Over eating - do we need to eat 3x a day? Skipping meals & going days without + high fat foods

When I was younger I ate 2-5x a day (when I was growing or VERY physically active) but I wouldn't always eat a large meal, usually smaller meals spread out except for one larger meal a day. When I hit ~30yrs old, I was living by myself and I was lazy and didn't want to cook or prepare food and I also had a really bad medical issue that sometime/often didn't allow me to eat much w/o severe pain that could last for hours (SEVERE stomach cramps, vomiting, very high BP, high heart rate, sweating & elevated body temp) so I would often skip eating for a day when I was having bad episodes of this condition.

I found when I would skip eating, hunger "pains" (basically just thinking I was hungry) the worst about 4-8 hours after my last meal and it would reduce after about 8-12 hours and then 24 hours after last meal, I wasn't even that hungry. I tried going a couple to a few days w/o eating many times b/c I didn't want to deal with the medical condition/pains. I would only go through an hour or two of feeling hungry a day on these 2-4 day "fasts". Now I have to admit that I was drinking soda and fruit juices during this, so I wasn't totally starved of calories and I could also drink milk w/o it effecting my stomach problem but I didn't really replace meals with a "liquid diet" and I never drank alcohol during this.

Out of the probably 100+ times I went on these fasts I never really felt weak or "faint" from lack of eating, nor suffered from extreme hunger pains. I think this might have been MUCH more difficult had this not been a personal choice and I was forced to not eat b/c lack of food, fasting for medical reasons (tests), or other issues - I think there is a big psychological aspect to how hunger effects people. Only a couple times did I get shaky during the end of the fasts and then I would eat but what I found was that I couldn't eat a normal size meal - that was much to large. Even though I would be really hungry when I decided to eat (deciding to eat seemed to turn back on the hunger feeling) I would often get sick if I ate a normal size meal (to the point of vomiting or severe stomach pains) but if I would start with a small meal, I would almost never have any issues and I would eat another small meal in 3-4 hours.

I was amazed that I could do this over and over and basically maintain my normal weight or loosing maybe 1-2lbs a week if I fasted for 4 days out of the week. I think a lot of the diets that are mass marketed are the exact opposite of what people should be doing and eating, focusing on low calorie foods so people can eat more. I eat high fat foods but less of it and it is much more satisfying and I feel much more energy from it as well as less stomach problems related to the foods.

I think one of the best foods to eat is whole milk or even 1/2 & 1/2 or heavy cream mixed with your beverage or food of choice. It provides "good" fats that your body can easily process (most people, small amount don't process dairy very well) and I think it is better than eating high sugar foods, unless it's natural sugars like fruits, honey, maple syrup, etc. Butter is another high fat food that got a bad rap to help boost the margarine industries sales. These foods deliver high energy and are very satisfying (making you not eat as much, but eating less higher calorie meals/foods).

Looking at the obesity epidemic, I think it is largely linked to the processed foods, the push to eat 3-5x a day, not promoting fasting at all, and low fat diets - which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what people tried to eat historically - very often only wealthy people could afford high fat foods and it always came at a premium price and that is for a reason!

Has anyone else ever gone many days w/o eating and find that they don't suffer from major hunger issues constantly throughout the period? Anyone find higher fat foods to be more satisfying and be an easier way to maintain a healthy weight or even loose weight?

The problem isn't that we're eating too often, it's that we're eating too damn much in overall quantity at a time. Those calories add TF up.

The American diet & Supersize are synonymous. If you eat a bowl of homemade chili, odds are you're filling a bigger soup bowl and not one of the one-cup little ones. That right there is about 500 calories, give or take due to recipe variations. If you go back for seconds, wham, bam, thank you ma'am, you just snorted most of your daily calorie allotment right there. Doubly so if you're one of the "chili MUST have cheese!" types.

We're fekking fat because we don't know anymore how to put the silverware down and nosh modestly.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I think one of the best foods to eat is whole milk or even 1/2 & 1/2 or heavy cream mixed with your beverage or food of choice. It provides "good" fats that your body can easily process (most people, small amount don't process dairy very well) and I think it is better than eating high sugar foods, unless it's natural sugars like fruits, honey, maple syrup, etc.

Milk is really great for you until you are over about 2 years old, as a human.

Then, not so much at all... it actually includes a lot of risks.

But that's just human milk.

Milk from another species... not at all.

You can get fats from everything else a human normally used to eat without milk.

Lactic Acid is not your friend if you are a human being and over the age of 2.

OMG.. I am on a dietary kick tonight and need to stop.

I was interested in your thread because I juice fast 7 days out of the month and would like to tell everyone about the incredible health benefits I have found because of it.

I'll just stop now...

Children need to eat often, but as adults we don't. Basic diet rules. Don't need to buy books or whatever to maintain a decent weight as an adult.
Of course, medical reasons may come into play, but maybe someone here that is a doctor can chime in.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Wheat, Dairy, Corn, Rice, Potatoes, Sugar, Super high fat processed meat.

Cut those from your diet and lose weight.

I can only share my personal experience with intermittent fasting, which in itself is a problem because everyone's body, system, genetics and amount of calories burned is so vastly different.

I'm in my mid 30's and have always been on the thinner side because of my height and IBS. I'm 6'1" and 168lbs but I've been between 145-160lbs most of my adult life. Anything less than 140lbs and I think I'd be losing muscle tissue.

When I was in my teens and 20's, even early 30's I had an unstoppable metabolism but the past few years "it" started. I gain 10-15lbs in the winter, then it slowly goes back to 160-165lbs, my ideal weight by mid summer. I don't live a very physically active lifestyle, I burn a lot of calories at work comparable to cardio with a little bit of weights here and there. I do chores, walk around to grocery shop in the store to get done asap, and that's it.

My body got into a habit of intermittent fasting the past two years naturally. It's when you only eat for an hour a day but you eat as much as you'd like of whatever you'd like within reason, basically dinner only. I noticed I didn't get hungry enough for it to physically or noticably start to effect my energy levels much until after work in the evening when I was calm and any adrenaline from work and the world had left me. I have some physiological or cellular anxiety that I've learned to live with using alcohol in moderation as a part of my diet but at work I can't and wouldn't have a drink, I even have to pay half an hours wage to get a 30 minute lunch break that I never use. So, my nerves might keep me from getting or noticing hunger, I'm not sure.

I do have 3 or 4 sugary drinks, some with caffiene throughout the day so it's not a true intermittent fast and I also have a late night small snack or two like some cheese or lunchmeat so it doesn't exactly count but similar. I prefer real fruit juice because it's natural sugar and my body loves it. I really notice the difference from feeling bogged down from corn syrup in soda versus a clean energy feeling from the juice. I drink pure grapefruit juice but orange juice is almost the same thing nutritionally. Not so sure about clearer juices. Anyways, it keeps my weight and energy right within my ideal performance and health range as I know it, I might be ignorant to better. I'd imagine everyone's is different though.

If you feel like you need a snack or a lunch, have it. You get used to sensing after you keep a good control over cravings with experience overtime versus a genuine reaction from your body for nutrition or calories.

Yeah, i thought I kind of made it clear I wasn't talking about kids, people growing or VERY active people (athletes, manual laborers - they need the energy).

As for milk, I know many people who drink 1-2quarts a day for whole milk and they are very healthy, strong, energetic, etc. Maybe it depends on genetics, but I don't think it has that much to do with it except for the small % that doesn't handle milk well. Look at school children's health since Obama removed milk from their meals. They have gotten fatter and less healthy and I think Trump is returning milk to their meals.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Yup. I eat maybe 3-5 times a week, usually. Intermittent fasting seems to be an evolutionary adaptation. Weird to get used to, in the modern age. My rule is, eat when you're hungry. Stop when you are sated.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I prefer whole milk because it's a little bit thicker or less watery, makes things creamier when used for cooking such as a cheese sauce or any sauce really, same for mashed potatoes. It's also closer to "real" milk, whatever that is.

I think these low fat everything items became so trendy because of the psychological effect. If your important goal is to lose weight or circumvent worsening health and early death from an existing disease, buying that stuff seems a lot less scary or more motivating and positive for your peace of mind. A symbol you're putting on all of your food to mark it in line with your weight loss plan or diet. It even tastes worse and doesn't cook up as good so you'll enjoy it less, reminding you every time that you're taking a satisfaction loss for your greater good, you're in control of your self image destiny.

Except you rarely are and that's a pipe dream in many cases because it's all genetically limited or influenced. It'll feel more acceptable to "mess up" with or over eat the less satisfying food. Then again, apparently this thing we're talking about like we don't have a problem with it is as bad as or worse than drugs for some people who have obesity and a major nuissance for what, a majority of Americans?

