Eating a full English breakfast CAN help you lose weight: Protein - not cereal or fruit -  is best for preventing hunger pangs

This seems a reasonable study

Eating a full English for breakfast can help you lose weight, a new study suggests.  Research shows that a meal high in protein instead of carbohydrate or fibre for breakfast can fight off hunger and avoid the urge to over-eat later in the day.

A hearty sitting of foods like sausage, egg or bacon for the first meal of the day helps to curb hunger throughout the morning and cut the number of calories eaten at lunch time

An experiment at the University of Missouri on a group of 18 to 55-year-old women showed that a high-protein breakfast kept them fuller longer than a meal with less protein but the same amount of fat and fibre.

The team, led by research scientist Dr Kevin Maki, found eating between around 35 grams of protein for breakfast - the equivalent to a four-egg omelette or two sausages and a rasher of bacon - helped regulate appetite.

He said: 'Eating a breakfast rich in protein significantly improves appetite control and may help women to avoid overeating later in the day.'

In the experiment the participants all ate a 300 calorie meal with equal amounts of fat and fibre, although one group had between 30 and 39g of protein in their bowls and a third group were given just a glass of water.

Dr Heather Leidy, an assistant professor specialising in appetite regulation, explained: "In the USA, many people choose to skip breakfast or choose low protein foods because of lack of high protein convenient choices.

The team tracked the test subjects' hunger throughout the morning, using appetite questionnaires every half an hour to gauge levels of hunger, fullness, and desire to eat before before breakfast and up until lunch.

The group who ate a high-protein meal had improved appetite rating scores and ate less of the lunchtime meal of tortellini and sauce than the other groups.

Dr Leidy said: "These results demonstrate that commercially prepared convenient protein-rich meals can help women feel full until lunch time and potentially avoid overeating and improve diet quality."

SOURCE




The FDA's Ill-Conceived Proposal to Ban Trans Fats

We may soon have to say goodbye to many doughnuts, crackers, frozen pizza, coffee creamer and other goodies—whether or not we agree

On Thursday the FDA made the surprise announcement that it would move to ban artificial trans fats, which are found in foods containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. The ban would not apply to naturally occurring trans fats, such as those found in meat and dairy products. Adoption of the proposal, which is open to public comment until Jan. 7, 2014, would mean that food producers who want to use partially hydrogenated oils would first have to prove to the FDA the safety of the ingredient.

Considering that the FDA’s announcement this week declared preemptively “that there is no safe level of consumption of artificial trans fat,” the burden of proof for future trans fat use would appear to be quite high.

What does trans fat research say?

Studies on artificial trans fats have found generally that they raise the amount of bad cholesterol (LDL) and lower the amount of good cholesterol (HDL) in the blood. (More here on HDL and LDL generally.)

But a recent meta analysis, Effect of Animal and Industrial Trans Fatty Acids on HDL and LDL Cholesterol Levels in Humans—A Quantitative Review, published in the open-access, peer-reviewed journal PLOS ONE in 2010, concludes that those negative effects may also be shared by natural trans fats.

The study looked at the results from twenty-nine human studies in which subjects were fed artificial trans fats and six studies in which subjects were fed natural trans fats derived from milk fat. It found the impact of artificial and natural trans fats on HDL and LDL levels to be roughly equivalent.

Like the 2010 PLOS ONE study, a 2005 book by the Institute of Medicine that appears to form much of the basis for the FDA’s action (the agency went so far as to link to it in yesterday’s FDA press release) appears to make no distinction between artificial and natural trans fats.

What’s more, the IOM appears torn over trans fats. On the one hand, it refers to them as “not essential” and says they “provide no known health benefit.” The FDA cites these points, of course. But the IOM also concludes in the same paragraph “trans fatty acids are unavoidable in ordinary, nonvegan diets.”

How much trans fats do we eat?

Thanks to the fact many food producers have responded to consumer demand and removed trans fats from their foods in recent years, the FDA’s press release noted that “trans fat intake among American consumers has declined from 4.6 grams per day in 2003 to about 1 gram per day in 2012.”

The American Heart Association, meanwhile, suggests Americans consume “less than 2 grams of trans fats a day.” So if the FDA and AHA are correct, then current consumption levels—prior to and without any ban—are well within safe levels. Still, that didn’t stop the AHA from endorsing the FDA’s suggested ban.

And what about natural trans fats? According to the USDA, a pound of ground beef contains more than 8g of trans fat.

SOURCE