Add me to the list of another one that eats 5-6 small meals a day. Whether you want to call it grazing or not is up for interpretation. My problem was never eating to much mine was to little with no activity. And moving more and eating 5-6 meals a day has helped me a lot. To each their own. Whatever works for you works.

Ray--your opinions are welcome here! But 3FC is a little different from other sites in that members are careful to state opinions as such, and also to try to put things in a neutral way. :) As a good guideline, just keep in mind that it's the Support forum, not the Debate forum. ;)

Jay

Originally Posted by ennay:
...there isnt any golden rule that says 3 meals is best...its just what worked with the industrial revolution.......

You have given good advice and what you say is the right thing to do,but I am not going to agree with this theory of the Industrial revolution. People in India have been eating 3 meals a day since vedic times. Farmers have been doing that hundreds of years before the industrial revolution in the west. They eat at 7p.m. and sleep early. That goes the same for ancient south american culture. They would hunt the whole evening but eat their kill only at dinner time.

The concept of eating more than 3 meals is a result of......I really dont know what to call it.....you can say the "modern culture" and fast foods revolutions.
Fast food companies wanted you to eat more so they even invented the word "brunch". Nobody wanted to eat. After the industrial revolution you could say with corporate revolutions. You needed to have business meetings with "high tea". We needed to eat something in the evening because we started eating late so there was a long gap between lunch and dinner. We were sleeping late. So eating early was not an option or one would feel hungry late at night.

Coffee shops started stocking cookies, pastries and just because they were on display we started eating them.
Eating 3 times a day is the golden rule. But we have destroyed that habit.
But right now it is impossible to force a person whose main intention is to lose weight to follow this golden rule. Do what works best.
Like mandalinn82 said eat any way as long as you keep the stay well within your calorie limit.

Dont get me wrong here ennay the rest of the advice that your giving is spot on. I just wanted to correct you on "golden rule" in a perfect world and perfect state of mind and body 3 meals a day is the best. It just that with our current lifestyle it maybe be impossible to do that and 4-5 meals is now the norm. It was not something that worked with the industrial revolution. Infact many industries have a late morning tea break and an evening tea break. When first introduced workers would only drink liquid hot or cold, but now they all started to eat in those breaks. :)

I have always heard that eating 5-6 times a day to ward off hunger is the way you lose or maintain. But I've never been able to get into the habit. My schedule seems to be all screwed up right now. Anyhow have tips for how to start this kind of eating schedule?

Originally Posted by raj:
I just wanted to correct you on "golden rule" in a perfect world and perfect state of mind and body 3 meals a day is the best.

Ahhh but you misunderstood me. I did not say that historically 4-5 meals was there. Actually prior to electric lighting in many cultures 2 meals was much more the norm. Many as you state had the large meal after the hunt and then maybe a light meal at some earlier point.

Perhaps in india they always did three, but in europe they often did far less. NOT that I would consider older cultures a paragon of health and virtue. In the 1600's they consumed alcohol the way we consume water today. (Did you know there was more beer on the mayflower than drinking water?)

My point was that THREE is not some divine magic number. That has never been proven. It is custom, not an inherent part of our body design. Historically, depending on culture, wealth and time of year the "right" number of meals has been anywhere from 1 to 5

Also, in many cases comparing what was best for bodies hundreds of years ago may not be valid considering our current state. How a body that has never had overwhelming excess responds to food is VASTLY different than bodies in our obese culture. I am/was insulin resistant...a far rarer condition eons ago. For someone who has dampened insulin response, small frequent meals are often the only solution to keeping energy, metabolism and blood sugar levels under control.

Tried so hard not to but.......
 

I had to jump in here.

Since I've gotten serious about trying to get myself into some healthier habits, I've been doing a lot of research and have discovered that:

A - you can find a book or article (on most subjects but especially dieting & exercise) that will support pretty much whatever theory you happen to want to subscribe to. And they will all be backed up by "scientific study and research". I would almost be willing to bet that if I tried hard enough I could find a "study" (sponsored by krispy kreme of course) that shows you should be able to lose 10lbs a week by eating nothing but glazed donuts.

B - The authors of those books or articles are very probably genuinely convinced that they have discovered "THE" final word in dieting. This is human nature. We all have a tendency to think only realative to our personal experience - how many times have we heard "If I can do it <this way>, anyone can"? ergo: this way is the right way.

C - Every single weight loss book/article published to date is very obviously NOT "the final" word since every year we see a rash of new "diets to end all diets". How many times has the "scientific community" flip flopped on us with their findings? Avoid all fats! and a few years later - Oh, oops, you do need that kind of fat - go ahead and eat that avocado. And don't forget, in the 1950s some doctors actually touted cigarette smoking as being good for the nerves..........

Conclusion: Exactly what 3FC members have been saying all along - we are all different and have to find what works for us. Even if we have the same blood type, body type, or gender (and yes, there are published diets based on all these things) we still all have different body chemistry and different metabolisms, are going to react differently to different foods, require different calorie counts to function properly, and be able to process our caloric intake at different rates. Sadly, this means that for most of us the dieting experience is going to involve a lot of trial and error and we may even have to "cherry pick" parts out of several different diets to create the plan that works for us.

whew, rant over

Good points, yoyo! It's just like politics: you hardly ever find just one choice that fits you in every way... :)

phhh, when it comes to politics, I wish I could find one choice that fits me in any way :lol: