Who in their own mind decided that this is a "study" worth publishing?
You read
We saw this effect, so it's real.
We saw this effect in a small study, so it's worth doing a larger study.
There are trade offs in either case and some types of research where one is more suitable than the other. But the best case is a combination of the two, and it's exceedingly rare.
Maybe there are other options but this seems to be the polar nature of these studies from what I've seen.
Some points though:
- A within-participants study has inherently more power than a between-subjects study. Trying two different diets with the same person removes a lot of variables that you'd need to control for in between-subjects studies (and yes, they randomized the order of intervention and found no difference based on order)
- It looks like this was conducted in a way that supported compliance with the protocol, and using analysis techniques that would be unwieldy for a much larger sample size.
Even with N=19, the reported significance is very compelling.
How many of these studies used buttered eggs and potato as the sole breakfast?
I'll see myself out.
The study has a pretty small sample size, but it seems well designed and matches what you'd expect.
*Okay, kiddo, imagine this like a fun science experiment about breakfast!*
Scientists wanted to know: *"Does what you eat for breakfast matter a LOT when you're trying to lose weight?"*
They got 19 grown-ups who were carrying extra weight. Each person tried *TWO different "big-breakfast" diets* for 28 days each (like a month). - Both diets made people eat *most of their food early* (45% at breakfast, then less and less during the day). - The only big difference? The *breakfast itself*!
*Diet 1: High-Fiber Breakfast* (think lots of fruits, veggies, oats, beans — the "rough, chewy" stuff) *Diet 2: High-Protein Breakfast* (think eggs, yogurt, chicken, beans — the "filling, muscle stuff")
### What happened?
1. *Weight loss* - High-fiber breakfast diet → people lost *more weight* (about 11 pounds / 4.87 kg) - High-protein breakfast diet → people lost *a bit less* (about 8.5 pounds / 3.87 kg) → So the fiber one won for dropping pounds!
2. *Feeling hungry* - High-protein breakfast was the *winner* here. People said they felt *fuller and less hungry* all day.
3. *Tiny bugs in your tummy (gut bacteria)* - High-fiber breakfast made the *good bugs* super happy and grow way more! (Special helpful ones like "Bifido", "Faecalibacterium" and "Roseburia" — they make a healthy tummy juice called butyrate.)
### Super simple takeaway (the ELI5 version):
- Eating a *big breakfast* helps you lose weight (way better than skipping it or eating late). - If you want to *lose the most weight* and keep your tummy bugs healthy → load up on *fiber* at breakfast. - If you want to *feel the least hungry* → load up on *protein* at breakfast.
Both are good! The scientists basically proved: *Breakfast is the boss of your day.* Make it big, and whether you pick the "chewy veggie" version or the "eggy" version changes what wins — more weight gone, less hunger, or happier belly bugs.
Pretty cool, right? Breakfast isn't just food... it's like a remote control for your body!
hristov•1h ago
baxtr•1h ago
Why not add a third high-fiber + high-protein group for example?
VLM•1h ago
Soon we will have more participants in the HN comments for the study, than were studied in the study.
Aeglaecia•49m ago
AnEro•1h ago
Apocryphon•1h ago
benmaraschino•1h ago
hristov•6m ago
If they used crossover design they should have all participants go through a second trial period where they consume the same diet but with light breakfast and more caloric lunch and dinner. Then they could actually have more insight on the main thesis of their study, i.e. whether bug breakfast alters appetite.