
Skipping Breakfast Could Make You Depressed — A Psychologist Explains
When you consider your eating habits, it's probable that you may think of only the physical impact they can have on your body. What many don't realize is that what you eat and when you eat can have a significant impact on your mental state too.
Nutrition is frequently discussed in terms of calories or macros. But it plays a huge role in shaping the way you focus and function throughout the day.
A 2025 study published in Frontiers in Psychiatry examined this effect. Researchers explored how daily eating patterns, especially something as simple as skipping breakfast, can influence your mental health.
Researchers examined how frequently young people ate breakfast and assessed different aspects of impulsivity and mental health symptoms using standardized self-report tools.
To better understand how skipping breakfast impacts mood and thinking, the researchers also considered things like family background, mental health history and sleep routines.
Based on the findings of this study, here are three ways skipping breakfast can negatively affect your mental health and everyday functioning.
1. It's Associated With Higher Depressive Symptoms
Depression is often assumed to be a result of something mental that stems from sadness, negative thinking or stress. While that is true, it's only a part of the larger picture. There's growing research that shows depression is also deeply tied to biological and lifestyle factors. Sleep, physical activity, diet and your daily routine can factor into how the brain functions and how stable your mood feels.
Researchers found that young people who skipped breakfast more often reported more depressive symptoms than those who ate breakfast regularly.
Participants with more frequent breakfast-skipping patterns showed higher levels of low mood, sadness and emotional distress. So, something as seemingly small as skipping your morning meal has the power to affect your emotional state.
Depression is complex and is rarely caused entirely by a single factor. However, these findings highlight how basic self-care habits, like eating at consistent times, can support better mental health.
Try to think of breakfast not just as a nutritional choice but also as an act of care.
This one simple shift, where you pause and nourish yourself, can shape how supported you feel as you move through the day. It's a small act, but it can set the tone for how you show up for yourself. Remember that when your mood is lighter, you don't just feel better but are also more likely to think and perform better.
2. You May Have Trouble Focusing And Feel Mentally Restless
As researchers explored the link between breakfast skipping and depression, they also learned why this connection might exist.
One key factor was 'attentional impulsivity.' This refers to a person's tendency to get distracted easily, have trouble concentrating or feel mentally restless. Researchers found that young people who skipped breakfast more frequently showed higher levels of attentional impulsivity.
This impulsivity partially explained the connection between skipping breakfast and depressive symptoms. This suggests that skipping meals might interfere with the brain's ability to stay regulated and attentive, which could then affect one's mood.
Another study published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience studied how eating breakfast affects mood and mental performance in adolescents, particularly those who usually skip breakfast.
To study this, researchers worked with 40 teenagers and tested them on two separate mornings. On one morning, they ate a low Glycaemic index breakfast (AllBran cereal and semi-skimmed milk) and on another morning, they didn't eat anything
The teens completed a series of cognitive tasks that tested memory, attention and problem-solving under different levels of difficulty, both times.
Their mood and feelings of hunger, alertness and satisfaction were also measured before and after the tasks.
Researchers found that after eating breakfast, participants felt more alert, content and focused. They even performed better on several mental tasks, especially those requiring memory and concentration. This suggests that even a simple morning meal can support sharper thinking and more stable moods throughout the school day.
If you often find yourself feeling mentally foggy or emotionally off, your eating habits might be worth taking a second look at.
3. It May Lower Self-Control And Emotional Regulation
The study had another interesting finding. Researchers of the 2025 study found that young people who skipped breakfast more often scored higher on 'self-control impulsivity.'
Self-control impulsivity refers to difficulty delaying gratification, resisting urges or managing emotional reactions. Basically, it's the ability to pause before reacting.
A higher frequency of skipping breakfast was also associated with mental health challenges like anxiety, irritability and poor decision-making. Starting your day without fuel might also impact your ability to manage cravings and stay emotionally steady, affecting your patience or self-restraint.
If you often find yourself snapping easily, struggling with self-discipline or giving in to emotional overwhelm, you must reflect on your mindset, but don't forget to check in with your body too.
Something as basic as eating breakfast could help stabilize not just your energy but also your inner sense of control.
Your Well-Being Begins With Intentional Choices
When life feels rushed and you're simply trying to keep up, it can be easy to put yourself last.
