Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-FAST-116 in-depth review

One meal a day and death risk

Meal Skipping and Shorter Meal Intervals Are Associated with Increased Risk of All-Cause and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality among US Adults.

Overview

Sun Y et al.. J Acad Nutr Diet 2023 · PMID 35964910 · DOI 10.1016/j.jand.2022.08.119

US adults who ate only one meal a day had a higher death rate, but this type of study cannot prove the meal pattern caused it.

Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Link meal patterns to mortality.

How was the study done?

Cohort of 24,011 adults followed for deaths.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

US adults aged 40+.

What was actually found?

HR 1.30 all-cause, 1.83 CVD for one meal/day.

How large was the observed effect?

HR 1.30 (1.03-1.64).

What do the results mean in everyday life?

No evidence that one meal a day is healthier; possibly the opposite.

What are the study's limitations?

Diet recorded once; confounding.

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Contradicts 'the healthy way to eat', at low certainty.

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Applies; same physiology.

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Causation.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Sun Y et al.
Journal
J Acad Nutr Diet
Year
2023
Identifier
PMID 35964910 DOI 10.1016/j.jand.2022.08.119
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref update-to/updated-by check
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

not stated in abstract

2. Research question

Are meal frequency, skipping and intervals associated with mortality?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Cohort study – Prospective cohort (NHANES 1999-2014 linked to death records)
Population

US adults aged >=40

Country

USA

Period

1999-2014; mortality to 2015

Sample size

24,011; 4,175 deaths (878 CVD)

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

not stated in abstract

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

One meal/day; meal skipping; meal intervals (24-h recall)

Comparator

Three meals/day

Endpoints

All-cause and CVD mortality

Statistical methods

Multivariable Cox models

5. Actual results

Results

One meal/day vs three: all-cause mortality HR 1.30 (95% CI 1.03-1.64), CVD mortality HR 1.83 (1.26-2.65). Breakfast skipping CVD HR 1.40 (1.09-1.78); lunch skipping all-cause HR 1.12 (1.01-1.24); dinner skipping 1.16 (1.02-1.32).

Absolute risks

Whole cohort 22.5 deaths per 1,000 person-years (calculated); group-specific absolute risks not reported.

Authors' conclusion

Eating one meal per day was associated with increased all-cause and CVD mortality.

6. Strengths

  • Large nationally representative cohort
  • Mortality linkage

7. Weaknesses

  • Single 24-h recall; misclassification
  • Residual confounding (illness, poverty, smoking)
  • Reverse causation possible

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
ROBINS-E
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
high
Rationale

Observational; exposure measured once; confounding.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

CIs log-symmetric; association only, cannot show causation; see stats/I-FAST-116_meal_skipping.py.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Observational signal of harm for habitual one-meal-a-day eating; does not prove causation.

11. Independent contrary findings

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Universal biology; applies in Europe and Egypt.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Low-certainty contradicting evidence; must not be overstated.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biashigh
Precision of resultsmoderate
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilitynot replicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceunknown
Regional transferabilitymoderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

15. Linked fact checks