me to be subjected to more lectures on how I’m hurting myself, my diet, my work and my health than almost any other. Only a fool would skip the most important meal of the day, right?

事實(shí)上，不到午餐時(shí)間，我很少感到饑餓。因此，除了早上喝一杯咖啡，中午之前我基本不怎么吃東西。與其他習(xí)慣相比，這個(gè)習(xí)慣為我招來的告誡幾乎是最多的，大家都提醒說，我在如何傷害自己，如何毀掉自己的節(jié)食計(jì)劃、工作和健康。只有傻瓜才會(huì)跳過一天中最重要的一餐，對吧?

As with many other nutritional pieces of advice, our belief in the power of breakfast is based on misinterpreted research and biased studies.

我們認(rèn)為早餐意義重大，但這種看法是以受到錯(cuò)誤解讀或有失偏頗的研究為基礎(chǔ)的，就像其他許多營養(yǎng)學(xué)建議一樣。

Our belief in the power of breakfast is based on misinterpreted research and poor studies.

我們認(rèn)為早餐意義重大，但這種看法是以受到錯(cuò)誤解讀或有失偏頗的研究為基礎(chǔ)的。

It does not take much of an effort to find research that shows an association between skipping breakfast and poor health. A 2013 study published in the journal Circulation found that men who skipped breakfast had a significantly higher risk of coronary heart disease than men who ate breakfast. But, like almost all studies of breakfast, this is an association, not causation.

的確，很容易就可以找到能夠證明不吃早餐與健康狀況惡化之間存在關(guān)聯(lián)的研究。醫(yī)學(xué)期刊《循環(huán)》(Circulation)在2013年發(fā)表的一項(xiàng)研究成果顯示，不吃早餐的男性罹患冠心病的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)顯著高于吃早餐的男性。不過，像關(guān)于早餐的幾乎所有研究一樣，它得出的是相關(guān)性，而非因果關(guān)系。

More than most other domains, this topic is one that suffers from publication bias. In a paper published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2013, researchers reviewed the literature on the effect of breakfast on obesity to look specifically at this issue. They first noted that nutrition researchers love to publish results showing a correlation between skipping breakfast and obesity. They love to do so again and again. At some point, there’s no reason to keep publishing on this.

這個(gè)話題承載的論文發(fā)表偏見，比其他大部分話題要多。在《美國臨床營養(yǎng)學(xué)雜志》(The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition)于2013年發(fā)表的一篇論文中，研究人員通過梳理與早餐對肥胖癥的影響有關(guān)的文獻(xiàn)，專門審視了這個(gè)問題。他們首先注意到，營養(yǎng)學(xué)研究者很愛發(fā)表能夠證明不吃早餐和肥胖之間存在關(guān)聯(lián)的研究成果。他們一次又一次樂此不疲地這樣做。到了一定的時(shí)候，根本就不存在持續(xù)發(fā)表這類東西的理由。

However, they also found major flaws in the reporting of findings. People were consistently biased in interpreting their results in favor of a relationship between skipping breakfast and obesity. They improperly used causal language to describe their results. They misleadingly cited others’ results. And they also improperly used causal language in citing others’ results. People believe, and want you to believe, that skipping breakfast is bad.

不過，他們還發(fā)現(xiàn)，發(fā)表研究成果的過程存在重大瑕疵。這些人普遍偏執(zhí)把他們?nèi)〉玫难芯拷Y(jié)果解讀為表明不吃早餐和肥胖有關(guān)。他們不恰當(dāng)?shù)厥褂秒S意的語言描述自己的研究成果。他們以容易引起誤解的方式引用別人的成果。他們還會(huì)不恰當(dāng)?shù)厥褂秒S意的語言引用其他人的成果。這些人相信，而且想要讓你相信，不吃早餐是個(gè)壞習(xí)慣。

Good reviews of all the observational research note the methodological flaws in this domain, as well as the problems of combining the results of publication-bias-influenced studies into a meta-analysis. The associations should be viewed with skepticism and confirmed with prospective trials.

對所有這些觀察性研究進(jìn)行的系統(tǒng)性回顧顯示，該研究領(lǐng)域存在方法論上的瑕疵，還存在根據(jù)受發(fā)表偏倚影響的某些研究的成果進(jìn)行元分析的問題。應(yīng)該以懷疑的眼光來看待他們發(fā)現(xiàn)的相關(guān)性，并以前瞻性試驗(yàn)來證實(shí)。

Few randomized controlled trials exist. Those that do, although methodologically weak like most nutrition studies, don’t support the necessity of breakfast.

