One of the new diet books on the scene is The Big Breakfast Diet by Daniela Jakubowicz, MD, an endocrinologist in Venezuela.
The book is based on a study Dr. Jakubowicz and colleagues presented a few years ago at the Endocrine Society’s 90th annual meeting. Her research got some media attention in 2008 when it was originally presented, including this WebMD article that wisely raised some concerns about adopting this approach. Dr. Michael Eades also thoroughly reviewed the study’s abstract on his blog and pinpointed several major flaws in the research and called her methodology into question (plus, he reminded readers that this study was presented as a poster session at a conference and not published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, where it would be scrutinized more heavily and likely rejected).
Now the research has been expanded into a book and surprisingly it made Time’s Top 10 Notable Diet Books. The publisher sent me a copy to review, and I must say, I was floored. I think the press release was particularly alarming.
The headline: Doughnuts! Ice cream! Pizza! Load up and lose! Finally, a diet based on indulgence, not restriction.
It did make me want to open up the book, which is an offensive-looking paperback that features a pink-haired cartoon woman with green go-go boots surrounded by an array of recommended breakfasts. The subhead is “Eat big before 9 a.m. and lose big for life.” First of all, calories can’t tell time, so the 9 a.m. deadline was meaningless to me. Then came the daily formula for a big breakfast: 7 parts protein + 2 parts carbohydrate + 2 parts fats + always eat your breakfast sweet! The seven sample breakfasts (glorified in full-color photos with recipes) included:
Pepperoni pizza topped with melted mozzarella, plus a blackberry smoothie and a sumptuous slice of red velvet cake A toasted turkey and cheese sandwich, served with a rich banana shake a dish of strawberry ice cream Broiled cowpoke steak with a piquant Parmesan spread, plus a hearty citrus shake, two slices of bread and chocolate chip cookies Pancakes with ricotta cheese drizzled with berry syrup, served with a side of crispy Canadian bacon, plus a watermelon smoothie and chocolate of your choice (6 Hershey kisses are pictured)
Come on, what gives? It seems you can eat chocolate, ice cream, cookies, cake and doughnuts for breakfast as long as you aim for a 600-calorie morning meal and eat before 9:00 a.m., according to Dr. Jakubowicz, who writes
that many of her patients in Venezuela typically lose 25 pounds in 30 days on this plan. No need to count calories, she claims. Her big breakfast theory was the focus of a popular diet book in South America that translates to Not Another Diet! Wonder if this book came first and she conducted the study to try and validate her diet? Who knows.
Now her diet is hitting the U.S. with the title of The Big Breakfast Diet with promises of pizza and chocolate for breakfast. The diet doc claims that her weight-loss plan can:
Rev up your metabolism Help you burn more calories by day and more fat at night Satisfy your hunger all day Crush those diet-derailing cravings for sweets Give you energy to burn Allow you to feel alert and refreshed, rather than sluggish and foggy, when you wake up Reduce your risk for serious health conditions such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease Reduce migraines
So where did this all start? The book is based on one study that Dr. Jakubowicz conducted with 94 overweight women. She divided the women into two groups: one was on a Low Carbohydrate Diet the other ate the Big Breakfast Diet. Here are the details:
- Low Carbohydrate Diet
17 g carbs (12%), 51 g protein (35%) 78 g fat (53%) = 1,085 calories per day
Calories were more evenly spaced throughout the day, with the fewest calories at breakfast (about 290 calories) - Big Breakfast Diet
97 g carbs (41%), 93 g protein (39%), 46 g fat (20%) = 1,240 calories per day
Largest number of calories were eaten at breakfast (610 calories), with only 235 calories consumed at dinner
This was an 8-month study — 4 months of weight-loss and 4 months of weight maintenance (although the parameters of the weight maintenance phase are unclear). At the end of 4 months, both groups lost weight. No surprise with the severe calorie restrictions. In fact, when I do the math, the calorie levels are even lower than reported. I came up with 974 calories for the Low Carb Diet and 1,174 calories for the Big Breakfast Diet. That’s crazy low in calories, and the carbs are really too low in both diet plans. Not sure how any one could even get out of bed eating only 17 grams of carbs a day.
