I really don't think you can say definitely that oatmeal is a better breakfast for a growing child than bacon. Oatmeal is tons of empty carbs that will be burned fast, cause an acute insulin response, and ultimately provide less critical protein to a growing child.
> Oatmeal is tons of empty carbs that will be burned fast
This is completely false. Oatmeal is one of the few grains where this is not true (unless you’re eating it in a highly processed form like flour). It is very slow to digest, does not cause an insulin spike, and actually removes cholesterol from the body. As far as grains go, it’s pretty much the best one out there. There’s a reason oatmeal is the primary carb used by gym rats.
The only time it’s a problem is if you’re eating it out of an instant packet, but that’s really about all the added sugar, not the oatmeal grain.
> It is very slow to digest, does not cause an insulin spike
Where do these statements come from? What counts as "slow" or "fast" digestion? Oats, being rich in carbohydrates, definitely affect insulin. As one example, this 2019 paper clearly shows that overnight oats elicit glycemic and insulin responses, so it's patently false to claim that oatmeal "does not cause an insulin spike": https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-018-0329-1#Fig2
> There’s a reason oatmeal is the primary carb used by gym rats.
Gym rats say and do a lot of things without scientific merit. That's why the term "broscience" exists.
> The only time it’s a problem is if you’re eating it out of an instant packet, but that’s really about all the added sugar, not the oatmeal grain.
It's not just the added sugar. Instant oats are more processed than steel-cut or rolled oats, and they do have a higher glycemic index.
> In general, the more highly processed a food is, or the quicker a food is digested, the higher the GI. For example, instant oats have a higher GI than steel cut oats.
Anecdotally (to add to EForEndeavour's post) I can disagree with this.
I've had plain oats with non-sugar additives (eg pure cocoa powder, seeds) and it definitely causes a spike, and my heart rate goes through the roof. Incidentally this happened more when I forgot to add cinnamon, which explains [1]. This was even with the fancier (read: double price half volume) steel cut or rolled varieties.
Oats are good, but as with most things not necessarily for everyone.
Also it's important to remember that different foods affect different individals' insulin responses very differently. Seems to be linked to gut microbiome and potentially genetics. The food that's better for the average adult might be worse for you.
I don’t think the above poster can say that bacon is better than grains considering they’re full of saturated fat, sodium, and nitrates. Oatmeal is also not “empty carbs” it has a lot of fiber, protein, and nutrients
Bacon and other processed meats are listed as a group 1 carcinogen, along with smoking and asbestos. This is due to the nitrate content (which gets converted to nitrosamines during cooking).
Nitrates and Nitrites are the leading culprit for red meat causing cancer. There is bacon that is cured without them. It's just that they are added to most bacon and almost all processed red meats.
No, there really isn't. What we have is bacon producers using a loophole to use 'natural' nitrates from things like celery for curing. They're the exact same molecule and perform the same function, but because they used processed celery juice instead of pure sodium nitrite, they get to claim they're nitrate free.
Ok, yes, I should’ve said there is bacon without them. Cured bacon still containing the natural nitrates are a good point, but there is uncured bacon that doesn’t contain nitrates.[0]
Sugar? In bacon? Why?? Get rid of that crap. Give me bacon that contains only pork and salt, please.
I recently read the label for a bag of popcorn which had sugar as the first ingredient, before corn. That popcorn had more sugar than corn. Boggles the mind.
It's yet another garbage regression study observing populations.
I'm fully aware that statins work to prevent heart attacks by lowering the LDL in the blood, but that's because they treat a symptom rather than the root cause triggering the body to use lipids to repair arterial walls in the first place. Why does the body deposit lipids on arterial walls? Because when arterial walls get damaged in any way, the body uses lipids to repair them.
There is a specific sub-type of LDL that is not dietary in source, called VLDL.
VLDL is created by the liver in response to consumption of carbohydrates, fructose, etc. It is very important to note that VLDL is NOT created by the liver in response to consuming animal fats. The patty and cheese with no bun won't affect your VLDL amounts. The bun, the fries, and the soda? They will trigger your liver to produce VLDL.
VLDL is the chief culprit in damaging arterial walls, and causing general inflammation in the body, when at unnaturally high levels. If you consume juice or soda on any kind of regular basis, your VLDL levels will spike afterwards.
After VLDL damages those arterial walls, it, along with normal LDL, will be deposited on the walls and harden.
The above explanation is why when people talk about having "high cholesterol", it is often useless in predicting heart attacks. The most important marker on a blood test for predicting heart attacks is the ratio of triglycerides to HDL in the blood stream. Notice that LDL isn't in the ratio. Why? Because the higher the amount of triglycerides in the blood, the higher the ratio, and the more VLDL a person has in their blood relative to HDL.
1) Observational regression studies are often useless, because it's impossible to remove so many factors such as the "doesn't listen to doctors" effect where a person who goes against prevailing medical wisdom and eats red meat will engage in other behaviors that doctors advise against, like smoking.
2) It's not the meat in the meat and potatoes diet that is the root cause of heart disease. No, it's a horrible combination of the two: The potatoes trigger the release of VLDL, which damages and inflames the arteries, and the meat contains normal LDL that typically wouldn't lodge in arterial walls, but is used in conjunction with VLDL by the body to repair the now damaged walls. Eat just the meet? No VLDL. The LDL you consume in the meat doesn't damage the arterial walls.
Just a note: In the past, I've been a vegan who consumed zero animal products. I didn't consume a single bite of animal products between 2002-2006. I'm not a blind defender of meat based diets, and I won't pretend that there aren't environmental implications of meat consumption. I just don't think it's useful to allow bad science to get people to eat less meat. I'm formally educated in statistics from studying Applied Economics, and I've worked professionally as a data scientist for 8 years now. I'm keenly aware of how bad these observational regression studies are. I'm not saying don't take them into account or use them, but they really need to be vetted when they conflict with longitudinal studies like Framingham.
