Eating two meals vs six meals

Tazz

Infidel
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-day-tops-six-mini-meals-for-weight-loss.html

Eating two large meals a day yielded more weight loss than consuming six mini-meals with the same number of calories, according to a study that challenges the common wisdom on appetite control.

Over 12 weeks, people with Type 2 diabetes who ate just breakfast and lunch lost an average of 1.23 points in body mass index, or BMI, compared with a loss of 0.82 point for those who ate six smaller meals of the same nutritional and energy content. The data, in a small study involving 54 patients, were presented today at the American Diabetes Association meeting in Chicago.

The study builds on previous results disproving the theory that eating more frequently improves weight loss. That pattern, thought to work because it helps control appetite, was shown to produce no more weight loss than three regular meals in a 2010 study published in the British Journal of Nutrition. The latest report eliminates one additional meal.
 
I wish they'd be more studies like this. Would be a hell of a lot easier for our truckers. But unfortuatnely too many people eat only one or two big meals a day and pay for it later.
 
Pay for it how?

If obesity is the cause of diabetes (excluding other factors such as diet contents, genetics and exercise levels) and eating less often, but the same number of calories is proven to promote more and faster weight loss than almost constant eating, wouldn't that actually be better in the long run?

Okay, that sounds a little confusing, even to me and I'm the one who wrote it. Let me try again.

It appears this study shows twice as much weight loss for people eating the same foods in the same amounts, but in fewer sittings. If obesity is a main cause of diabetes, all other factors being equal, how could it be bad to get rid of the excess weight more efficiently?

The problem with eating constantly throughout the day is the constant activation of the Sympathetic Nervous System, also known as "Feed and Breed." A body forever in a relaxed state, placed there by a constantly full stomach, cannot burn calories as efficiently as a body allowed to access the Parasympathetic Nervous System, or "Fight or Flight," which will be less active when the body is artificially sluggish from a perpetual supply of food.

My theories on diet, which absolutely fly in the face of conventional wisdom, stem from what I have seen among the Tribes. They didn't have time to be stuffing their maws with grub all day. If they were lucky enough to have staples laid by, they ate in the morning, went off to their work and then ate at night before going to bed. Diabetes was unheard of.

Since the advent of the modern high-carbohydrate diet, eaten several times throughout the day, the incidence of diabetes among the same people has skyrocketed.

Here is a comparison between the Traditional ways of living and eating among Pima Indians in Mexico and a more "Western" (American) way in the US population of Pima:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16873794/



We are doing something WRONG!
 
Last edited:
P
The problem with eating constantly throughout the day is the constant activation of the Sympathetic Nervous System, also known as "Feed and Breed." A body forever in a relaxed state, placed there by a constantly full stomach, cannot burn calories as efficiently as a body allowed to access the Parasympathetic Nervous System, or "Fight or Flight," which will be less active when the body is artificially sluggish from a perpetual supply of food.

Who says the stomach has to be kept full?

What if you're keeping it between 1/4 & half, like you do with your fuel tanks when you're truck is loaded a little bit over gross.
 
Who says the stomach has to be kept full?

What if you're keeping it between 1/4 & half, like you do with your fuel tanks when you're truck is loaded a little bit over gross.

If your body is loaded over gross, it's a good idea to let the tank be empty once in a while. Get rid of some of the reserve fuel.
 
In our hunting and gathering days, we grazed. Babies feed every couple hours, cats and dogs graze, birds graze. Even our fish graze. They don't wait till tea time. I think it wasn't until the turn of the millennium when they came out with a breakfast, lunch and dinner specification.

If the two meals are small, the body will take it a lot easier than 2 big 1000 calorie meals. Its a good study but so are all the other ones. I think many diabetics get diabetes from different ways.

1. The pancreas is predestined to poop out after a certain age... or
2. A virus hits the pancreas that causes lack of insulin production...or
3. Pancreas is fine but the insulin in shoots out is faulty.
4. Pancreas fine, insulin fine, but body can't metabolize the sugar
5. People eat too many sweets, carbs that the pancreas can't keep up
etc

So if a study finds something works for one it doesn't mean it necessarily works for all.
 
Genetics has a lot to do with it as well.

I recently sibmitted a DNA sample to one of those private testing facilities that can check for predisposition of over 250 medical conditions. Just awaiting results now.

@DrDaliah you want to see the report when it's done?
 
Genetics has a lot to do with it as well.

I recently sibmitted a DNA sample to one of those private testing facilities that can check for predisposition of over 250 medical conditions. Just awaiting results now.

@DrDaliah you want to see the report when it's done?

Hell ya!!
 
Genetics has a lot to do with it as well.

I recently sibmitted a DNA sample to one of those private testing facilities that can check for predisposition of over 250 medical conditions. Just awaiting results now.

@DrDaliah you want to see the report when it's done?

Submitting DNA samples?

I'll have to be careful as to what I leave laying around you when we meet again:D.
 
We're not gonna have one of those Phil Donahue "Who's the Daddy" shows on here are we:argue:










Yeah yeah I know bad Tazz:whip:
 
Little late for that crap. Had that problem dealt with permanently twenty years ago. No question who da' baby daddy is, because there's no baby ta' be askin' about.
 
I'm not much concerned with weight loss. I am thin and always have been. But I know I feel better when I eat more often. There were a few times when trucking that I would be really busy. I would get a breakfast buffet in the morning and proceed to stuff myself so I could drive for several hours without having to stop to eat. It worked, but I didn't feel good at all. Same thing if I had a day when I couldn't eat much until the end of the day. Bigger meals just don't sit well with me. I much prefer smaller portions, which means I eat more often.
 
Pay for it how?



My theories on diet, which absolutely fly in the face of conventional wisdom, stem from what I have seen among the Tribes. They didn't have time to be stuffing their maws with grub all day. If they were lucky enough to have staples laid by, they ate in the morning, went off to their work and then ate at night before going to bed. Diabetes was unheard of.




We are doing something WRONG!

As you mentioned what you've "seen among the tribes" it reminded me of the positive results that people have had following what is referred to as the "Warrior Diet". Basically, a concentrated timeframe of eating, followed by a much larger 'Fasting' timeframe until the following day when you start your eating cycle again. Of course the food should be nutrient dense so as to support the body. This component of 'intermittent fasting' has been gaining more popularity in recent years. It's not surprising that it has been shown effective when the food consumed is truly healthy food.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top