The Low Carb Diet group lost the most weight after 4 months (average of 28 lbs), compared to the Big Breakfast Diet (average of 23 lbs). However (and I guess this is the big catch), the Big Breakfast Diet women lost even more weight during the maintenance phase (an additional 17 lbs), while the Low Carb dieters regained some of their weight (average of 18 lbs). At the end of 8 months, here’s how it looked: Low Carb Diet group lost an average of 9 pounds, but the Big Breakfast Diet group lost an average of nearly 40 pounds. It seems the low carb dieters were more likely to abandon their routine in the maintenance phase (who wouldn’t with only 1,000 calories and 12% carbs!), while most of the big breakfast eaters kept it up and continued to lose weight.
So what does this tell us? What’s the takeaway?
- The dieters lost weight because of the calorie restriction, not because of any magic formula of carbs-protein-fat or the timing of the meals. The author downplays the importance of calories, but at the end of the day, that’s why people in the study lost weight. Recent studies have shown that the mix of macronutrients (carbs, protein & fat) has far less impact on weight loss compared to calorie levels. Dr. Jakubowicz says there’s no need to count calories, but calories do count.
- But it’s not just about total calories, you need to look at the quality of those calories. Cake, ice cream and cookies are not how you want to spend the restricted amount of calories allowed on the diet. There’s little emphasis on choosing nutrient-rich foods that will enhance your health, and not simply impact the number on the scale. Greater importance is put on balancing carbs-protein-fat and making sure you eat at least 600 calories in the morning and get in your breakfast sweet each day — with a list that includes brownies, jelly beans and peanut butter cups.
- The author claims that loading up on sweets in the morning with satisfy your sweet tooth so you won’t crave sweets later in the day. She talks a lot about “addiction” to carbohydrates, insulin resistance and hormones. The Big Breakfast Diet group did report being less hungry after their morning meal — but who wouldn’t after eating 600 calories. The same benefit can be gained by adding some protein to your breakfast, which can help with satiety and appetite control.
- I do like the focus on the importance of breakfast. It’s true that breakfast eaters tend to have an easier time managing their weight, and breakfast skippers tend to make up for those lost calories by eating more throughout the day. But this book promotes the wrong type of breakfast. Where are the whole grains — which have also been linked to healthier weights. The doc is so focused on carbs-protein-fat ratios and front-loading the day that she’s missed the boat when it comes to nutrition. I support the idea of a big breakfast, but let’s give people better ideas on what a quality breakfast really looks like.
- I don’t mind having more calories skewed to breakfast. Some studies have shown that a larger breakfast and a smaller dinner may help with weight management (compared to a small breakfast and big dinner). In fact, it’s one of Michael Pollan’s Food Rules: “Breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, dinner like a pauper.” Although other studies suggest a calorie is a calorie, no matter what time of day it’s consumed. And many people have better luck managing their weight by eating smaller, more frequent meals and snacks that are evenly spaced throughout the day. Even so, a larger breakfast is not my beef. But with such a limited number of calories — and no emphasis on the quality of foods chosen — your dinner would need to be limited to 235 calories. That’s too much of a pauper to me.
This is just the kind of diet book I hate to see get published. It’s written by an M.D. so people are likely to trust the advice. Plus, the diet seems to be validated by research, which is so convincing. The language lures you in because you think you can eat ice cream every day for breakfast and look like the actress Eva Mendes, who is quoted on the back cover. Unfortunately, the book may sell a lot of copies — like it did in South America. But I’m hoping that people will realize that The Big Breakfast Diet is worth skipping.











