grazing all day-or-no snacks and larger meals?

You're on Page 2 of 2
Go to
  •   #16  
    willmakeit's Avatarwillmakeit , 08-02-2006 11:25 PM
    Smaller and more frequent meals are always medically more healthy. (any nutritionist will tell you that)

    The other diets may help you loose weight but may not be healthy for you!
    Reply
  •   #17  
    Tara D's AvatarTara D , 08-03-2006 07:48 AM
    Just an opinion, but I think that as long as you get the amount of nutrition/calories that your body needs each day (and aren't overeating), there is really nothing wrong about either way of eating. For thousands of years, people didn't have food just sitting around so they could eat 6 times/day. Meals took a long time to prepare, and people were spending lots of time to complete daily life activities that only take minutes for us to do now (e.g. washing clothes). I don't think that eating 3 times a day is inherently unhealthy, I don't think the body suffers terribly by getting food every 5 hours instead of every two or three. Hey, whatever works for you, go ahead and do it.
    Reply
  •   #18  
    jillybean720's Avatarjillybean720 , 08-03-2006 04:21 PM
    I wouldn't say it's necessarily UNhealthy to eat just 2-3 meals a day. You can be "healthy" either way, but in general, eating more frequently will keep your metabolism running more efficiently and better maintain your sugar levels. But as others have said, if you're doing fine on fewer meals, then hey, whatever works for you. I certainly wouldn't change it if eating more frequently makes you less comfortable or causes you to overeat.

    I have been in both camps and still sometimes switch back and forth, depending on my schedule. When I was at my last job, I would have breakfast in the morning before work (usually a banana-peanut butter smoothie), oatmeal mid-morning, a small lunch, yogurt in the afternoon, a snack at home before dinner, and then dinner, and even then, sometimes another smoothie in the evening, so I was definitely eating many times a day. Now, however, I have breakfast before I leave in the morning (around 6am), but I rarely eat again until I get home from work (between 4-6pm) because I am literally so busy at my new job that I don't have time to think about food, let alone actually eat any Would I say I'm less healthy because of it? Absolutely not, but I would say I have more peaks and lulls in my energy levels throughout the day, but weight-wise, I've been maintaining both ways (of course, I need to get back to losing, but that's a whole different conversation ).
    Reply
  •   #19  
    penpal's Avatarpenpal , 08-03-2006 05:25 PM
    This is an interesting thread.

    I was about to 'experiment' with 3 meals vs. 3 meals + snacks and decided to do a bit of online research first. I found this interesting site http://www.doctoryourself.com/nibbling.html which seems to give convincing evidence (citing several studies by reputable organizations) that grazing, or 'nibbling' is healthier than eating 3 meals a day with no snacks.

    I know that many people have success losing weight or maintaining weight loss on 3 meals and no snacks, but there appear to be other health considerations relating to eating larger meals as opposed to spreading the calories out throughout the day.

    Food for thought!
    Reply
  •   #20  
    fiddler's Avatarfiddler , 08-03-2006 06:02 PM
    I would tend to question the validity of some of those studies. After all, they were feeding them a diet that consisted of 44% fat in one meal per day! Of course their cholesterol and triglycerides are going to rise and they're going to feel sleepy after gorging down a huge meal consisting of almost half fat!

    I just know that what I am doing works for me--I'm not hungry between meals, I'm not sleepy after meals, and when my doctor has bloodwork done on me she says my cholesterol and triglycerides are "perfect."

    However, peoples' body chemistries are all different, and what works for one person doesn't necessarily work for another.
    Reply
Reply