Daily Mail Article touts 3 meals a day

No Snacks, no sweets, no seconds. Except on Days that start with S. Too simple for you? Simple is why it works. Look here for questions, introductions, support, success stories.

Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating

Post Reply
punkybean
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:53 am

Daily Mail Article touts 3 meals a day

Post by punkybean » Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:27 pm

I wanted to share a link to a really good Daily Mail article that recommends three meals a day vs. snacking or mini-meals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... betes.html

This is my first post on the forums, so I apologize if this breaks any rules.

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:08 pm

Good article. Thanks for posting it.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

User avatar
DaveMc
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:28 pm

Post by DaveMc » Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:03 pm

Interesting, but normally my response to this sort of article is "Ignore them, they change their minds every couple of years, anyway." In this case, I agree with their general conclusion, so I'd advise people not to ignore them. :)

It's funny to see the quote where they reassure people that, yes, you *can* in fact go up to (gasp!) four, maybe even *five* hours without eating, with no risk of catastrophic collapse (unless you have a medical problem with blood sugar). Shows how far the snacking culture has taken over: that sort of gap between eating times used to be called "the time between lunch and dinner" rather than "better call an ambulance, someone hasn't eaten for five hours".

(EDIT: I can't help continuing to chuckle over that "four or five hours without eating" quote. I do that *every day*, and I assume most people here do, as well. More like six hours, most days, actually.)

User avatar
DaveMc
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:28 pm

Post by DaveMc » Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:33 pm

Oh, and: welcome aboard, punkybean!

Cassie
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: London

Post by Cassie » Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:34 pm

More like 7 or 8 hours for me between lunch & dinner & I hardly feel deprived :)
Restarting NoS (after going back & forth over the last 4 years) in November 2013.

GOAL: to lose 10 kilos.
HAVE ACHIEVED SO FAR: 1.6 kilo

wosnes
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA

Post by wosnes » Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:11 pm

Cassie wrote:More like 7 or 8 hours for me between lunch & dinner & I hardly feel deprived :)
Same here!
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."

oolala53
Posts: 10069
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:46 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Post by oolala53 » Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:32 pm

Actually, you have fulfilled the rules exactly, as it is a prerequisite that everyone post a good link at some point.
Count plates, not calories. 11 years "during"
Age 69
BMI Jan/10-30.8
1/12-26.8 3/13-24.9 +/- 8-lb. 3 yrs
9/17 22.8 (flux) 3/18 22.2
2 yrs flux 6/20 22
1/21-23

There is no S better than Vanilla No S (mods now as a senior citizen)

User avatar
reinhard
Site Admin
Posts: 5922
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:38 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by reinhard » Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:33 pm

This is great, Punky. Thanks for posting it.
Interesting, but normally my response to this sort of article is "Ignore them, they change their minds every couple of years, anyway." In this case, I agree with their general conclusion, so I'd advise people not to ignore them.


That's more or less exactly how I feel -- except support for meal based eating is so rare in the media that I'm delighted whenever I find it.

Reinhard

Post Reply