Is it dangerous to eat 3 times a day (hearty breakfast, hearty lunch, snack for dinner)? Are snacks a must if there is no hunger between meals?

Is it dangerous to eat 3 times a day (hearty breakfast, hearty lunch, snack for dinner)? Are snacks a must if there is no hunger between meals?

5-Day Anti-Inflammatory Diet Meal Plan

Previous questionIs it scientifically harmful to use headphones frequently, and what negative consequences can this lead to?
Next questionWhy can addicts easily find a huckster with drugs, but the police cannot?

Answers (5)

Answer 1
October, 2020

Very dangerous! The body is such a thing that it replenishes stocks very quickly and stores them wherever it can. And the worst thing is that after that he begins to feed all bacteria in a row, both useful and harmful, which live in us and are fighting for territory. like you and me for the land.

With such a diet, you must forbid yourself to have snacks and arrange a complete fast, at least for three days a month. And intermittent fasting once a week.

Answer 2
October, 2020

One from at most loved ones alike myths o dede says that frequent food small meals rangs reset weight. But, on itself deed, everything will with accuracy to vice versa. However, refuse ot snacks is necessary not everyone. Yes and refuse from snacking follows correct - otherwise failure and torment not avoid!

EH, ONCE, YES MORE ONCE, YES MORE LOTS AND LOTS DIFFERENCE ...

Scientists have studied the diet of 50,000 people over 30 years of age for 7 years. Those ... stoics who regularly ate 1-2 times a day, the weight decreased over the years. The lucky ones who ate 3 times a day, the weight remained the same. And those unfortunates who threw food into their mouths more often than 3 (once a day!), The weight grew smoothly.

Consequently, scientists have come to a very disappointing for them (and - for us) conclusion: to save or - to reduce weight in the long term, it is necessary to observe the 5-6 hour break between breakfast and lunch. And also - completely abstain from snacks during the day.

Maybe or refuse ot snacks and not torment ot hungry? Quite! O like this do correct я and tell in this article.

WHATS MORE THAN MORE.

The fact that "frequent eaters" are gaining weight, in general, is not surprising. After all, we all get pleasure from food. Sometimes - much more than from life as a whole. PTherefore, it is always difficult for the majority of normal people to stay.

Therefore, even if we are full, we often cannot resist - and we put an extra piece of happiness in our mouths. And, as a result, we go through the calories. This is borne out by the sad research diagram.

THAN MUCH - THIS LOWER (A NOT ONLY - THERE WORSE)?

A as Since te happy ones and the lucky ones who tweak lose weight by going on like power mode? On them what are common laws not are distributed ?

Are distributed, and how! The fact is that the majority of people who consciously switch to frequent meals do this with the clear goal of losing weight. It is for this reason that they begin to control not only the frequency of meals, but also its quantity and caloric content.

Therefore, even eating 6 times a day, they consciously eat less than those who unconsciously throw food into the sink, having barely eaten (happy, bored, burned out - you need to underline

).

strong> WHY Rarely - THOSE MORE.

I mean - the less you eat, the more often you feel hungry. Well ... you, it seems, and without any research already knew.

But the scientists who carried out the research had (strange) doubts about the evidence of this truth. Therefore, they chose a group of volunteers and fed three of them and others 17 times a day. Scientists have not left any evidence of which of the groups was really happier. However, I suspect that the group of those who ate 17 times included the scientists themselves, who three times a day fed the studied volunteers with leftovers from their highly trained table.

Sorry - I got lost. So here: the level of glucose in the blood was much more stable among those "lucky ones" who were fed 17 times a day. After all, other nutrition allows you to reduce the surges in the level of sugar (glucose) in the blood.

А this means that those who are more often, feel hunger not only visits less often. It else and weaker than у those who eats rarely. O than you and so, with deep regret, we knew.

HUNGRY STUD?

means or as stated above that tries refuse o snacks and go to to two-three times food of equal value constant flour old? Not o obligatory !

