New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Diabetics Benefit by Biggest Meal Early

A small study finds that diabetics who ate a big breakfast and small dinner had better glucose control than those who ate the opposite. Steve Mirsky reports

 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


People with type 2 diabetes have to keep a close watch on their blood glucose levels. Now a small study finds that having the day’s biggest meal at breakfast and smallest meal at dinner offers much better glucose control than having a small breakfast and big dinner—even when the total intake during the day was exactly the same: 1,500 calories. The study, by researchers from Israel’s Tel Aviv University, Sweden’s Lund University and other institutions, is in the journal Diabetologia. [Daniela Jakubowicz et al, High-energy breakfast with low-energy dinner decreases overall daily hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetic patients: a randomised clinical trial]
 
Eighteen adult volunteers, 10 women and eight men all with type 2 diabetes, were assigned by a coin flip to either the big breakfast diet or the big dinner one. In the big dinner diet, participants spent a week having about a 200-calorie breakfast, a 600-calorie lunch and a 700-calorie dinner. The big breakfast diet was the reverse, with the 700-calorie meal in the morning, the 600-calorie lunch and a light, 200 calorie dinner.
 
After two weeks, the groups switched meal plans, so that the big dinner folks became the big breakfast folks and vice versa. And overall, various measures of blood glucose and insulin levels were significantly better in those who had their big meal in the morning.
 
The next steps are longer studies with more participants. But like a healthy breakfast, this research seems like a good start.

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe