The dire consequences of not eating breakfast

Posted in TV, Women's Bodies, Women-Blaming by Dizzy on April 26, 2008

This story actually made me laugh out loud rather riotously at work. I think I startled my cube mates.

So, according to Science!, if a woman takes really good care of herself and eats the right food, when she finds herself great with child she will be rewarded with a bouncing baby boy. Regularly skimping out on breakfast? Eating junk food? Sorry lady, you’re stuck with a girl. And it’s your own damn fault. Now go to your room and don’t come out until you’re ready to breed properly.

Oysters may excite the libido, but there is nothing like a hearty breakfast laced with sugar to boost a woman’s chances of conceiving a son, according to a study released Wednesday.

…a low-energy diet that skimps on calories, minerals and nutrients is more likely to yield a female of the human species.

Beside racking up a higher calorie count, the group who produced more males were also more likely to have eaten a wider range of nutrients, including potassium, calcium and vitamins C, E and B12.

Fifty-six percent of the women in the group with the highest energy intake had sons, compared to 45 percent in the least-well fed cohort.

Ah, so much snarking and blaming to be done, so no brainpower to be thinking or desire to be typing. It’s beautiful out there and I have some veggies to plant!

Just one thing: 54% to 45%? That’s your “more likely”? Is that statistically significant enough to warrant a press release? Even if it is, the research methods seem pretty sketchy here. I’m skeptical about the methods, assumptions, and results of all gender-focused Science!, but the studies that rely entirely on daily self-reporting are especially suspicious and less than credible.

The odds of an XY, or male outcome to a pregnancy also went up sharply “for women who consumed at least one bowl of breakfast cereal daily compared with those who ate less than or equal to one bowl of week,” the study reported.

Great. Can’t wait to see the Special K commercials after that gets out.


8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. sigh said, on April 26, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    hate, hate, hate this crap. Why do they assume every woman *wants* a boy. Jesus, if fewer boys were born, maybe they would all friggin’ go away.

    Sorry, just gets me going.

  2. bonobobabe said, on April 30, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    Well, I could swear some time ago they had “research” that showed that poor, single mothers had more female children, and married women had more male children. I think it’s all a load of crap.

    However, if that were true, we women could certainly take over the world with a little effort and forethought.

    Actually, I think the idea of human females being born even in light of bad nutrition just shows that the X chromosome is stronger and can endure even in hard times.

    Oh, I just thought of something. People usually pair up with people of similar backgrounds. So a woman who eats junkfood is probably fucking a guy who eats junkfood. And since it’s the sperm that determines gender, it’s HIS Y-chromosome-carrying sperm that are fucked up.

    And if you read that article, it makes it sound like genes are making decisions and acting autonomously. How stupid.

  3. Dr. Susan Beecher said, on May 20, 2008 at 11:28 am

    Boys are more likely to be autistic than girls also.

  4. Citify said, on June 19, 2008 at 8:22 am

    Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation 🙂 Anyway … nice blog to visit.

    cheers, Citify!!

  5. erin said, on August 20, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    Wonder if the number of *live births* was also higher in the ate-breakfast-regularly group? Or, conversely, if the number of failed pregnancies increased in the “didn’t eat breakfast/nutrients” group, what the numbers of failed male vs. female offspring were. Because I could see some logic in their so-called result if we’re starting with roughly even numbers, and a larger number of male fetuses don’t make it than female under less than adequate nutrition.

    Although since it’s not like you can keep humans in cages and feed them starvation-level diets while they’re pregnant, I also wonder just how “deficient” the diets of the second groups really were. 2000 calories? 500 calories lower than the “high” group? 1000 calories lower? And were those minerals from supplements, or from, say, eating a lot more fresh vegetables and fruits?

    Hey, if they could just tell me how often to eat cereal so as to NEVER have a child of either sex, THAT would be useful research!

  6. rdskn said, on June 25, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Sperm determines the sex of the child. End of story. No sexual position, nor amount of “nutrients” or praying is going to statistically increase the chances of a woman making a child of the XY type. Unless, as my male coworker claims as a response to the fact that most women carry XX sex genes and males XY, ‘you women just made that up!.’

  7. I am really loving the theme/design of your
    website. Do you ever run into any internet browser compatibility issues?
    A number of my blog visitors have complained about my site not working correctly in Explorer
    but looks great in Opera. Do you have any suggestions to help fix this issue?

  8. Racing Rivals Cheats said, on August 29, 2014 at 8:39 am

    I’m gone to tell my little brother, that he should
    also pay a quick visit this web site on regular basis to take updated from newest gossip.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: