Seems an odd study as they gave them breakfast then had them sit in a chair for 3 hours. I thought the point of a decent breakfast wasn’t to increase liver and muscle glycogen levels (which should be pretty high already if you had a decent evening meal) but to maintain them or at least reduce the rate of depletion from doing morning training.
Well when I am hungry, it makes me not hungry anymore. So I think it meets expectations. 
Odd paper.
They had participants avoid all physical activity for 2 days beforehand, and didn’t control for food intake at any point the prior day up until when they went to bed.
Then directly state in their discussion that the participants were likely at/near their maximal possible glycogen stores at the beginning of the study.
The conclusions are basically “well-rested athletes with full glycogen stores are unable to store more glycogen.”
I’m not sure how much, if it all, these results would apply to someone who was actually training.
I too find the statement odd.
If a cup is full, logic says it can’t hold more.
Even AI should know that.
The breakfast cereal board is not happy with this study. 
What is it “we” think breakfast does? My n=2 study suggests carbs 2-3 hours before a workout above SS greatly decreases rpe and how strong my legs feel. I’ve done it both ways and no food is harder, so it’s doing the job I’d say.
Yeah really, i preform better with breakfast. I pretty much dont care if the Paper say otherwise
Same, and to add to that, I’ve tried it with eggs and bacon/sausage vs. with oatmeal with fruit, and the higher carb has also shown to be better for performance and RPE, than both the none and the eggs & meat options. That being said, I can’t guarantee I’m “fully carbed up” when I awake every morning (and many mornings, I know I’m not, and it’s on purpose), so there’s a reason beyond experimentation that I eat breakfast.
Exactly this. Papers usually point to what happened on average. Each of us is an individual and may be a low responder, no responder, average responder, super responder, for whatever intervention they’re studying. Just because a study says/implies X, doesn’t mean on the individual level it means anything.
That’s all beside the inherit weakness of a study on “Twelve well-trained, male cyclists”. Twelve!!! Not a lot to base broad generalizations on, especially when we can probably find dozens of studies that say the opposite.
Breakfast stops me becoming a hangry monster by 10:00am. Objective achieved.
Not to mention that there’s no control group. How do these studies get funded?