Skimping out on your lunch break? Here's how many employed Americans actually stop to eat
The poll of 2,000 employed Americans, with a quota of 1,000 working parents with school-aged kids, revealed that 55% forgo eating lunch on hectic days to be more productive.
Advertisement
Respondents also admitted to completely forgetting to eat lunch two days out of the work week, on average.
In fact, more than four in 10 workers (43%) rely on reminders to eat a midday meal, with women being significantly more likely than men (63% vs. 48%) to need a reminder to eat during the workday.
Commissioned by Buddig for National Sandwich Month in August and conducted by Talker Research, the survey found that although 63% of working Americans eat a full, substantial meal for lunch most days, a significant number (37%) confessed to eating more of a snack for lunch, or grazing on little snack foods throughout the day in place of a meal.
7 More than four in 10 workers (43%) rely on reminders to eat a midday meal, according to reports.
Martin Barraud/Caia Image – stock.adobe.com
Advertisement
More than one in 10 (13%) also admitted they'll typically work and eat lunch at the same time on a regular workday, instead of taking a break from their tasks to eat.
Looking at differences between subgroups, men (91%) are more likely than women (85%) to pause their work to eat lunch, and hybrid workers (94%) are more likely than remote (85%) and in-person employees (87%) to take a true lunch break.
A third of employed Americans (33%) also revealed that they'll usually eat their midday meal at their desk or workstation, with remote workers being more guilty of this (41%) than hybrid (38%) and in-person (28%) respondents.
On average, workers eat lunch at 12:48 p.m., and their typical lunch hour is actually only 35 minutes, on average.
Advertisement
7 More than half of Americans skip lunch in order to work more, according to a recent survey.
SWNS / Buddig for National Sandwich Month
7 37% of respondents confessed to eating more of a snack for lunch, or grazing on little snack foods throughout the day in place of a meal.
SWNS / Buddig for National Sandwich Month
For those who step away from their work to eat, many (43%) multitask during their downtime, with women being more likely than men (51% vs. 33%) to multitask while eating lunch.
And multitaskers most commonly check social media (70%), text (64%), and make phone calls (55%) during their lunch hours, even though most respondents (84%) agreed that taking offline lunch breaks, sans screens or technology, is good for their health.
Advertisement
'While it can be tempting to power through your workday and skip taking a lunch, it's important to give yourself a break and eat a full, substantial meal,' said Amy Krider, senior brand manager at Buddig. 'Not only do we need all the energy we can get from a filling meal to do our best work, we also need little breaks from our screens and tasks during the day as well for our health and wellness.'
On a typical workday, 62% of employed Americans usually bring lunch from home, a third (33%) will buy it, and 5% are lucky enough to have their meal provided by their employer.
7 A third of employed Americans (33%) also revealed that they'll usually eat their midday meal at their desk or workstation.
goodluz – stock.adobe.com
Three-quarters of workers (75%) said that sandwiches are their go-to lunch meal, and 70% of those with school-aged kids said their kids also include sandwiches among their lunchtime favorites.
Looking closer at mealtime menus for both parents and kids, working Americans cited sandwiches (64%), salads (45%) and hamburgers (33%) as their most common lunch staples, and those with kids in school said their children will eat sandwiches (58%), pre-made meal kits (36%) and pizza (30%) most often.
Health-wise, the quality of working parents' meals falls a bit behind their kids'. While 83% of parents with school-aged kids said their children's lunches are healthy, only 74% could say the same for themselves.
7 Three-quarters of workers said that sandwiches are their go-to lunch meal, according to the survey.
SWNS / Buddig for National Sandwich Month
7 While 83% of parents with school-aged kids said their children's lunches are healthy, only 74% could say the same for themselves.
SWNS / Buddig for National Sandwich Month
Advertisement
The results also revealed that hybrid workers reported eating the healthiest lunches (79%) compared to remote (71%) and in-person (65%) workers.
And surprisingly, those whose lunches are catered by their employers reported having healthier lunches (75%) than those who bring homemade lunches (72%) and buy lunch (62%).
7
rh2010 – stock.adobe.com
'Busy work schedules mean that many don't have time to pack healthy, protein-filled lunches,' said Krider. 'And working parents have the added struggle of making sure their kiddos get nutritious, filling meals while at school. That's where the classic sandwich can come in handy. Protein-filled and versatile, it's included among respondents' favorite lunch meals for a reason.'
