Then about 30 seconds in my reading got disrupted by a fucking light-box asking me to sign up or log in or god knows what.. my instinct to close tab won out over my curiosity. Please stop this pattern. If you really think your content is worth having to (whatever)wall from the public, do so, but don't make me get into it and then shove something mid word into my face. This is the digital equivalent of giving me a magazine to read, waiting until you're sure I've got my eyes on it, then shoving a business card in my field of vision and telling me what you do for a living. It's a low rent tactic, annoys rather than grips your users, and it reeks of desperation to monetize.
And yet apparently the most popular comment on their effort is that you don't want to spare the all-of-2 seconds it takes to click your mouse to close a pop-up? On a site that isn't plastered with ads, btw, and is generally very accessible?
I don't mean to take out my frustration on you, and I get where you're coming from, but maybe we as consumers should stop feeling so entitled, maybe that's the pattern that has to end here.
Not only is it often (though not always) indicative of other nearby antipatterns, but it's my small way of protesting the lightboxes. Same thing goes for interstitial.
I intentionally do not use any ad blockers and when this how you treat me, i'd really rather not.
I still find the animation of it appearing distracting and I think it interrupts the 'flow' of reading the article, but it was easy enough to block the element with my ad blocking extension.
As an aside, Firefox + Noscript are a thing of beauty. Using them I just don't see most of these annoyances. Yes, it 'breaks' many websites but this usually means a much faster page render without all the annoying stuff.
Unfortunately slamming a SIGN UP NOW!!!!! box in the middle of the page gets more people to sign up than a "Please sign up over here" box at the side.
The problem may be a lack of systems thinking.
If your metrics are sign-ups, then the aggressive pattern wins.
If your metrics are committed sign-ups by users who are genuinely interested and aren't simply going to ignore your emails for the rest of eternity, the picture may be more complicated.
Too many UX people don't seem to think this one through.
What they made is a spammy, irritating popup.
Ve, a proposed gender-neutral pronoun 
I hadn't heard of it either.
The idea of overloading the plural "they" to mean a gender-neutral singular nominative has some inherent problems you can't just learn away, because context is often not sufficient to pinpoint a meaning from the possibilities.
Seriously though, bumping our gums about this sort of thing doesn't get us anywhere, unless it's a particularly egregious UX crime. Have a moan directly at the site owners, not the rest of us, many of whom find these posts tiresome. Or install something like u-blocker or privacy badger.
And now you understand. Maybe if they hadn't used the shitty lightbox, you wouldn't have had to scroll to "on-topic" content?
This is an ironic analogy to choose, seeing as how magazines do in fact do exactly that.
I know it's been a while since anybody read one, but if you cast your mind back, you'll recall that every dozen pages or so they will have stuck in a subscription card that you'll have to shake out or even tear apart just to continue reading.
It funny in a way to see that digital media has so exactly copied that.
It's sad that you get sites making 'slideshows' getting 20 page views per visit for stupid slideshows like 'Celebrities who have had DUIs'. Meanwhile, something educational and informational makes 5% as much as those other guys? Just because I have only loaded the page once?
You can't pay wall it, because then you don't get the 50,000 visits from HN. It sounds like a really tough position to be in.
Sure, annoying things are annoying, but maybe the site has their reasons, but maybe those reasons are misguided, but then again maybe not, etc. That's all a great discussion to have, but let's have it in the comments on an article that's actually about such issues.
If every discussion on an article with an egregious anti-pattern gets hijacked, people might tend to submit such articles less, or find alternate sources that don't have those anti-patterns. This costs page views for the sites that do them, and rewards the sites that don't.
Secondly, I doubt there's a site on the internet that doesn't have some technical or design issue that someone finds egregious. If everyone did what you're suggesting then every comment thread on HN would get hijacked.
(Chrome even support url query generation from the url bar http://www.printfriendly.com/print/?source=homepage&url=http...)
This would be especially interesting to measure. While the 0-10 second bounce rate on any site will be somewhat high due to people just looking for something other than the page you give them (I see 50% bounces on a small business site with zero ads), and it's difficult to distinguish these from people who didn't like the ads or format, you could get a precise measurement of exactly how many people close the page within 3 seconds of the pop-up appearing.
I completely agree.
This eliminates every Source of frustration very effectively and removes distractions alltogether.
Far better if sites were readable to begin with.
* Breakfast is the most important meal 
* Saturated fat is bad 
* Carbs are evil 
* You regain more weight after a fast diet 
I started forcing myself to eat breakfast about a year ago and my mind is so much clearer, seemingly as a function of relatively-stabilized blood sugar levels.