Although - and very likely ... for the vast majority of people. After all, the wrong set of products upsets the balance of the so-called "metabolic hormones" - those that regulate the accumulation and waste of energy. This greatly reduces the ability of the body to spend stored fat reserves in the moments of hunger. Which leads to dependence on another source of energy - carbohydrates.

As a result, a pathology arises, called "metabolic disorder". It is expressed in the fact that the hunger of the "metabolically disorganized" person appears only a couple of hours after eating. After all, after his body burns all the carbohydrates that have been consumed with food, he finds himself in an energy dead end. He is both a person and an organism ... And they, as a duet, urgently need to eat.

After all, according to the idea of ​​nature, after the carbohydrates are used, the body must be burned to burn fat. The body is engaged in a healthy balance of metabolic hormones by reducing the reserves of fat between meals. As a result, the owner (person) of such an organism may not experience the feeling of hunger for many hours.

DAY INDEPENDENCE

Independent this ot words Do not hang. " After all, is the main sign that metabolic hormones are located in balance, is full independence from sources fast carbohydrates: flour, bread and buns, sweets and cookies.

This means that if youralance of hormones - in order, so you can easily get by without sweet and flour as you please. To check, try to spend a day only on salads with fish, meat, milk or eggs.

INDIVIDUALS AND PARTICIPANTS. ulcer, gall bladder, etc.). Your doctor will provide you with a complete list of indications. But he probably won't tell you about one indication to frequent meals. Frequent snacks can help those who have increased "bad" cholesterol - LDL. And also - with an excess of total cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood. Together, this is called dyslipidemia.

The listed factors mean that your heart - in serious danger. After all this many times increases risk hypertension, heart attack, stroke, atherosclerosis.

Study results They show that people with dyslipidemia should eat more often: snacks can improve test results. But - not always! I mean, there is always a "but" ...

SNACKS WITHOUT OVERRIDE .

To help to bring "bad" cholesterol to the norm Snacks should consist of the right products in the right proportion (as well as the main meals).

Correct healthy (or - therapeutic) diet this ration correct balanced by content saturated fat, glycemic , specific caloric value (in whole - 15 different parameters).

And, most importantly, even to a super-healthy diet, you need to go step by step and slowly. After all, if you hurry up, then the disturbed balance of metabolic hormones will not have time to recover. And around the corner of every right lunch or dinner you will have pangs of hunger and evening fever.

For Receive example what looks like correct balanced ration, press to this button :

BIG FOOD BIGO SPORT.

There is one more category of people to whom the general rules for the harmfulness of snacks do not apply. These are the heroes of great sport. Frequent meals for them can improve results:

  • reduce lean muscle loss when dieting low in calories;
  • significantly increase lean muscle mass and anaerobic power with a normal diet;
  • significantly increase "fat burning".

The only thing: even if you go to the gym 3-4 times a week, sorry, it's too early for you to classify yourself as a great sportsman (and sportswomen). We are talking specifically about those heroes who dedicated their lives to great sport.

NUTRITIOUS CONCLUSIONS.

And while you understand, Is it possible (already) to assign you to the category of "great sports", I will quickly move on to the conclusions. And forgive me very much if my important conclusion sounds somewhat ambiguous: the value (for losing weight) is not only the size (portions), but also the frequency (of the food):

  • snacks are bad for most people: they lead to weight gain;
  • to maintain or lose weight, it is necessary to observe the 5-6 hour break between breakfast and lunch, as well as completely abstain from snacks during the day;
  • snacks (especially sweet and starchy ones) maintain the "imbalance" of metabolic hormones and lead to dependence on snacks (that is, to the occurrence of hunger in 1-3 hours after eating);
  • however, nutrition on a properly balanced ration will allow you to easily and satisfyingly switch to 2-3 meals a day so that it restores the balance of metabolic hormones;
  • Regular snacking (with the right food) can help lead to "bad" cholesterol levels. " And for athletes - to increase dry weight and reduce the amount of fat.

