Snacking vs three square meals/day

[susan-lynn]

Hi - hope everyone's enjoying the weekend...

The current views seem to be that it's better to have mini meals throughout the day instead of three square meals.

But I find that my snacking is really getting out of control, and adds so many extra calories that are easy to lose track of.

I recently read a different angle: that eating 3 'larger' square meals - with at least 4 to 5 hours in between the meals is the best way to eat - because your body needs enough time to digest the food. If you are constantly eating, your digestion process does not get a break. It encouraged eating a large breakfast, dinner and supper instead of snacking through the day.

Does anyone live by this kind of eating? I think I might try it and see if it helps control my caloric intake better. Any thoughts?

Susan

 

[YasB]

Hi Susan,
The recommendation for eating smaller meals throughout the day is to stabilize blood sugar and hopefully control hunger, but eating more often also boosts your metabolic rate since digestion uses up calories ( This is called TEF: thermic effect of food). Digestion doesn't need a "break" any more than breathing or circulation do, its an ongoing process.

But, like you've found out, its easy for snacking to get out of control and for it to become extra calories. In that case, I would suggest eating three regular meals and plan for a snack for the longest stretch between meals. So, if you eat b-fast b/t 7-8am, have lunch b/t 11-12am, add a snack around 3pm, and then eat dinner b/t 6-7pm.

I get hunger pangs every 4-5 hours, so I'm one of those people who HAVE to eat on schedule. But, I also like to snack in the evening so I save some calories for that extra meal.

Listen to your body and hunger cues to find the schedule that works best for you (which may go against the "current" view on how and when to eat.)

Yas B

 

[JeanneMarie]

I am one of those who eats small "meals" throughout the day. I don't ever sit down for a large meal at any time. I never thought much about it until a recent visit to spend the weekend with my parents.
My mom cooks the traditional 3 meals a day, and when visiting, that is how I eat.
I found myself extremely hungry and sluggish a few hours after each big meal. I had eaten a normal portion, meaning a full meal. Therefore, I would snack in between the large meals. Bottom line, I was packing in way more calories doing it the "3 squares" way than my own style of eating small snacks throughout the day.
I have no idea of the long-term results of eating my mom's way (I've been gone from home 28 years now!), but I do know that the way I eat now keeps my metabolism right where I want it!

Jeanne

 

[l23]

I think it depends on what you feel is best. Sometimes, I'll eat small meals and then snack in between. If these snacks are things like cookies and chips, then this way of eating is not good. If you think you can snack on fruits or something healthy, then you can do this.
If you do find yourself snacking on junk, some people just are better off eating 3 larger meals a day with no snacking. It really depends on what suits you.

I've read that you shouldn't eat more than 500 calories per meal since the body has trouble digesting/metablizing more than this at one time.

Do what you find easiest!