Advertisement
Survey methodology:
Talker Research surveyed 2,000 employed Americans with a quota of 1,000 parents of school-aged children; the survey was commissioned by Buddig and administered and conducted online by Talker Research between July 15 and July 18, 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
JB Pritzker's school-screening law mandates more mental illness — and your state could be next, parents
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker recently signed a bill to compel all Illinois schools to offer students mental-health screenings. Pritzker proclaimed the new law 'is a national first worth celebrating.' But his Children's Behavioral Health Transformation Initiative is far likelier to produce more jobs for therapists than better health for pupils. Academic achievement levels in Illinois schools have sharply declined in recent years, but that's not stopping politicians from further intruding into students' lives and minds. Therapy can help individuals deal with their struggles and crises. But permitting schools to pirouette as saviors is perilous considering today's unhinged notions of mental health. The American Psychological Association designated traditional masculinity a de facto mental illness in 2019, stating its 'stoicism' and similar traits are 'on the whole, harmful.' So only snowflakes are mentally healthy nowadays? Psychiatrists have concocted labels that leave millions of Americans at their mercy. The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) lists more than 300 mental illnesses, five times as many as it specified in the 1960s. Even caffeine withdrawal is certified as a mental disorder. Dr. Allen Frances, writing in Psychiatric Times, warned that the latest DSM contains 'many changes that seem clearly unsafe and scientifically unsound' and is 'likely to lead to massive over-diagnosis and harmful over-medication.' 'Mental-health interventions' are probably derailing more lives than ever before. The New York Times last year showcased psychiatric 'prevalence inflation' — a vast increase in reported mental illness among teenagers who are encouraged to view normal feelings as grave maladies. Oxford University psychologist Lucy Foulkes observed school programs are 'creating this message that teenagers are vulnerable, they're likely to have problems, and the solution is to outsource them to a professional.' Foulkes explained in a paper she coauthored that 'awareness efforts' spur young people 'to interpret and report milder forms of distress as mental health problems.' Filing such complaints 'leads some individuals to experience a genuine increase in symptoms, because labeling distress as a mental health problem can affect an individual's self-concept and behavior in a way that is ultimately self-fulfilling.' Psychiatric labels can become a ball and chain that people drag behind them. Endless classroom presentations on mental health spur 'co-rumination' — excessively talking about one's problems — which evokes memories of first dates from hell. University of Southern California clinical psychologist Darby Saxbe warns that mental-illness labels have 'become an identity marker that makes people feel special and unique . . . telling them this is who they are and will be in the future.' It is especially ironic to see schools coming to the mental-health rescue after millions of young kids were traumatized by the forced isolation that accompanied pointless COVID school lockdowns. Depression and anxiety skyrocketed among youth, and emergency rooms reported a 51% increase in suicide attempts by teenage girls in early 2021 over early 2019. After schools reopened, students were endlessly hectored to comply with idiotic mask mandates that did nothing except multiply anxiety. The Illinois program is certain to boost the number of young people given drugs after receiving their mental-illness designations. Antidepressant prescriptions for Americans aged 12 to 25 soared by 66% between 2016 and 2022. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently lamented antidepressants are more addictive than heroin. Federal law compounds the peril of overdiagnosis of mental illnesses. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals can demand 'reasonable accommodations' after they're certified anxious or depressed. The ADA has turned mental illness into entitlements for slacker students to get extra times for tests, no deadlines and other special treatment. Public schools are heading towards the same diagnosis deluge occurring on college campuses. A 2022 Boston University analysis of students on almost 400 campuses found '60% of students met criteria for one or more mental health problems, a nearly 50% increase from 2013.' Mental-health labels and interventions can be a Pandora's box. College 'students with both a mental health condition diagnosis and current moderate/severe symptoms of depression and/or anxiety' were 10 times more likely to contemplate suicide and 47 times more likely to attempt suicide than 'students with none/minimal depression and/or anxiety symptoms and no mental health condition diagnosis,' per a 2022 Journal of Affective Disorders study (emphasis added). But at least not everyone who received a mental-illness diagnosis attempted suicide. Rather than being a model for the nation, the Illinois Children's Behavioral Health Transformation Initiative is a warning to parents of the perils that may be coming to their state. Hooking kids on bogus labels and antidepressants has already ruined too many young lives. Passing out millions more psychiatric Purple Hearts will undermine the happiness and health of young Americans. James Bovard is the author of 11 books, including 'Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Obamacare faces a subsidy cliff — don't bail it out without reform
