Posted on 10/08/2013 1:00:44 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Eating five times a day can help keep weight down, a new study has suggested, as scientists reject the idea that three daily meals is the key to staying healthy.
Researchers say a daily routine of breakfast, lunch, dinner along with two further snacks a day can help shed pounds.
But breaking the routine can lead to weight gain—for instance, skipping breakfast is associated with putting on weight, according to the study published in the International Journal of Obesity. …
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
WOO!
Looking at Obama’s countrymen, you’ll have to conclude that cannibalism helps in weight loss.
(Off topic) Last night someone said that Moochele’s “let’s move” or whatever it is, program has NOT been shut down with the government shut down, so I guess it is essential, right?
Thanks for posting that informative article.
I was poking around the internet and just found out that eating before you go to bed does not put on weight, but it can negatively affect the quality of your sleep.
I heard the same. Maybe Moochele will up the ante to 8mealsa day with 6 snacks in between and needs the web page up for that posting.
There’s an old saying - “Breakfast like a king, and dinner like a pauper.”
Jevon Kearse is only 6’4”. I have a younger sister who is 6’5”.
Well...I’ve lost over 3” in measurements over the last week, but, only about 1 lb....goal is 20 more lbs...Pilates, Eliptical, Teadmill and Weights are my new friends. And, yes, eating less, more often, does seem to help.
I love when they say...If diet and exercise don’t work......it always works!
Calories in - Calories out.
Want to lose weight? Eat less and exercise more. Number of meals is irrelevant.
That is an above average size family. :)
Any D-1 athletes?
Actually the article is correct eating three meals a day plus two to three snacks does help you lose weight. The key is that the snack isn’t the same as a meal. Usually your snacks are dependent on your goals. This methodology has been employed in almost every diet that has come out and most people tend to get hungry between three meals and a cot. And yes because every diet employs this methodology doesn’t make it right. Most people confuse eating 5 times a day with 5 meals a day. IF you listen to your body when you eat and stop when your body says it is satisfied, you will lose weight or maintian it. If you think eating 5 times a day means eating five T-day dinners or its equivalent, you would be unable to eat all of that if you are moderately healthy. I used to swim two miles a day and do an hour of water aerobics right after my swim. I ate what I wanted and that included a good dose of McD’s. I lost over 15 lbs. I ate 5 times a day too. I can’t swim now but still eat five times a day and have lost over 50 lbs. So yes eating three meals and two to three snacks a day and you can lose weight. IF you call shananigans, I have the medical records to prove it along with the pictures. I really don’t exercise at all other than normal household chores. I have a sedentary job now. One other thing I dont count calories carbs or points. I eat hat I want and when I want as long as I eat five times a day and never go beyond three hours between eating.
Low-carb diets work great, and those include snacks. A fad diet of a few years back involved NO meals, just 100 calorie snacks every hour (16 hours per day, one on each end, makes 1700 calories a day; IOW, it would depend on one’s age, gender, general build, etc). Also, years ago, one of the ways underweight people were given to put on weight was six small meals a day.
Thanks Olog-hai.
Eat breakfast like a king, eat lunch like a prince, and eat dinner like a pauper
It's what you eat -- not how much or how often you eat it. Cut out the stuff that raises your blood-sugar level: wheat, sugar, fruit [sorry!], and starches.
Eat all you want of the rest: meat, vegetables [except potatoes, corn, and rice (eat these in small amounts)], and dairy. The weight'll fall off with nary a calorie counted.
The nutrition information we get these days is just as bad as the economic analysis they give us.
I kind of wonder about a “fourth meal” that may have existed before industrialization.
To explain, for years, historians were rather baffled, because before industrialization, there were frequent references to “first sleep” and “second sleep”, in a more rural, agricultural society.
Finally the light dawned that people were in the habit of going to sleep after sundown, then waking up in the middle of the night. At that time, they would stoke the fire, tend to young children, and make some preparations for breakfast, cooking over the coals. Then they would go back to sleep, to arise before dawn, eat their by then ready breakfast quickly, not having to prepare it, and set to their morning farm chores.
But into this now imagine the meals of the day. Breakfast, followed by the big meal of the day, called dinner, what we now call lunch, then a smaller meal, supper, before bedtime.
Adding a fourth meal to this makes sense, between the first and second sleep. Thus they would have three small meals and one large meal a day. People would not have a real “break-fast”, because they had not gone the whole night without food.
The proof of this theory would go back to those references for “first sleep” and “second sleep”, to see if they mentioned eating between the two.
BS!
When I entered high school because of a weight height and age formula I couldn’t play varsity football my first year, I was only 14.
I was 6-0 high and 165# so I ate 5 meals a day and worked out 3 days a week and put on 20 pounds in 30 days and qualified for varsity ball.
I had a doc one time who said that if eating before bed put weight on you then we should feed all the starving people in the world at midnight and that would solve the problem...made sense to me!
I was able to keep my weight down to just a little over "average" following typical diets. Now I'm doing pretty well, having broken past that barrier. I consider the nutritional reward of everything I eat....does it have "high value" for nutrition compared to the calories I'm using up? It's taken a few years, but I now have a pretty good list of foods that are tasty, healthy, and make it easy to keep my calories down, under 1200 a day.
The thing that doesn't work for me is eating more than three times a day. I can't be thinking of food all the time. If I eat five times a day, I'll sneak in "a few" extra calories each time. With my healthy and high-nutrition choices, I just don't get hungry between meals so don't overeat. Why? If food doesn't have a lot of junk in it...gravies, corn syrup, added ingredients, the nutrition gets into ones system more efficiently.
One place I disagree with you is dairy. I avoid milkfat in which the antibiotics settle and I'll only eat cheeses that are aged...less chemical poisons in them.
“Piece around”? That almost sounds obscene!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.