I personally have lost weight with an effective fat burner that is safe. I recommend reading the home weight loss diary, which tells about the safest, strongest fat burner. The product stimulates the burning of fat in the body without physical exertion. It has a very powerful effect . If interested, here is the link

Answer 3
October, 2020

As far as I know, snacks are recommended for those who feel hungry between meals. Firstly, a snack will protect you from overeating, for example, at dinner. Second, hunger is determined by blood sugar levels. When this level falls, first there is a "hot" hunger, when we want to eat something and we begin to scour the refrigerator. And then this feeling of hunger becomes unbearable, and the lower the sugar level falls, the stronger the hunger.

So if after breakfast you can safely live until lunch, be calm.

Answer 4
October, 2020

No, not dangerous. With one condition: At least five hours should pass between meals so that the digestive system has time to process food and cleanse the intestines of derivatives. With this type of food, snacks are unacceptable. you overload the system and force it to run non-stop, not allowing the intestines to "cleanse".
There is a wonderful book on this topic, "The Adorable Bowels" by Julia Anders, I recommend reading.

Answer 5
October, 2020

From my own experience, I eat according to the feeling of hunger. Here, of course, you need to be careful, you can make a mistake, a false feeling of hunger after eating, it is ... In this case, a glass of water helps out. Sometimes for normal functionality, with the current unhurried (who has how) pace of life, there is enough one-time meals of average density. In the morning a light breakfast, then lunch, without gluttony, in the evening a glass of kefir.

Frequent meals are a relic of difficult times in the past. In our world (our country) it is difficult to die of hunger. By and large, our dense food is down the drain)), and nothing more. If there is no time to stop and calmly take normal, ready-made, hot food, then it is better to drink a glass of water and wait for such a moment. And planning the day is worth with the allocation of such time for eating. War is war, and lunch is on schedule.

Our life is also time for food. We cannot live without it, and with an uncorrected diet is also not life.

Related question

What will happen if there is a doshirak for breakfast, lunch and dinner all month?

Read more

If you eat unsweetened (hearty) pancake from Teremok every day for breakfast, lunch and dinner, will you lose weight or gain weight? How many calories are that per day?

Read more

What is the difference between eating 1 meal a day, 3 times a day, and more than 3 times a day?

Read more

Stop Eating 6 Meals a Day!!!

What is useful to buy from food, if there is no time for cooking and I only have time to fully have supper (morning and lunch - a small snack than will come across)?

Read more

Is it bad to eat snacks instead of meals?

Read more

Is it better to eat 3 meals a day or graze?

Read more

For breakfast semolina porridge. At lunch I eat both the first and the second. And for dinner, an apple or a banana, washed down with 2.5% kefir. This is normal? What are the consequences?

Read more

If I have a good supper, then in the morning he just breaks with animal hunger and hunger pain in the stomach, if I eat something light / don't eat there are no such problems. This is normal? How it works?

Read more

What's the DASH Diet and Why Doctors Call It the Best Diet

Do we really need to eat 3 times a day?

Read more

Why is everyone talking about the benefits of fractional meals (eat 5-6 times a day in small portions), but everywhere they practice 3 meals a day (army, school, work, etc.)?

Read more

Why is it so nice to eat small crispy foods (chips, seeds, nuts), even if there is no feeling of hunger?

Read more

Is it possible to lose weight if there is no time for sports?

Read more

Is it safe to eat rice after 3 days?

Read more

I Ate Once a Day for a Month, See What Happened to Me

What exercises are effective at home if there is no time for the gym?

Read more

Pregnancy: how to get rid of it if a girl is (most likely) pregnant for about 3 days and refuses to eat emergency hormonal pills?

Read more

I have a temperature for about a week 37-37.1, I have a headache from time to time, there are no more symptoms. What is it?

It's the same with my mom, only for three weeks now. What could it be?

Read more

No living thing needs to eat three times a day. Why does a person need this?

Read more

Why is it dangerous to drink coffee more than 2 times a day?

Read more

TAKEAWAY Breakfast | Supersize Vs Superskinny | S04E02 | How To Lose Weight | Full Episodes

Have there been times when bananas hit a healthy person? I have been eating 3-5 kg ​​bananas a day for over 3 months now. I'm 20 years old, is everything ok?

Read more

If eating before bed is bad, why is it good to sleep after dinner?

Read more