3 meals a day is the way!
Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating
3 meals a day is the way!
Interesting article debating 3 vs. 6 meals a day; not sure if anyone has posted it yet:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... ekey=56254
-more support for the noS way of life....
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... ekey=56254
-more support for the noS way of life....
- OrganicGal
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:08 pm
- Location: Peterborough
I agree that eating 5-6 small meals a day does not work for everyone. It doesn't work for me. I just end up eating when I'm not hungry and eating more calories overall.
No S works great for me!
No S works great for me!
Creating and sustaining the No S habits are the only thing that will take me in the direction I want to go!
- BrightAngel
- Posts: 2093
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
- Location: Central California
- Contact:
Re: 3 meals a day is the way!
Thanks Gionta,gionta wrote:Interesting article debating 3 vs. 6 meals a day; not sure if anyone has posted it yet:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... ekey=56254
-more support for the noS way of life....
I enjoyed reading this article.
"There's no strong data supporting either [three meals a day or six meals a day]
as being more effective" for losing weight or maintaining lost weight.
"Clearly there is an emphasis on reducing caloric intake overall,
whether it be by decreasing meal size and/or decreasing meal frequency."
Reinhard does say many of these very things in his Book, The No S Diet.The answer, it seems, can only be found within each individual.
The truth is, the more times a day you sit down to eat a meal or snack,
the more opportunities you have to overeat;
this can be a serious problem for some people.
If you are someone who has a difficult time eating a small amount at a meal or snack
(you have a hard time stopping once you get started),
then it's quite possible that, for you, eating five or six times a day isn't the best way to go. . .
And if you have a difficult time sticking to healthier meal choices --
perhaps you have a tendency to choose "junk" foods in between the regular meals --
then eating five or six times a day may end up being a diet disaster
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com
See: DietHobby. com
-
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:11 am
- Location: California
I have posted before, for me I ALWAYS gained weight on more than three meals a day.
So glad I found NO S and the support and encouragment here to let all that go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Blueskighs
So glad I found NO S and the support and encouragment here to let all that go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Blueskighs
www.nosdiet.blogspot.com Where I blog daily about my No S journey
-
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:58 pm
- Location: Illinois
I used to be on the "See Food Diet"...if I see the food, I eat it! And it was basically a one meal per day plan, because it seems like I munched from morning to night!
It still seems weird to me sometimes to pass up food just because I am not hungry, or because it is not a meal time. But I am beginning to learn that it really makes my belly feel bad to be overstuffed. And that food is delicious, if you make the right choices, and you are hungry for the meal.
Thanks for the link, Gionta!
It still seems weird to me sometimes to pass up food just because I am not hungry, or because it is not a meal time. But I am beginning to learn that it really makes my belly feel bad to be overstuffed. And that food is delicious, if you make the right choices, and you are hungry for the meal.
Thanks for the link, Gionta!
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:28 pm
I remember from years ago when my kids were small, whenever I stayed with my parents (my Mum served up 3 square meals a day) I always lost weight. Also, I didn't raid her 'frig like I would my own. That helped!
Ditto! And this is exactly why I think No S has struck such a chord with me and so many others. It "feels" like it did when I was a kid. For me, eating just 3 meals a day has become my "comfort food."
Thanks for the link!
To my mind, the most important distinction in eating behavior is having ANY precise and regular number of meals per day versus total chaos. In other words, 2 vs. 3. vs. 6 is less important than actually having and sticking to any number. The reason I think 3 is best for most of us is that it is easier to stick to. 2 is a tough sell when the tummy's getting rumbly, and 6 can very easily degenerate into "all the time."
There are other reasons I think three is best (like, it's what the vast majority of our skinny ancestors did), but the fact that it's the easiest precise number to stick with is the main one.
Reinhard
To my mind, the most important distinction in eating behavior is having ANY precise and regular number of meals per day versus total chaos. In other words, 2 vs. 3. vs. 6 is less important than actually having and sticking to any number. The reason I think 3 is best for most of us is that it is easier to stick to. 2 is a tough sell when the tummy's getting rumbly, and 6 can very easily degenerate into "all the time."
There are other reasons I think three is best (like, it's what the vast majority of our skinny ancestors did), but the fact that it's the easiest precise number to stick with is the main one.
Reinhard