But that's just me. It could be totally different for someone else.
It is. I haven't eaten breakfast for 20 years, and I don't suffer from any kind of lethargy, tiredness or hunger. I even cycle to work for 30 minutes each day, on an empty stomach, and often don't eat until 1PM. For me, it's actually the other way around: if I eat anything before lunch time, especially sugary things, I often get nausea.
So I guess that confirms your point, there simply is no 'one-size-fits-all answer', everybody has different metabolism. Obviously some things are clearly bad for you, like overeating, insufficient dietary variation, lack of essential nutrients, etc. But these are simply solved with just common sense. For the rest, 'nutrition science' is completely worthless IMO, and more often than not driven by marketing or scientific echo-chambers.
I tried that when I was having lethargy problems mid-morning, but my digestive system doesn't seem to switch on until a while after waking up and if I consume anything more solid than milk before it tells me it is ready I get unpleasant indigestion feelings.
I tend to get hungry and have my first food at ~1030 or a little before. The exception is the days I have a long run into work (a 7.5-to-10K slow run, instead of the usual 2ish Km walk) - I want food as soon as I've showered in that case.
Exercise before work has itself cured the lethargy problem it would seem and it doesn't need to be as strenuous as a 7+K run. Just the difference between the old routine of cycling in, to doing a few situps & dips before getting dressed and briskly walking in, seems enough to make a marked improvement even into the late afternoon.
I'm 6'2" and broad, and thick. I've had a great friend from childhood who's 6'2" and skinny as a rail. We could not have more dissimilar ways of eating healthfully, but doesn't that make sense when you think about it? He basically eats little meals all day, and I concentrate my calories so that I don't stay constantly hungry and engaged in eating.
The only advice that's truly universal, is that you can't lose weight unless the equation is (Calories-In - Calories-Out) = Gain/Loss. How you get there is totally individual though.
So, another myth - carbs are bad at night - that did not apply to me.
After some rudimentary data science liberally using the glucometer, I can tell you what my body does after all types of simple sugars as well as some complex sugars... And my limit per day is around 10g carbs. I will change this up to reintroduce some foods I may not normally eat (like high fiber low carb bread, or Ryvita rye crisps).
When I was initially diagnosed, my fasting was 161mg/dL and a1c=7.1 . Now, my blood sugar when I wake up in the morning is around 85-105, which is normal. I've also lost 50 lbs
See, losing weight fixes many numbers.
After 6 days of low carb diet, my hunger went down dramatically, and I started to feel better. I started to notice weight loss around day 10.
Now, the more I study about T2 diabetes, my 'guess' is that it's a metabolic disease. Someone who's T2 gets high blood sugar, the sugar is eventually processed to fat, causing extreme hunger when the glucose is out of the body (back to normal levels), causing the person to eat more carbs.
That would also explain why things like the Atkins diet does work for certain people; it works for those whom are predisposed to T2 diabetes. It doesn't work and can harm greatly those whom aren't susceptible to T2...
But that's my pet theory.
The big open question is what causes it.
I do believe that carbs are bad with people with broken metabolisms (poor insulin sensivity, poor glucose control, etc), but once you have that fixed, carbs are an excellent source of nutrients and energy. Again, that was my case (38 years old at that time; 45 now)
Of course, both of these big ideas don't make good books or TV shows or special diet products.
There are very few of those good prospective and long term studies. And way too few have follow up study.
The wisdom has to be applied "Bayesian" style ... "Given subject with attributes x, y and z, apply optimisation function."
Perhaps eat much less meat that Standard American Diet. Sure, high protein diets tend to cause rapid weight losses, but there is not enough trustworthy data to ascertain their long term safety and effects.
If you eat breakfast at XX:XX and start cycling at XX:XX+30, you won't actually be using the energy from the food you just ate, whereas the caffeine will take effect almost immediately.
*  Completely agree. This falls into folklore: was never really scientifically investigated, and all recent findings don't support it.
*  This is a single study on a very particular mechanism. The null hypothesis wasn't "Carbs aren't evil". The experimental setup was designed to determine if there was a benefit in LCHFD diets for NZO prediabetic obese mice eating ad-libitum compared to traditional rodent feed (which by no means mirrors the type of high carb diet humans eat). They failed to demonstrate that. Some carbs are probably evil. Like sugar.
*  This is how science works: You make an observation: "You regain more weight after a fast diet." Yet a controlled laboratory environment doesn't show the same result. You're missing something. Reality is almost always more complex and subtle than we'd like it to be. The medical field right now is starting to focus on lifestyle changes and lifelong treatment. The shred of truth here is that slow weight loss is probably associated with creating long term habits. https://www.medweight.ca/.