{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
I admit that when I have an indulgent meal for breakfast I’m less tempted to eat more later on but this sounds downright ridiculous. I have a 400-600 calorie healthy, balanced breakfast. If I were eating less, I’d feel faint; I don’t see how these people could survive 4 months on 1000 calories a day. It’s actually a little scary and definitely unhealthy.
Janet, thanks for doing all the leg work to truly expose this book for what it is – and isn’t. I am a huge fan of breakfast, and I wouldn’t start the day without it. A balanced morning meal that’s rich in protein and fiber sets the tone for healthy eating for the rest of the day.
I am a big breakfast person, so when I saw this title I thought it was harmless. But I had no idea she would tout strawberry ice cream as a healthy option! To me, a “big breakfast” means toast with peanut butter and a spinach smoothie, or multigrain pancakes with scrambled egg whites. I’m currently chowing down on a bowl of oatmeal with a sliced banana half and tablespoon of peanut butter, and this meal will definitely hold me for hours.
I have real difficulty believing that pepperoni pizza, a milkshake and cake is only 600 calories. It may be if you eat a single small slice, a homemade smoothie of just berries and skim milk, and an itty bitty wedge of cake, but do you think people who are told they can eat a big, sumptuous breakfast will stick to those portions?
This is a great review… thanks so much!
I’m all for breakfast–and I think skipping it is a bad idea that sets you on the wrong foot for the day. But loading up on nutritionally void foods is the stupidest piece of “expert advice” I’ve ever heard. It goes to show you that you can make a study say anything you want. The study was only 4 months long! There’s no proof it’s even sustainable for a year–never mind more.
Perhaps I should get rich writing the lunch diet. Skip breakfast, splurge on a 900-calorie lunch of whatever you want, then eat a 100-calorie dinner. Guaranteed weight loss success!!
Some of those combos sound like they’d upset the stomach if you ask me. Pepperoni pizza with a blackberry smoothie? I don’t know about that. Maybe because I have a sensitive stomach.
Mortifying, really Janet. I’m speechless. When are Americans (and the media for that matter) going to finally jump off this dieting bandwagon and start recommending books and programs that help you eat healthfully without fads and gimmicks? Seriously!
Thanks for sharing. Hope people see your blog post and think twice before purchasing this quick fix, faddish diet book and others like it.
You mean pizza and doughnuts for breakfast isn’t the answer? I’m kidding but hats off to you for this post. I think something you said that may get lost in the shuffle was the M.D. as author observation. People have trust in the M.D. and in many ways they should; however, since when were M.Ds bestowed with any nutrition training (last I heard it was maybe one course) or knowledge? I haven’t read the book (and now I will not) but I seem to think that if you stripped it of it’s horrid food suggestions and instead suggested, as Pollan did, a larger breakfast as a premise it may have been a better message.
Thanks everyone for your comments. Elisa, totally agree with you. How do all of these diet books get published? I found this one particularly irresponsible. And Lauren, it’s true that M.D.s do not get extensive training in nutrition. That’s so clear in the case of Dr. Jakubowicz. One big mistake is her miscalculations of the calories in the two diets. Plus, I’m not even convinced the big breakfasts she promotes are only 600 calories (as Tamara pointed out). That’s a lot of sugary, high-fat food for 600 calories. And what are you even supposed to eat for dinner that’s 235 calories, but needs to contain 26 grams of fat, 18 grams of protein and 5 grams of carbohydrates. That’s just absurd. She doesn’t know anything about nutrition — and she doesn’t know much about FOOD, either.
The press materials that came with the book are really troubling. There’s a Q & A with the doc and it contains so much inaccurate, misleading information. It’s crazy.
For example, one question is Are beans a proper source of protein on this diet? Her response: Beans are a source of protein, but they also contain a significant amount of sugar (between 45 and 50 percent) so they are a source of protein you can eat at breakfast, but not for lunch, dinner or a snack. Huh? Why would anyone want to discourage beans?!
