[teach93]

While in the doctor's office last week I picked up an older copy of Prevention magazine that had an interesting article on dieting styles. (Now I wish I had made note of the date of the magazine). The author was making that point that while many people lose weight just fine on 3 meals a day and snacks, she personally held to a 3 meal a day no snack plan.

I have often wondered if snacking between meals, and frequently after supper and before bedtime, has hindered my weight loss. I do not snack sensibly. Once I get started I seem to be off and running. It crosses my mind that I shouldn't be eating so much, but I don't stop. I do not have this problem for meals.

Could it be that for those of us who have difficulty snacking wisely, this three meal a day plan could be part of our answer?? It is not difficult in the summer to plan breakfast around 7:30, lunch around 12:30 and then supper around 6. However, during the school year, I eat breakfast at 6, lunch at 11:00-11:15 and then have this very long period from then until supper. I had considered adding a low point or low calorie snack at that time and then supper around 6.

Does anyone else already do this? Ideas? Opinions? I always value the advice I get from this site!!!

Elaine

[judi]

Hi! Even though I am doing the diet that is recommended in Prevention's 2000 Jan. magazine for 6 mini meals a day I think the 3 meals a day and no snacks is probably better for weight loss. For me anyway, the 6 mini meals a day can be almost like 6 regular meals if I don't watch myself. It also seems like I am eating all day with the little meals but not feel like I am getting a "substantional and satisfying" amount of food at any one time. I think the 3 meals with no snacks unless they are fruit or vegetables (because who ever is fat because they ate too many fruits and veg.? ) would be good. Also then with the 3 meals you get used to eating only when you start to feel hungry.

My 2 cents.
-Judi