Pushing through without pause can feel like a convenient trade-off. You may not realize how small compromises, like skipping meals, can have a greater impact.
Self-care, ultimately, is a way of honoring what your body and mind truly need to function well. It's eating when you're hungry, resting when you're tired and more importantly, slowing down enough to check in with yourself.
Remember that when you're not okay or when your basic needs aren't being met, it can become harder for you to think clearly, stay calm or feel connected to yourself and others.
So, next time you feel tempted to skip breakfast or put off what your body is asking for, remember: taking care of yourself is how you keep showing up as your best and most regulated self.
Do you think you may have an unhealthy relationship with food? Take this science-backed test to find out: Eating Attitudes Test
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Medscape
31 minutes ago
- Medscape
Claims Data Fail to Accurately Identify MI Types
TOPLINE: Clinical auditing reveals significant misclassification in administrative codes for myocardial infarction (MI), with only 39% of type 1 (T1MI) codes and 72% of type 2 (T2MI) codes for the condition accurately reflecting the true diagnosis, researchers found. Nearly half of patients coded for T1MI had T2MI, whereas 26% of T2MI codes represented myocardial injury. METHODOLOGY: Researchers identified 350 randomly sampled patients with T1MI codes and 350 patients with T2MI codes during inpatient encounters using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10th Revision. The analysis included patients aged 65 years and older from October 1, 2017, to May 9, 2024, within eight hospitals in the Mass General Brigham system. Using the 4th Universal Definition of MI, the researchers reviewed the clinical encounters to assess evidence of plaque erosion or thrombus vs oxygen demand-supply imbalance. A second physician review was conducted for 146 challenging and 146 nonchallenging cases. TAKEAWAY: Among the 350 patients coded as having had T1MI, clinical adjudication revealed 138 (39%) as correctly diagnosed; 159 (45%) in fact had T2MI, and 35 (10%) had myocardial injury. Of the 350 patients coded as having had T2MI, 251 (72%) were confirmed, four (1%) were found to have T1MI, and 91 (26%) had myocardial injury. A second physician review demonstrated a high degree of agreement with the initial review, with a 94% agreement in nonchallenging cases and 86% in challenging cases. Hospitals equipped with vs without cardiac catheterization laboratories showed significantly lower misclassification rates (43% vs 58%; P = .0298). IN PRACTICE: 'Among individuals assigned a T1MI claims code, nearly one half have T2MI and many others have myocardial injury; fewer than one half have true T1MI,' the researchers reported. 'Our results also confirm and extend previous work showing that among those with T2MI codes, slightly more than one half have true T2MI, with most of the misclassification related to myocardial injury rather than T1MI. This has critically important implications for epidemiology and public policy' related to acute myocardial infarction. SOURCE: The study was led by Andrea Martinez, MD, of the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It was published online on July 21 in Journal of the American College of Cardiology. LIMITATIONS: The results may not be generalized to other hospital systems and countries, where patterns of misclassification might differ. The researchers noted external validity assessment across multiple healthcare systems and in countries that have already introduced International Classification of Diseases-11th revision coding would be beneficial. While patterns of misclassification might have changed over time, the analysis was intentionally restricted to the period when codes for both T1MI and T2MI were available. DISCLOSURES: The study received support through a grant to Jason Wasfy from the Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research. Individual authors reported receiving other grants and support, including grants from industry. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.


Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
5-Grass SLIT Shows Benefit in Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis
TOPLINE: Five-grass-pollen liquid sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduced symptoms and the need for medications to treat symptoms in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) with or without asthma — while maintaining a favorable safety profile and providing consistent benefits across ages, comorbidities, and treatment durations. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of five-grass-pollen liquid SLIT in patients with ARC with or without asthma. Nine studies comparing the efficacy of interventional immunotherapy with that of placebo in this population were included. The key outcomes comprised symptom severity, assessed as the symptom score; a reduction in medication use, assessed as the medication score; and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). TAKEAWAY: A pooled analysis of eight studies showed a significant reduction in symptom score in the interventional immunotherapy group vs the placebo group (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.34; 95% CI, -0.62 to -0.06; P < .05) over a mean follow-up of 19 months. Analysis of data pooled from six studies showed a significant reduction in use of drugs for symptoms in the interventional immunotherapy group vs the placebo group (SMD, -0.54; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10; P < .05) over a mean follow-up of 20 months. AEs occurred in 20.6% of participants in the interventional immunotherapy group vs 17.5% in the placebo group (P = .46), with treatment discontinuation rates due to AEs of 3.0% and 1.8%, respectively (P = .41). Treatment efficacy remained consistent regardless of cumulative dose, treatment duration, or asthma status. IN PRACTICE: '[The findings] suggest that the dose of five-grass SLIT-liquid can be safely adjusted for better adverse event management without compromising treatment outcomes,' the authors of the study wrote. 'This flexibility makes it possible to tailor treatment according to the patient's condition while addressing their needs and expectations,' they added. SOURCE: Danilo Di Bona, with the University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy, was the corresponding author of the study, which was published online on July 17 in the Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology. LIMITATIONS: The analysis had a relatively small sample size, variation in dosages and treatment durations across studies, and incomplete reporting of AEs in some studies. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Stallergenes Greer, a pharmaceutical company. One author declared receiving fees from this company. Some authors reported receiving consulting fees; payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events; or support for attending meetings or travel and serving on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for various pharmaceutical companies. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.


Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
More Data Cement COVID's Impact on Patients With Cancer
TOPLINE: New data confirm the impact COVID infection can have on patients with cancer and identified several risk factors associated with hospitalization and death. Receipt of chemotherapy as well as a baseline history of stroke, atrial fibrillation, or pulmonary embolism were each associated with nearly double the risk for COVID-related hospitalization. Prior vaccination halved this risk. Older age and earlier hospitalization were associated with a greater risk for death. METHODOLOGY: Patients undergoing active cancer treatment are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 due to immunosuppression, but risk factors for hospitalization and death are not well-defined. Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study involving 1572 patients with cancer (median age, 60 years; 53.4% women), enrolled within 14 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; participants had received active treatment for cancer within 6 weeks before testing or had undergone prior stem cell transplant or CAR T-cell therapy. Patient screening and enrollment took place between May 2020 and February 2022. Treatments included chemotherapy (34.3%), targeted therapy (27.7%), and immunotherapy (10.6%). Breast (23.6%) and lung (13.9%) cancers were the most common cancer types. Overall, 64% of participants had metastatic disease, and at enrollment, 64% had not received a COVID vaccine. Study outcomes were COVID-related hospitalization or death. Risk factors for hospitalization and for death among hospitalized patients were evaluated separately. TAKEAWAY: At 90 days after an initial positive test, COVID-related mortality was 3% and remained stable at subsequent follow-ups. The highest incidence occurred in patients with lymphoma, followed by those with acute leukemia or lung cancer; the lowest incidence occurred in those with other types of solid tumors and blood cancers. Hospitalization for COVID-19 occurred in 18.4% of patients within 90 days of enrollment. The risk for hospitalization was elevated among patients who received chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.97) and those with a history of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and pulmonary embolism (HR, 1.78). Vaccination prior to infection reduced the risk for hospitalization by nearly half (HR, 0.52). Hospitalization for COVID-19 within 30 days of infection was associated with an increased risk for death (HR, 14.6). Among patients hospitalized for COVID within 30 days, age 65 years or older was the only significant predictor of COVID-specific death (HR, 3.49). Over the 2-year follow-up, there were 1739 disruptions to cancer treatment; 50.7% of these were attributed to COVID-19, and most occurred within 30 days of a positive test. IN PRACTICE: 'The data from this prospective cohort study confirm and expand previous retrospective case series that have found factors, including hematologic cancers, chemotherapy receipt, and lung cancer, as associated with COVID-19 severity,' the authors of the study wrote, noting that the results 'showed that COVID-19 had a significant impact on patients with cancer, including hospitalization, treatment disruptions, and death.' SOURCE: This study, led by Brian I. Rini, MD, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, was published online in JAMA Oncology. LIMITATIONS: Information on specific strains was not available. This study lacked a control group of patients without COVID-19, which limited causal inference. Additionally, as participants were enrolled through the National Cancer Institute trial networks, generalizability to a broader population could be limited. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded in part by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and the National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network, Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network, and Community Oncology Research Program grants via the U10 funding mechanism. Several authors declared receiving grants and/or personal fees and having other ties with various sources. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.