Why is 3 meals a day the goal? I thought the 'breakfest is the most important meal of the day' was just a commercial series. I usually don't have time for breakfast and I don't really feel like I'm missing anything.
The goal is having the possibility to eat three meals a day.
The article kinda conflicts the two. It talks about financial situation, but then it just asks "Do you eat three meals a day?", and doesn't ask you to clarify why. I for example can describe my financial situation as precarious, as they want me to do in the article, but it doesn't mean I can't afford food.
I like the summary on Wikipedia:
Present professional opinion is largely in favor of eating breakfast,[62] but skipping breakfast might be better than eating unhealthy foods.[71]
I.e. you should eat breakfast, if possible, but not any product sold as a breakfast product.
I eat when I feel hungry and that usually means only dinner, sometimes lunch or breakfast but rarely all 3. I'm pretty low activity so it feels enough for me. I think eating purely out of habit at a certain time is a bad thing but might just be my anecdotal experience.
I mostly agree with you, but I think that any habit can have a strong effect, so if you do have habitual healthy breakfasts it's probably just about as healthy as skipping. I like skipping btw, up until I was around 25yo I just ate whenever I felt hungry, then I did some casual fasting, now my hunger impulse has all but lost it's power and I like it like that, it feels more relaxed somehow.
also it depends on what you actually do: if you're a manual labourer then yeah get a hearty breakfast, if you sit at a desk just eat a sandwich or something.
Breakfast should be "light" like Havregrynsgröt or others, then a true dinner before noon so you get enough juice for the rest of the day. Personally against cooking for breakfast, so biased
Honestly I'm growing more and more to think that healthy food is subjective. Like if you're overweight yes calorie dence food is probably not that good for you. If you're underweight you need every calorie you can get. If you're working out all the time yet again you need every calorie you can get and have the ideal chemical compounds to fule mussel growth. Before the 2000s militarys were rejecting people because they were underweight. Now they are rejecting people left and right for being overweight. I'm starting to wonder if people in the 19th century considered calorie dence food healthy for being calorie dence.
I was taught to eat four meals a day so you people talking about two or even one meal a day seems crazy
Raised on a farm? Mom had that where they'd do breakfast, lunch, dinner, and supper. But they were working off a whole lot more calories than I am.
3 meals a day was never normal for me
idk about everyone else but my solution to shit finances isn't eating less, it's making half my diet potatoes and onions..
i generally find statistics like these to be nothing more than ragebait.
I'm doing pretty decent financially, and I don't eat three meals a day. I just have awful dietary habits.
I would also check the box at not eating three times a day. Because I eat so much delicacies in the evening, that I don’t need breakfast any more 😅
I eat one a day if I remember.
You folks too?
Where is this from? Those buildings look familiar
Picture metasearch description says East London. Definitely not familiar
Well yeah. If I sit at home on Sunday playing videogames, I'm OK eating once a day and maybe having some snacks. If I bike to the mountains, I eat my weight in food. If I work intensively, I might have three meals a day, but sometimes I'm OK with two and a coffee with croissant for breakfast even then.
You seem to paint it like it's some kind of a bad thing
Where do they get these stats from ?
Bullshit statistics.
10k were interviewed. They extrapolate 10k to the population of Europe. C'mon that's just mad. Especially with something as complicated as poverty.
Europe also currently has a war ongoing and has huge areas of incredibly poor and wealthy. Can't really average that out. Wouldn't trust anything that comes out of this research institution
10k is a great number for this kind of extrapolation. The only concern is how varied that population was
If that 10k is representative, that should give a very small uncertainty interval, less than 1%. You can get 95% confidence interval with only a few hundred samples depending on the standard deviation, so 10k is actually massive. It's pretty standard statistics, here's more info on how it's calculated.
I know jack shit about statics, or this study, but 10K participants seems more than solid if it's proper science.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Dug around a little. Seems the 10k were split between 10 different states. Here is an infographic from the source:
The numbers do seem inflated and don't add up very well comparatively between the different countries either.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Ah didn't see the breakdown. Incredibly leading questions and highly charges but seems legit
you're right! can you calculate the sampling size that would've given 95% confidence
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world