Is it OK to graze?
 

Happy Monday everyone! So I have a pretty common question (I imagine): Is it better to graze throughout the day, or stick to 3 concise meals?

Since I started on WW (flex plan), I've been having a light breakfast and then I've been bringing loads of fruits and raw veggies with me to work. The fruits are usually 1-2points, and I only bring 0point veggies. I have been trying to eat something every few hours. I usually have a salad or a whole wheat turkey sandwich from the cafeteria for lunch, then another snack mid-afternoon, and then I have the rest of my points close to dinner (and my daily sweet treat sometime after dinner).

As I mentioned last week, I haven't been hungry much at all. BUT, I feel like I'm eating all the time.

What are your thoughts on this? Is it better to have 3 more "normal sized" meals and no snacks, or 2 light meals and snacks and 1 normal sized meal every day?

I think it depends on what you feel comfortable with.

I eat breakfast, have a snack between breakfast and lunch, eat lunch, another snack, then dinner, and sometimes a snack after dinner. So I eat 5-6 times a day, about every 3 hours. I think my main meals tend to be smaller than most other peoples because of the snacks (BTW, snacks are usually fruits, veggies, or a dairy product for me)

I think you'll find that most people prefer meals + snacks. (And planned snacks aren't the same thing as grazing--grazing implies random, unconscious eating, probably off-plan :) ).

The two main advantages to regular snacks are, 1. you never get to be starving so you'll be less likely to overeat at meals, and 2. small, regular meals are the best thing for your metabolism: they keep it cranking round the clock and you're always using a few extra ounces of energy for digestion.

I tend to not really graze, but eat when I'm hungry (not starving) and it actually helps me not over eat. I read somewhat that when you get over hungry, it messes up your blood sugars and throws you out of wack. (not the terribly scientific way to say it, but point made :dizzy:). I think whatever keeps you from overeating, whether grazing or three meals must be okay!!

Some folks do just fine with 3 main meals--others get too hungry in between. It's all what works for you! I eat 3 meals and 3 snacks, but I leave 2-3 hours between each one. I do have one of those snacks in the evening.

Jay

I think that any eating method where you can keep your calories/points/whatever you're tracking in line is fine. For me, that's 3 meals, 3 snacks. For others, it may just be the three meals, or it may be 6 mini-meals. If you can configure it so you're not hungry, you'll be much better on plan!

When I first started I'd eat three meals a day and that was that. Since the start of this year I've mixed it up a little by having breakfast (8am) snack (11.30am) lunch (2pm) snack (4.30pm) and dinner (6pm non workout/8pm workout)

Little and often, I'm very rarely hungry. I still have to deal with the issues of wanting to eat just 'because' but it seems to be working well. Only thing is I feel like I'm eating all the time and worry my boss is thinking that I'm not working hard (what with the food and getting enough water and subsequent toilet breaks I feel like I'm never at my desk!)

Totally up to you - whatever works for you to keep you happy, satisfied and within your calorie total for the day (or points or whatever).

I am a grazer, I eat 7-8 times a day. Today is a typical weight loss day (I am trying to lose the 5 lbs I gained over the holidays/work trip):

B 7:00 am - 2 Kashi waffles, 1 with natural peanut butter, 1 with jam

S 10:00 am - baggie of fresh bing cherries

L - 12:00 pm - spinach salad with grilled chicken, beets, grape tomatoes, carrots, red onion, red pepper, fat free balsamic vinaigrette

S - 1:00 - no sugar added hot cocoa

S - 3:00 - orange

S - 5:30 - cut up veggies - celery, baby carrots, grape tomatoes, red pepper strips

D - 7:30 - broccoli/cauliflower stir fry with calimari strips, ginger, onion, garlic, carrots, served over measured brown rice

I am not usually hungry after dinner, if I wanted an after dinner snack, I rotate through these favorites: 100 calorie kettle corn pop corn, baked apple with blueberries, banana dipped into 2 tbs of heated pumpkin butter, roasted pineapple with a drizzle of chocolate

I eat frequently, but I pay attention to calories. Also, I never truely "graze" (eat out of a container) - everything is measured and portioned!

All very excellent suggestions! Thanks so much. I should have clarified that I didn't actually mean "graze" in the same way that I "grazed" the office pot-luck buffet several times before the holiday. :) These days, my grazing consists of eating small, pre-measured snacks that fit into my points allocation over the course of a day.