Multi-billion dollar industry as big as drugs too, even selling drugs to make the brain not crave food like drugs. Then, if you stop taking the drugs, you go into withdrawals of intense cravings for food like it was drugs and more importantly, the drugs to stop the drug-like food cravings as well as the drug cravings themselves. I made that part up.

Most prescription weight-loss drugs work by decreasing appetite or increasing feelings of fullness, and some do both. The exception is orlistat, which works by interfering with absorption of fat.

Bupropion-naltrexone is a combination drug. Naltrexone is used to treat alcohol and opioid dependence. Bupropion is an antidepressant and quit-smoking aid. Like all antidepressants, bupropion carries a warning about suicide risk. Bupropion-naltrexone can raise blood pressure, and monitoring is necessary at the start of treatment. Common side effects include nausea, headache and constipation.

www.mayoclinic.org...

This one sounds interesting. Naltrexone a strong opioid receptor antagonist meaning it aggravates those receptors and they pop out the opioid causing respiratory suppression due to an overdose which can be fatal. It's a part of the formulation for Suboxone, a controlled prescription medication to switch opioid dependent people to for maintenance and then taper to baseline.

Apparently other opioids can't plug into the opioid receptors because of the Buprenorphine, the main ingredient, a long acting opioid agonist that doesn't have much euphoria or rush yet has a greater binding affinity than things like Morphine with Naltrexone to make it even less satisfying and other opioids to really not work if you "relapse" onto opioids while on your weird, stronger opioid.

Bupropion is a Dopamine antagonist so it discourages and stops releases and "over" activity of the Dopamine system associated with rewards to help you quit smoking because a cigarette is no longer satisfying. Apparently it works for craving food or anything else good too! This stuff must feel excellent to take prescribed daily.

I'll bet life is a blast just like in the commercials going for a walk with family at the park. On a sidenote, Dopamine antagonists are given to Bi-polar and Schizophrenic patients, they're called Antipsycotics.

The biggest myth is "a calorie is a calorie" not because the scientific definition of what a calorie is is incorrect, but the way it is labeled is incorrect. The way most people are taught is as follows

my.clevelandclinic.org...

Of these six nutrients, carbohydrates, protein and fats provide calories. Each gram of carbohydrate and protein yield 4 calories/gram. Each gram of fat yields 9 calories. A calorie is a measurement, just like a teaspoon or an inch. Calories are the amount of energy released when your body breaks down (digests and absorbs) food. The more calories a food has, the more energy it can provide to your body. When you eat more calories than you need, your body stores the extra calories as body fat. Even a fat-free food can have a lot of calories. Excess calories in any form can be stored as body fat.

This is where this over generalization given to the public is flat out wrong.
There are hundreds of different carbohydrates, some of which are not digestible, while others are. There are several sub categories of them including monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides. The difference between these can mean that there are in fact variations on how much energy your body can get from different types and 4 kcal is only the average.

The way labels are given the amount of calories is by burning food in a method called bomb calorimetry.
( blogs.scientificamerican.com... )
In this method food is burned, and the temperature change in a volume of water is measured, from this the number of calories is extrapolated.

The problem with this is that the bioavailability or the way your body processes these energy containing materials is very diverse with varying levels of efficiency. For instance proteins can be converted into a caloric source if there are available carbohydrates to do so, and in extreme cases it takes 50 grams of protein to convert to the equivalent of 1 gram of carbohydrates in a process called Protein catabolism. Yet when put through bomb calorimetry amino acids tend to have on average the same caloric value as a carbohydrate.

So when it comes down to the "caloric value" of food there is a lot more variability than labels tell you, as they all go through the citric acid cycle ( en.wikipedia.org... ) with some being far more efficient than others, meaning their actual energy contents can vary far more.

However even this is barely touching the surface. If you want to get really far into the nitty gritty of metabolism you can read the following.
en.wikipedia.org...

Catabolism is the set of metabolic pathways that breaks down molecules into smaller units that are either oxidized to release energy or used in other anabolic reactions.[1] Catabolism breaks down large molecules

en.wikipedia.org...

Anabolism is the set of metabolic pathways that construct molecules from smaller units.[1] These reactions require energy, known also as an endergonic process.

en.wikipedia.org...

Glycolysis is a sequence of ten enzyme-catalyzed reactions. Most monosaccharides, such as fructose and galactose, can be converted to one of these intermediates.