很少有人開展隨機(jī)對照試驗(yàn)。和大多數(shù)營養(yǎng)學(xué)研究一樣，僅有的幾項(xiàng)隨機(jī)對照試驗(yàn)存在方法上的不足，不過它們也不支持有必要吃早餐的觀點(diǎn)。

Further confusing the field is a 2014 study (with more financial conflicts of interest than I thought possible) that found that getting breakfast skippers to eat breakfast, and getting breakfast eaters to skip breakfast, made no difference with respect to weight loss. But a 1992 trial that did the same thing found that both groups lost weight. A balanced perspective would acknowledge that we have no idea what’s going on.

2014年的一項(xiàng)研究(其所涉及的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益沖突大到超出我的想象)進(jìn)一步加劇了這一領(lǐng)域的混亂局面。該研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，對減肥而言，讓不吃早餐的人吃早餐，和讓吃早餐的人不吃早餐，其實(shí)并沒有差別。但1992年的一項(xiàng)類似的試驗(yàn)顯示，兩組人的體重都下降了。如果采用平衡的視角，那就應(yīng)該承認(rèn)，我們根本不知道到底是怎么回事。

Many of the studies are funded by the food industry, which has a clear bias. Kellogg funded a highly cited article that found that cereal for breakfast is associated with being thinner. The Quaker Oats Center of Excellence (part of PepsiCo) financed a trial that showed that eating oatmeal or frosted cornflakes reduces weight and cholesterol (if you eat it in a highly controlled setting each weekday for four weeks).

許多研究的資金都來自明顯具有傾向性的食品行業(yè)。由家樂氏(Kellogg)贊助的一篇得到廣泛引用的文章稱，早餐吃麥片和擁有更瘦的身材之間存在關(guān)聯(lián)。由桂格優(yōu)質(zhì)燕麥中心(The Quaker Oats Center of Excellence ，隸屬于百事公司)資助的一項(xiàng)試驗(yàn)顯示，吃麥片或者磨砂玉米片可以減肥并降低膽固醇(如果你在高度受控的環(huán)境中，連續(xù)四周每個(gè)工作日都吃的話)。

Many studies focus on children and argue that kids who eat breakfast are also thinner, but this research suffers from the same flaws that the research in adults does.

許多研究都以兒童為重點(diǎn)，并聲稱吃早餐的孩子更瘦一些。但在這類研究中也能看到以成人為對象的研究中所存在的那些瑕疵。

What about the argument that children who eat breakfast behave and perform better in school? Systematic reviews find that this is often the case. But you have to consider that much of the research is looking at the impact of school breakfast programs.

吃早餐的孩子在學(xué)校里表現(xiàn)得更好，這種觀點(diǎn)又如何呢?通過系統(tǒng)性匯總可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，情況常常如此。但你必須考慮到，很多相關(guān)研究所審視的都是學(xué)校早餐項(xiàng)目的影響。

One of the reasons that breakfast seems to improve children’s learning and progress is that, unfortunately, too many don’t get enough to eat. Hunger affects almost one in seven households in America, or about 15 million children. Many more children get school lunches than school breakfasts.

吃早餐之所以能讓孩子的學(xué)業(yè)有所進(jìn)步，一個(gè)原因是吃不上飽飯的人太多了，這真令人遺憾。在美國，約有七分之一的家庭受到饑餓的困擾，換句話說，約有1500萬兒童在忍饑挨餓。在學(xué)校能吃到免費(fèi)午餐的孩子，比能吃到免費(fèi)早餐的孩子更多。

It’s not hard to imagine that children who are hungry will do better if they are nourished. This isn’t the same, though, as testing whether children who are already well nourished and don’t want breakfast should be forced to eat it.

不難想象，忍饑挨餓的孩子如果能汲取足夠營養(yǎng)，在學(xué)校里就會(huì)表現(xiàn)得好一些。不過這和測試營養(yǎng)狀況良好但不想吃早餐的孩子是否應(yīng)該被強(qiáng)迫吃早餐并不一樣。

It has been found that children who skip breakfast are more likely to be overweight than children who eat two breakfasts. But that seems to be because children who want more breakfasts are going hungry at home. No child who is hungry should be deprived of breakfast. That’s different than saying that eating breakfast helps you to lose weight.

目前已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)，不吃早餐的孩子比吃雙份早餐的孩子更容易超重。但這似乎是因?yàn)?，想要吃更多早餐的孩子在家里吃不飽。任何一個(gè)饑餓的孩子都不該被剝奪吃早餐的權(quán)利。而這和說什么吃早餐會(huì)幫助你減肥是不一樣的。

The bottom line is that the evidence for the importance of breakfast is something of a mess. If you’re hungry, eat it. But don’t feel bad if you’d rather skip it, and don’t listen to those who lecture you. Breakfast has no mystical powers.

最重要的是，與早餐的重要性有關(guān)的證據(jù)基本是一團(tuán)亂麻。如果你覺得餓，那就吃早餐。但如果你寧愿不吃，也別為此悶悶不樂，別理會(huì)那些告誡你的人。早餐并沒有神奇的力量。