I find that eating small amounts throughout the day ("grazing" to me) on the weekends, makes me hungry and out of diet practice on Mondays. On weekends, I'll eat breakfast around 9, lunch around 1 and eat more non-points food throughout the day. Then, Monday comes and I have to have breakfast at 7, lunch around 1:30 and dinner around 7 with no snacks. By Wednesday, that eating schedule is OK with me again.

That's the only problem I see with grazing... if it wasn't for work, I'd prefer it.

You have to figure out what works best for you dear. For me, I eat every 2-3 hours, so I eat all day basically lol. I do feel like im constantly eating, but its working.

You will figure it out!! Good luck!

I eat a minimum of 5 times a day, but most days I will eat more often. Sometimes I even graze and it is ok if its on the right stuff (veggies)

Most common pattern for me might be
early am...preworkout snack (~ 100cal) (sometimes)
breakfast ~ 7am
morning snack ~10
lunch ~12
afternoon snack ~2:30
late afternoon snack ~4:30-5
Dinner ~6:30-7
night snack ~8 - on occasion, usually on a high workout day.


Some days like today I was pressed for time and I ate 1/2 my breakfast at 7:30, took my kid to preschool and ate the other 1/2 at 9 with an extra fruit.

Originally Posted by Ray of Light:
Short answer: NO

Grazing does not train the body and mind for 3 full meals - and if necessary a snack. Your whole day becomes one big crave and so you nibble all day long. It does not help with making food, shopping, prepping a small part of your life - it becomes your whole life.

Ray xo

No, it "trains your body" to be satisfied with small amounts of food and not to NEED to be full aka stuffed.

With all due respect, if 3 meals a day works for you great, but many people do much better with small frequent meals and snacks. there is no NEED to "train your body" for 3 meals...there isnt any golden rule that says 3 meals is best...its just what worked with the industrial revolution.

And food shopping and prep is hardly my whole life.

i keep reading that the small meals are better for metabolism. but obviously anything that you find hard to stick with or uncomfortable will not work for you. if you are more comfortable doing three meals, i'd stick to that. more comfy with snacking? i'd do that. as long as your ratios are in check and balanced i think either way would work. just my two cents.

Ray of Light, I can't find any evidence that small, frequent meals "wreck havoc" with blood sugar. If anything, it's the other way around.

A large meal will often keep one feeling full without a snack--you're right about that. It's a matter of how hungry someone gets.

Jay

Originally Posted by Ray of Light:
Hi ennay,

I'm sticking with my answer. Tightly. And grazing wrecks havoc with blood sugar levels anyway. Good solid meals should keep you going for a good 5/6 hours.

Anyway - it's all just comments - nothing serious.


Ray

I'll stick with my answer too! I lost 70 lbs and have kept it off for 3 years while eating 6-7 times a day. I do grocery shop a lot. When I was fat, I spent a lot of time miserable and dreaming about losing weight. I'd much rather be shopping for baby carrots wearing my size 6 jeans than crying in my bed under the covers :)

I think it depends completely on the indvidual. I HATE being hungry, I make really bad food decisions, I eat too quickly and too much. I am so much happier if I have a snack! If someone is fully and happy on 3 meals a day, I would definitely tell them to keep doing what works for them!

Another snacker here. 6 small meals every day. Some are really more like snacks, but none of my meals are over 350 cals (unless I am eating out and plan for it). This has honestly been a new strategy that has really worked for me. Keeping myself from getting too hungry has eliminated all of my binge behavior. I thought that I ate ravenously when I got home from work because I was an emotional eater. Not true. Skipping breakfast and often lunch too made me a binge eater.

I can't believe the difference this one change has made in my whole rate of success :)

Another frequent eater. I have 5-6 meals and snacks a day-- typically something like:

8a: 1/2 c rolled oats and 1 c blueberries w/2 tablespoons ground flaxseed
10a: 1 Babybel cheese
Noon: 2 tablespoons PB on a whole wheat pita and an apple
2p: carrots, broccoli and hummus
4p: fat free yogurt and cottage cheese
7p: 4 oz chicken breast with garlic and a hint of pesto on wilted spinach
8p: 1 Dove Dark square

I think the best way to eat is the way that works for you. If you need to "train" yourself to eat 3 meals a day, well, go for it!-- but all that ever trained me for was eating everything I could find in the cupboards the second I walked in the door from work. I'd mindlessly toss back 400-500 calories while I cooked a 400-500 calorie dinner...