I work with a guy who says he still feels the same now, well into their 30s.
And in warm weather, I have difficult to eat in the morning at all.
I do this despite doing compound lifts (pull ups, dips, squats) while successfully gaining muscle strength.
Also, "Caloric Restriction: A Fountain of Youth for Aging Muscles?" http://www.the-aps.org/mm/hp/Audiences/Public-Press/2015-15....
So every week I gain equal amount (in weight) of muscle to the fat lost. The difference is also visually noticeable (increased upper body muscle tone; decreased belly and lower back fat).
In regards to "doing diet and exercise at the same time" (academically referred to as: resistance training under calorie restriction) you may find this article useful: http://cristivlad.com/resistance-training-under-caloric-rest...
On the other hand, I found being hungry in the morning is short term, and once I got into a project at work or something, I just forgot about it. A light, later lunch (up at 4am, lunch at noon), and a big dinner, and It's not hard at all.
I think this just illustrates that there are actual differences between people. Maybe the primary difference for me is my insomnia. Some people don't have crashes several hours after eating a big breakfast, and they stay satiated longer.
Personally, if I don't eat in the evening, I get tired and want to go to sleep, so I'll turn in at 9pm or so and then I'll get up at 2am and won't be able to sleep until 5am. Whereas if I eat, I'll stay up to 1am or so, and then sleep until 8am. Food primarily affects how much energy I have. More food, more energy.
Most days I eat a bowl of brown rice with a raw egg stirred in and a dash of high-quality soy sauce and topped with natto. Some days I'll also grill salmon or smelt. On the side, I usually have tsukemono (pickled vegetables) and miso soup.
Protein, probiotics, pickles...once you get used to it, the idea of eating sweet desserts for breakfast (which is what most people eat) seems counterproductive.
(By the way, it's probably true that many people in Japan eat the same crap as Americans do for breakfast——there's no shortage of bread, donuts, etc.)
I personally hate western "breakfast foods". For breakfast I usually make noodles (not the instant kind) and eat it alongside a fried egg and maybe some leftover veggies. Or I'll just microwave some leftovers (including rice) from the day before.
Back in the USA, I used to eat oatmeal with fresh fruit and honey every morning, and it took longer to prepare.
Japanese people eat a lot of eggs in general: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2014/09/16/food/raw-appeal-...
Even though I knew the risk of Salmonella was already minuscule, I use raw eggs in my cooking a lot more now (e.g. dressings, mayo, etc.). It is just a lot more convenient than having to buy pasteurized yolks and egg whites.
I don't know if raw eggs are truly safer to eat here in Denmark, or if the food administrations from other countries are just being overly conservative.
You can combat it by having a proper breakfast focusing on protein and low glycemic index carbs, eggs, steel-cut oats, omelettes, etc. A favorite of mine is proatmeal, make some oats and then mix in BSN Syntha-6 vanilla ice cream protein powder, absolutely delicious. The other way to combat it as suggested by people in this thread is to drop breakfast all together besides maybe having coffee and a granola bar.
I wouldn't consider it the same as "eating a donut" (the cereal has 4g sugar and 5g fiber per 3/4 cup serving).
I think I even enjoyed it more than ice cream, even if it was raisin bran or something. (Though I usually add a sweetener, currently Stevia rather than sugar.)
As far as breakfast goes, when I was in my prime weight lifting days skipping breakfast was never an option. Now that I'm older, coffee with milk works on mornings I do not go to the gym. On mornigins I do go I just have a protein shake after the gym.
As far as breakfast goes, when I was in my prime weight lifting days skipping breakfast was never an option. Now that I'm older, coffee with milk works on days I do not go to the gym. On days I do go I just have a protein shake after the gym.
Articles that can be called "clickbait" are generally not very well written, misrepresents information, and leave you with a feeling of not getting what the headline promised. That is not the case here, at all.
I find their articles very interesting, almost every time. Really high signal to noise, even if their content isn't always about weighty matters. I rather liked this one about breakfast, for instance: it taught me a lot about the historical development of breakfast.
Anyhow, not to tout these guys too much, but I do respect them for what they've done.
The war on drugs would be over in a week.
Of course this won't happen and I think that is to a certain degree a good thing.
The study suggests this is true even if you cheat on the weekend.
I'm super-dubious of evidence showing that breakfast improves school outcomes (except where it helps meet kids' calorie needs). You know what else boosts school outcomes? Sedatives, because school is hella boring. That doesn't mean sedating kids or adults is a good idea.
A few friends of mine fast intermittently and train in the morning before eating but it's beyond me how that is not just pure torture.
Welcome to the Army, perhaps. Ask them if they're ex-mil, or are copying someone who's ex-mil.
25 years later the concept of exercising on anything but an empty stomach feels weird to me. Like if you put forth a true 100% effort how do you not puke?
Practice. If you've never done it before, it takes a few days/weeks to get used to. Also willpower.
I'm absolutely fine with it and prefer it, like many other people. It's definitely not "torture".
Maybe it isn't for some but mostly it's about overcoming the change in routine and there's no shortcut to changing or building habits, it's just willpower.
Like calling something torture - that you voluntarily do to yourself because of an expected net positive outcome.
For the respect of people who suffers or have suffered from torture I think we should avoid that kind of hyperbole.
Same goes for calling sexism on any joke about gender differences. It's kind of disrespectful to everyone who has suffered from the real thing.
It's just habit. I stopped eating breakfast in primary school and always preferred doing sports in the morning. Currently doing fasted weightlifting/cardio 5x a week first thing in the morning.
I'm currently doing only one big meal a day for lunch so technically that's fasting since 2pm the previous day.
then there are the 'early birds' who get up at 5 am and have a 4 egg omelet before the meet. they disgust me :)
Very different energy demands from office work.
Title should be: How cereal became a thing in America.
Where I grew up, breakfast was just eggs, bread, and tea (or milk-tea).
I'd be surprised to hear that this is common, though. I was actually going to suggest that for this supposed most important meal of the day, the options for breakfast are not very substantial. I have a bowl of cereal (2 x weetabix + semi-skimmed milk) - all of 150kcal. Add a cup of tea and it still won't be past 175kcal. Suppose I have to get up early for whatever reason and treat myself to an extra weetabix to make up for it - 250kcal.
This seems to be enough for me (suggesting that perhaps breakfast's importance is indeed overblown - not that I'd like to go without it), but it's not very much. I ate a slice of quiche for lunch today that was more than that.
Generally breakfast comes after a 10-12 hour fast for most people, so I don't think this is the way to think of it.
Lunch is usually a big pile of rice with some vegetables and meat. Wow, this makes it reeeally hard to stay awake at the afternoon, but there aren't many options for lunch near the workplace.
For dinner, my wife cooks something also usually rice with some meat and veggies. But about 1 hour before I plan to go to sleep I eat 1 or 2 bananas. I always had hard time sleeping, and I read that bananas are good for sleeping because it contains potassium. For me it works. Although this might be completely placebo, because bananas don't work for my wife.
I'd also add that I am an amateur long-distance runner and just completed a medium distance run after fasting all day and performed fine. Had it been a race, probably less so. But the myths of caloric necessities have been greatly exaggerated.
As an personal anecdote, I enjoy climbing in the mornings before having food, that's a few good hours of intermittent sprint type activity.
I have to head out running before 06:00 ( ex-farm border collie dog still has early-rising demands ) so need to eat about 05:30. On a couple of occasions I overslept and skipped breakfast. It was terrifying, I barely had enough energy to make it back home and was shaking. All my body wanted when I returned was sugar, now.
So in my case at least a bowl of museli / milk / yoghurt and a banana is the minimum possible breakfast.
I suspect that the blood sugar spikes were addictive, i.e. my body desensitized and needed me to frequently consume sugar to keep my blood sugar level high.
Try gradually reducing the amount of sugar that you consume, and/or the total amount that you eat at breakfast, as well as the frequency of your snacks throughout the day. Eventually you should be able to do fine on two good meals a day and nothing else.
and the last several paragraphs about "breakfast-denying" seem biased as there are more studies to support the importance of breakfast.
After building the habit of eating a solid breakfast, I noticed others followed the same pattern I did; eat two big meals and feel too nauseated in the morning to eat.
edit: the eating two meals part was during my cereal phase.
How are you supposed to hunt an animal if you get light headed and lose mental faculties when hungry?
I can run much farther if I ate my previous meal than if I didn't.
And the effects of skipping breakfast on the cognition of children have been studied ad nauseam.
A lengthy list:
If anything I would think the reverse to be true. Runners and cyclists eat sugar gels instead of 'real food' because gels are easier to digest, and all the energy you spend on digestion isn't spent on the activity.
In any case, this really only applies to lengthy activities, where glycogen is exhausted. It doesn't matter for a 5k or even a 10k run.