Also, what is being talked about in the opening post and the feeling of not being hungry is due to entering a state of ketosis, due to a general lack of glycogen in your blood and your liver after it has been metabolized.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

People should eat only what they need to and to be active in some manner,not sitting on ass on a couch playing video games drinking high calorie energy drinks,why? do you need extra energy to sit for extended periods of time?

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

People should eat only what they need to and to be active in some manner,not sitting on ass on a couch playing video games drinking high calorie energy drinks,why? do you need extra energy to sit for extended periods of time?

Bingo, eat when you need to not when you want to. Fasting regularly is medically known to be great for dead or dying cell omission and new cell generation.
Eating as little as comfortable is the key to life longevity and consistent good health.

Simple.

a reply to: Nyiah

We're fekking fat because we don't know anymore how to put the silverware down and nosh modestly.

Isn't that the truth , it's not just an American problem either although you did export it across the pond and into Europe.
Quantity and quality of food consumed is a problem , one that I am personally grappling with along with the many.

First off, you need to stay within the calorie limits for you age, sex, height, etc. Women need less than men. Growing kids and healthy, active teens need more than both adult men and adult women.

Secondly, the typical American diet is all the way wrong. It's loaded with highly processed foods and sugars. You should shop the perimeter of the grocery store and load up on mainly real food - whole meat, fruits and vegetables, dairy, etc. You should be eating stuff that it mostly cooked by yourself and doesn't come out of a bag or box. And the stuff that does come out of a bag or box should have the shortest list of ingredients you can find and you ought to be able to recognize and read all of the things in it and sugar often shouldn't be listed there.

Fats aren't bad for you. They can be very healthy. They keep you full, fill you up faster, but they need to be healthy fats. Fat from meat, avocado, healthy oils, butter, cheese, yogurt, etc.

Not all carbs are created equal. Highly processed carbs and carbs from sugar are where most of our diet woes come from. Carbs you get from vegetables and fruit aren't bad for you. Even carbs you get from seriously whole grain breads and pastas aren't that bad for you. The big trick is to avoid the sugar spike that comes with processed carbs.

Both husband and I are successfully losing weight just eating mostly made from home food and watching our portions. The problem most have is the unwillingness to wean themselves off the extra sugar and highly processed foods.

As far as how much of you daily intake you get in what form ... different strokes for different folks. Some people do better if they simulate browsing, breaking their calories up into small amounts eaten in many small snacks and meals all day long. I tend to skip breakfast except for a coffee with cream and then eat a larger lunch and smaller dinner with maybe a snack to make up some calories I've missed. It's very close to an IF lifestyle although I'm not sure it's a true IF lifestyle. Other people couldn't take that and need to have a breakfast/lunch/dinner approach.

We all have different metabolisms and you sort of have to work your calorie intake into what works best for you and your lifestyle.

Yeah we need a healthy level of fats, especially god ones such as olive oil or avocado. Same with fish oil or omega 3/6. The low fat craze is becoming debunked.

We need fat even to properly absorb a number of vitamins or minerals such as iron.

Many low or non fat products often have other additives such as extra sugar or flavoring, often making it less healthy.

A good example of bad substitutes was that of butter for margarine, especially margarine made from trans fats. Trans fats are far worse for people than any natural fat in butter.



a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Actually, evidence suggests that it is better to eat often in small amounts throughout the day, rather than singular large meals. Not only does this make one’s metabolism revved up and potentially burning more calories, it’s healthier I think for things like glucose or insulin stability.
a reply to: musicismagic

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I can't do the eat often in smaller amounts approach. I've tried it, and it just makes me have the endless munchies to where I rapidly end up eating way more than I need. That's why I tend to get most of my calories in two larger meals. I can eat to close to satiation or at least to where I feel full enough to not be hungry and break the munchie feeling. I never lose that with the browse approach.

Yeah I get it. I use a mixed model. I do need personally at least 1 or 2 hearty meals, then the rest is often small snacks throughout the day.
a reply to: ketsuko

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

i eat once a day in the evening plus i don't use sugar or drink milk , i have done this for over twenty years with no ill effects.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I live in an area with no fast food outlets for over 100 kilometres in each direction, there are maybe 1_2% of fat people here on average, as soon as you drive to the towns with maccas, KFC burger king etc there are fat people everywhere, there is no mystery as to why..