The controversy over the 2010 Affordable Care Act dominated Barack Obama's presidency. The implementation of ObamaCare caused health insurance premiums to soar and nearly collapsed the market entirely. The Biden administration responded by flooding the system with expanded federal subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. To stop premiums for older workers with pre-existing conditions from suddenly leaping by $10,000, Republicans will need to extend part of this additional funding. But in return, they should insist on reforms to allow healthy Americans to purchase better value insurance with their own money. The Affordable Care Act required health insurers to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions at the same price as enrollees who signed up before they got sick. As a result, premiums more than doubled, millions of healthy enrollees dropped coverage and many insurers abandoned the market. The Affordable Care Act kept the individual health insurance market from falling apart completely by providing subsidies to low-income enrollees. But individuals earning more than $62,600 in 2025 would have faced full premiums without any assistance. Those unsubsidized enrollees felt the full pain of the Affordable Care Act's premium hikes. The legislation allows insurers to charge older enrollees up to three times what they do the youngest, and so unsubsidized premiums for near-retirees can be huge. This year, the benchmark unsubsidized premium for a 61-year-old individual in Washington, D.C., is $15,402 per year. Rather than fix ObamaCare's structure, the newly-elected Democratic Congress in 2021 threw money at the problem with the American Rescue Plan Act. By expanding eligibility for subsidies to higher earners, the act reduced the cost of health insurance for a 61-year-old earning $70,000 from $15,402 to $5,950 — with federal taxpayers covering the difference. That legislation also expanded the generosity of subsidies for lower earners. Those earning $22,000, who would have contributed $756 to the cost of insurance under the original Affordable Care Act, would get it entirely paid for by the federal government. This approach has been hugely expensive. In May 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that subsidies for the Affordable Care Act would cost $67 billion in 2024. Last June, following a renewal of the American Rescue Plan Act's increased subsidies, the Congressional Budget Office's revised cost estimate for 2024 surged to $129 billion. A recent Paragon Institute report found that this leap in cost owed much to a surge in enrollment among those who received coverage free of charge. Paragon estimated that such enrollees accounted for nearly half of new enrollment, and that 5 million people may have misreported their income to claim free coverage, costing taxpayers an additional $20 billion. Insurers eagerly welcomed the influx of new healthy enrollees, who had not deemed it worth purchasing insurance from the individual market until the federal government paid the entire price. Such newcomers proved enormously lucrative, as they used less medical care than existing enrollees but generated the same revenue. Democrats, who received twice as much in campaign contributions as Republicans from Blue Cross Blue Shield in 2024, eagerly boasted about reducing the number of uninsured Americans, with little concern for the cost. The expiry of the American Rescue Plan Act subsidies is now looming again, set to expire at the end of 2025. It will be up to a Republican president and Republican-led Congress to find a way forward. Fiscal conservatives have little appetite to pay for renewing all the expanded ObamaCare subsidies. But nor will they feel comfortable letting the American Rescue Plan Act's enhanced subsidies expire entirely, as this would result in a $10,000-per-year premium hike on thousands of middle-income near-retirees. Congress should focus on targeted support by eliminating the cap on eligibility for the Affordable Care Act's original subsidies, which limit premiums at 9.5 percent of income, to avoid a sudden benefit cliff for those with incomes just above $62,600. But they should also let other expansions of subsidies expire. In return, Republicans should insist that Americans be allowed to obtain discounted premiums if they purchase insurance before they get sick. In 2017, President Trump allowed Americans to do this by purchasing short-term insurance. However, in 2024, the Biden administration limited the duration of these plans to four months. This came following pressure from big insurers, who claimed that allowing the expansion of such plans would prevent them from cross-subsidizing enrollees with pre-existing conditions by overcharging those who signed up while healthy. In reality, the restriction of these affordable plans has served mostly to inflate insurers' profits. Healthy enrollees remain able to purchase short-term plans afresh every few months; it is only those who subsequently become sick who are deprived of coverage. Regulatory protections for the long-term coverage of enrollees in non-ObamaCare plans should be strengthened; not weakened. Furthermore, with the extension of the American Rescue Plan Act's premium cap, federal subsidies taxpayers directly subsidize most enrollees. It is therefore unnecessary to also prohibit healthy enrollees from obtaining insurance plans which offer long-term coverage at good value for their money.
Epoch Times
5 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Parents Prepare: Trump's Megabill Brings 3 Crucial Tax Changes
You may have heard of the Trump tax bill that was recently signed. This key piece of legislation, so-called 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill' (OBBB), impacts millions of Americans through its provisions on health, border security, and taxes.