She also says that carbohydrates do not lead to weight gain if consumed before 9:00 a.m. “because the body naturally processes food differently in the morning.” What is she talking about?
The entire book is such a missed opportunity to promote the benefits of breakfast and to promote some sound advice on weight management. Sigh.
Interesting & informative read on breakfast. I am for big and healthy breakfast, which is to stabilize the metabolic rate the whole day.
Great review!
What a great resource!
Hmmm…much food for thought. I bought this book a few months ago while my daughter was in the hospital for 4 months following a terrible accident. I gained 10 hospital pounds that I’m trying to lose, along with another 60 or so. I just stumbled on the book this morning and spent hours reading it…”digesting it”…finished reading long after the 9am deadline for my BIG breakfast, but still thinking “oh, what the heck! Worth a try!” Right? Decided to do a little research and ended up HERE! I think I was reading the book from a nutritional standpoint and feeling that the diet could be done in a healthy way…and who am I to argue with 6 chocolate kisses with breakfast?? So is there really nothing valid about “circadian rythms” and “insulin resistance”? Should I really just totally discount everything the author has to say as “bunk” and go back to my not so successful dieting patterns? I figure anything that addressess my cravings and addictions (to candy,mainly) is worth a shot. I am 61, overweight, remarkably healthy, but concerned about type 2 diabetes. (Footnote: my daughter is still healing and has months ahead of intense physical therapy, but her prognosis is very good for a complete recovery…YAY!)
The point of the Big Breakfast Diet is to get enough protein early in the day so that hunger doesn’t become unbearable later. The point of eating a breakfast “sweet” is to keep the sweet tooth in check.
It is a diet book, but it leaves the reader with long term guidelines rather than daily meal plans. Eat lots of protein early, then eat more protein at lunch, and you won’t find yourself standing in front of the refrigerator for the fifth time in an hour at 9pm.
Most people have a sweet tooth, so it’s unlikely that they’ll stay on a super restrictive diet for very long. If you’re going to tell someone he or she can’t eat cake anymore, one day he or she will snap and get more unhealthy than ever.
Endocrinology is a real science. Hormones are real. Is it impossible that eating in a certain rhythm is going to help maintain a healthy weight? You can eat exclusively healthy food, but if you eat it after 10pm, right before you hit the sack, you’re not going to lose weight.
Calories in/ calories out was recently disproven anyway. (Put your shirt back on and google it or read about it here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303960604575157820324371484.html.) They found that although the “calories in/ calories out” model you noted should indicate that if someone ate about a hundred extra calories a day for a year, they should then gain a certain amount of weight, it doesn’t really work that way. Weight plateaus and the body learns to use those extra calories without all of them becoming fat.
So to answer the question on the tip of your tongues, I am on the Big Breakfast Diet, and I feel better than I have in a long time. No longer do sweets rule my afternoons and evenings. I eat a traditionally big breakfast (as if I were going out in the fields or something), then lean protein for lunch with two vegetables, and if I want supper, veggies.
Before you all keep going with these comments: “When are Americans (and the media for that matter) going to finally jump off this dieting bandwagon and start recommending books and programs that help you eat healthfully without fads and gimmicks?” realize that this program isn’t unhealthy. The recommendations are very healthy. A 2″ square of cake? That’s not really going overboard like you all would like to think.
Janet, you never even read the book, because your comments contradict information contained in it. Read it next time.
Elizabeth,
I most definitely read the book and my assessment of the plan is very detailed and accurate. I agree that Americans need to jump off the dieting bandwagon, but the Big Breakfast Diet is guilty of adding to the problem. It’s just another plan that is not sustainable. And I’m glad it’s something people can’t stick to…because it’s not healthy. Sure, you can debate the calories in/calories out model. But calories do count. That’s why this program works. It’s restricting calories. But it’s the quality of calories that trouble me. This diet is not nutritionally balanced. There are much healthier ways to manage cravings and address insulin resistance. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it. Janet