Everyday Systems

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.

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.)

Oh, and: welcome aboard, punkybean!

More like 7 or 8 hours for me between lunch & dinner & I hardly feel deprived

Cassie wrote:More like 7 or 8 hours for me between lunch & dinner & I hardly feel deprived

Same here!

Actually, you have fulfilled the rules exactly, as it is a prerequisite that everyone post a good link at some point.

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