I like having 3 meals a day and 2 small snack in between... it keeps me satisfied!

Originally Posted by Ray of Light:
Hi ennay,

I'm sticking with my answer. Tightly. And grazing wrecks havoc with blood sugar levels anyway. Good solid meals should keep you going for a good 5/6 hours.

Anyway - it's all just comments - nothing serious.


Ray

I would be interested in references if you have them (serious ones please). The is the opposite of what I learned in grad school nutrition and the opposite of what the nutritionists and dieticians I work with say.

I think that for weight loss, one should do what works for them....so if three meals works for you, great. But lots of people read this site and I would not want them to have an opinion misconstrued as a fact.

So it kind of is serious if you have someone who is here learning about nutrition, and they accept this statement as fact that applies across the board.

Originally Posted by Ray of Light:
Yes it's whatever works right? and frequent meals is what got me into trouble in the first place, and many others I know.

Grazing reinforces a lack of impulse control, which is a problem for people with low serotonin and for those who are sugar sensitive and those who are sugar sensitive and don't know it. Eating 3 meals a day and a snack (if necessary) gets you to pay attention to what food really feels like in your body. You teach yourself to stop and start, not one big "well when can I eat again" and all the calculations that ensue....it's mind boggling.

There is just as much solid research in favour of 3 meals as there is in 5 or 6. Again it's up to the individual to make that choice.

Ray xo

Not if the choices are planned and healthy.

Perhaps we are focusing on different definitions. Planned small frequent snacks/meals can reinforce impulse control and maintain blood sugar levels. We are not talking about grazing on cookies here.

I am going to stick very firmly to- whatever works for your individual body chemistry and emotional mindset! For me- just call me Snackerella, because I will often eat 6-8 small meals/snacks a day. Sometimes I eat lightly during the day if I'm busy, and have a larger dinner. BUT- that is ME! I LOVE to eat! It is fun for me to anticipate my snacks as treats throughout the day. When I hit 1400 calories, I'm done for that day. Period. Other people would 1) never feell full, or 2) feel like they were obsessing about food too much, or 3) hate to have to count every calorie. Trial and error, baby, because every one of us is a unique and special, highy complex fat-burnin', beautiful biological machine!

Thanks for the leads, although commercial books were not quite what I was after. There might be a bias in what they are selling. I'll actually look into some literature as well when I get a chance to see if we need to update our guidelines.

I think the cultural construct of how often we eat is fascinating. And it has direct applications to not only weight loss, but other things as well.

What is normal for humans as mammmals? In some cultures, breastfed infants nurse several times an hour. This can surprise parents who expect their babies to eat every 4 hours (a la formula fed infants). How biology and culture often conflict in how often and why we eat is interesting.

Anyway, this is another time for a good reminder to not take posts as medical advice.

I think whatever makes you feel satisfied is best! I happen to like to eat all the time. It feels luxuriously satisfying to me. I do best on the days I work. I pack up my lunch bag with small portions of lots of different healthy foods and eat away. Like lots of folks say on here, however you do it, planning is key.

Well... the way I do it is that I have 3 meals and 3 snacks, but it is not GRAZING because I have 2-3 hours between each one.

Here is a typical calorie breakdown:

Breakfast: 200-300 cals
Snack 1: 50-100 cals
Lunch: 300-350 cals
Snack 2: 100-200 cals
Dinner: 300-400 cals
Snack 3: 100-150 cals

Average total: 1275 cals
Grams of carbs: around 150 g

There is no way that eating like this that I am spiking my blood sugar. I'm familiar with both Sugar Busters and Sugar Blues, so I avoid refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup, and so on.

Jay

Three meals - four snacks
 

I consume three meals and four snacks in order to prevent "grazing" (using the pejorative meaning for eating out of control). I'm never more than a few hours away from a meal or snack, so find it easy to Just Say NO when confronted with an unexpected food opportunity.

__________________
XXXXXXX 7 XXXXXXX 14 XXXXXXX 21 XXXXXXX 28 XXXXXXX 35 XXXXXXX 42
Completed Beck Program-day 42. You’ve met your goal. Congratulations!

I eat 6-7 meals a day, buy I lost weight via a combination of whole foods + calorie counting and I avoid white flour, packaged baked goods - most foods that would be considered "high glycemic." I understand that I do have sugar sensitivity - so I eat a lot of frequent meals and I don't eat a lot of foods that spike my "sugar cravings." A snack for me is fruit or a bag of cut up veggies (today, my 3 snacks are: bing cherries for mid morning, a tangelo for the afternoon and a bag of cut up veggies - baby carrots, celery, grape tomatoes and red pepper strips for around 5:30). We might have different interpretations of SNACKS. I'm not eating Cheezits or a bagel for my snacks!

Throughout my weight loss, I've eaten 5-7 meals and snacks each day. I agree that everyone needs to find their own way, but I think this type of plan has worked well for many people here. To say one way is RIGHT and the rest of us are all somehow misled, even if successful, seems awfully rigid.

Of course, the definition of "snack" is key. For me, it's just a smaller portion and/or easier preparation of the healthy food I would normally eat. If your snacks OR your 3 main meals are junk, loaded with HFCS, trans fats, saturated fats, white starchy food, etc., you may have problems!

Here are a couple of reasons for my approach:

>I exercise 5-6 times a week. I can't challenge myself with activity when I'm either too full or too hungry. Eating small meals/snacks before and after keeps me energized.

>My diet is more well-rounded when there's room for variety. Six choices of fruits, veggies, proteins, whole grains, and healthy fats leaves me more satisfied at the end of the day.

>And of course, as others have mentioned, when I've eaten more recently I don't approach mealtimes ravenously. I can slow down, make good choices, and savor them.

Sorry, I didn't mean to spin everyone up like this. ;)

To clarify, by "grazing" I meant having 2 light meals and 1 normal meal and 2-3 pre-measured, whole-food, low-cal snacks throughout the day. I do not drink pop (not even diet pop), coffee, tea, etc. and I generally am able to avoid processed foods (I occasionally will eat canned vegetables). I don't often go out to dinner, and I don't eat things that come in shiny wrappers or out of vending machines. If I didn't cook it, I generally won't eat it (partly just because I don't know how many WW points it contains! :^: ). I don't eat enriched flour, I try to avoid HFCS, and I cook mostly with olive oil. I get plenty of calories using mostly whole foods.

My typical daily diet:
Breakfast (7:30AM): 2 boiled eggs (whole)
Snack (10AM): banana/apple
Lunch (noon): spinach salad with cherry tomatoes, mushrooms, some kind of beans usually, a teeny bit of cheese, ... other 0 point veggies, and fat-free italian dressing....
Snack (2PM): grapes/strawberries
Snack (4PM): raw peppers/raw sugar peas/etc.
Dinner (6PM): grilled chicken breast, steamed veggies, maybe some kind of potato something....
After Dinner treat (8PM): something 2pts or less that is sweet.

So, the "snacks" that I'm talking about are always either 0 or 1 WW point, and are usually of the raw fruit/veggie variety.

That being said, my mom is diabetic. She has to check her blood sugar twice a day. In the morning, right before breakfast, she checks it. At that point, it is low, because she's been sleeping all night and it's been several hours since her last meal. After breakfast, her sugar comes back up. I would assume, therefore, that before lunch, since it's been a few hours since breakfast, that her sugar would have come back down.... so if you plotted her sugar level over the course of a day, it would create a sine curve, with the crests of the curve being near the time of day when she ate.

I don't know, but I've been told that metabolism works similarly. A while back I had some trouble, and the doctors kept telling me that by not eating, I was actually slowing down my metabolism. Even more specifically, we've probably all been encouraged to eat breakfast because it "jumpstarts your metabolism" for the day.

Obviously, there is a large amount of subjectivity to this topic, and everyone should find the solution that works for them.

I eat constantly too. But I think it's because i split up my meals... A pear first, couple hrs later some yogurt, then lunch, then LC cheese and wasa cracker, then dinner, then a 1 -3 point snack.... thats my basic meal cycle. It works for me. I try to drinks LOTS of water, and I feel like I am actually hungry when I eat... not just eating out of boredom like I usually do at work.

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: