Does three meals each day require healthy eating?

kommodevaran

One of today's intermittent fasting discussions suddenly made me wonder about this. I'm normally (for the last 9 months or so) eating three meals a day, 3-4 hours apart, and this apparently qualifies as IF. Whenever I get sucked into a discussion about IF, I get the feeling the consensus is that it takes some kind of superhuman willpower to "only" eat three meals a day, and/or not eat for 16-18 hours in a 24 hour period. I'm actually mind blown. Not only is this a meal pattern I ended up with naturally, it's also a meal pattern I remember from a time when most people were slim and not constantly preoccupied with food. I'm not starving myself, I'm not eating less than I did when I ate 6 meals a day, I'm not feeling more hungry, and I'm not feeling more full, my meals are not gigantic, they are normal size, and I eat the same kinds of foods regardless of meal pattern.

The advantages of limiting number of meals and/or time to eat, is summed up perfectly here:
https://www.core3training.com/why-meal-frequency-matters/

First, it’s much easier to anticipate and plan for three good meals per day rather than feel pressured to perfect five or more separate eating episodes. The result is simply less decision fatigue. Second, it fits in more conveniently with most peoples’ lifestyles to eat about three meals per day. Third, it helps us tune into their hunger and satisfaction cues and gauge their metabolic “flexibility” as they start to realize it’s okay to feel hungry on occasion (i.e. the world isn’t going to end if you can’t eat every two to three hours).

Lastly, it helps to facilitate other lifestyle changes that probably need to happen concurrently anyway, such as getting to bed at a reasonable time.

But I'm forgetting my own question... I feel I have a reasonably healthy diet. Nothing that screams extremely healthy, just ordinary meals made from simple, cheap ingredients. I do go to some lengths to get balance and variety and what I like. I like it so much that I can easily wait until it's time to eat, and when I've eaten, I feel satisfied. Not always "full", but at least not hungry anymore. I'm not particularly hungry when I wake up in the morning, but I always look forward to a good meal.

So what I'm asking is, I think - is frequent eating a necessity if we "burn through" food too fast? Is it a habit? Preference? Or is it something we just think we have to do?

sosteach

It is a personal preference. Looks to me like you are doing great!

BWA468

Just eat when you're hungry but stay within your calorie limit. You could eat all your calories in 1 meal a day if you wanted too and still lose weight if you are under your calorie limit. It's just personal preference.

deannalfisher

personally, I think its a preference, I tend to graze (for lack of a better word) and my MFP diary is set up as time blocks rather than meals. Because my work schedule is flexible enough that I could be at my desk for 8 hours, or I could be in meetings for 8hrs a day (and apparently General Officers don't appreciate you eating at a meeting) - so I tend to eat when I can - and it hasn't really hurt me (down 11-12lbs)

I remember staying with my grandmother - who ate by the clock - breakfast was 7am, lunch at 12pm and dinner ar 5:30 and woe be you if you aren't hungry then

astrampe

It is a preference - we all do what we like....I like having snacks on weekdays, but eat only two or three meals on weekends...No laws - just whatever works for you....

kommodevaran

Thanks for all the great contributions so far. It's really interesting to see how many setups that can work, and how we think about the way we eat. I also agree with https://www.planetnaturopath.com/nutrition/many-meals-day/ that eating more frequently is good or even necessary if you need to eat more - if you're very active, growing, elderly, or lacking appetite. For me, who just need to not regain weight, three meals a day is perfect. I liked 6 meals a day too, but this is better.

lemurcat12

kommodevaran wrote: »

One of today's intermittent fasting discussions suddenly made me wonder about this. I'm normally (for the last 9 months or so) eating three meals a day, 3-4 hours apart, and this apparently qualifies as IF. Whenever I get sucked into a discussion about IF, I get the feeling the consensus is that it takes some kind of superhuman willpower to "only" eat three meals a day, and/or not eat for 16-18 hours in a 24 hour period.

I always think that is weird too, when people think it's a weird hard thing (if they want to do it, anyway), but I think some people just have really distorted ideas about eating patterns. I don't know -- I'd be surprised if the average person around thought it was a big thing to skip a meal, let alone to eat only 3 meals, which is pretty much traditional eating patterns in much of the world (it was in the US when I was growing up, although it was common for kids to have an after school snack).

I think lots and lots of people skip breakfast anyway.

But I think IF normally implies skipping a meal, not a 3 meal pattern -- for example, eating between 7 and 3 or 12 and 8 (or some smaller window). I did that for years and was normal weight part of the time, fat part of the time, so I don't think it's special, but I think it probably is easier for some people.

(For the record, I eat only 3 meals, but don't IF under any definition, since I have a long break between lunch and dinner -- normally I eat around 6, 12, and 9.)

So what I'm asking is, I think - is frequent eating a necessity if we "burn through" food too fast? Is it a habit? Preference? Or is it something we just think we have to do?

I think it's a preference that works for some people, and for others (as it was for me) just a habit. I find I eat way more if I graze, and would even if I graze only on nutrient dense foods.

kommodevaran

@lemurcat12

Yes, weird and distorted are definetely words I was looking for. I too grew up with an afternoon snack, and usually an evening meal, in addition to the three regular meals, but at the time I would have been old enough to handle only three meals, the concept of snacking as an important part of good nutrition, for all age groups, had already become ingrained. My own ideas are distorted as well, and it's really weird: There's a gap between what I believe and what experience has told me. I "knew" I should eat often to keep my "metabolism" going, and that skipping a meal was bad because it would lead to overeating later. But real life tells me differently; skipping a meal is not a big deal. It's not even a real issue; I have never fasted for a full 24 hour period. And it's very hard to prove the metabolism thing, it would take weeks of consistently following one eating pattern, logging food intake and weighing myself, and then another pattern, food intake and weighing. And when I think about it, my common sense tells me it can't, just can't, make a difference. I try to challenge those false beliefs, but it's hard! We need to become aware of them first, and it's difficult, because factoids feel just like facts.

To the 3 meals OR intermittent fasting thing - breakfast, lunch and dinner at (for instance) 10, 13 and 16 - which is a common enough occurence in my home - is the "hardcore" version 18:6, while still eating three meals.

Today one of my projects is to investigate the dynamics between habits and preferences.

amusedmonkey

Modern cultures have settled on a pattern of eating that includes 3 meals, and in some cases a small 4th meal. Meals are often spread out over the day with 5-6 hours between meals, not 3-4. Maybe that's why you are getting pushback. In most cultures, breakfast is eaten at 6-9 am so it's normal to find an eating pattern where breakfast is eaten later unusual and to give it a special name to distinguish it (or to call people who don't eat within that time frame breakfast skippers).

It's mostly habit and tradition that fits the generally regulated work hours today. Nowadays people get up early for work, eat for energy, eat midday to stave off hunger until they're back from work for the main meal. In some countries that main meal takes place in the afternoon and is the main energy source, followed by a light supper to stave off hunger until next morning. So basically the real pattern of eating is one main energy dense meal a day and smaller other meals to not be hungry.

History supports this idea, that there needs to be at least one big meal. In Roman times that's all there was. One meal eaten midday. For some hunter gatherer societies, it's sporadic grazing throughout the day with the main meal taking place in the evening if food is available and breakfast if there were leftovers.

So yeah, various patterns of eating are healthy and viable. There is no requirement for a number or time of meals as long as you get at least one meal a day with enough energy to sustain living over a period of time. Now if you want to get into nitpicky details, having meals spread out over the whole day with enough protein is slightly better than having all protein within a small timeframe, but the difference is not significant enough to matter to 99% of the population.

There is also this thing with meal timing affecting the circadian rhythm and a preference for ending food consumption earlier in the day for that reason. They are also looking into using meal timing to make it better for shift workers, people with jet lag, and people with circadian rhythm issues...etc. This is mostly too specific for most people to worry about. The importance of this is yet to be determined anyway as this is a new topic and needs more research.

It's possible to entrain hormones to any eating pattern in a way that initiates hunger and anticipation shortly before mealtime, whenever that is, but some patterns are naturally easier for some people than others, so just do what you like and what works.

cs2thecox

astrampe wrote: »

It is a preference - we all do what we like....I like having snacks on weekdays, but eat only two or three meals on weekends...No laws - just whatever works for you....

Me too.
I have to have planned snacks at work to avoid the unplanned lure of the vending machine.
But I'm often so busy at the weekend doing things that take my mind off food, and I find I don't notice the lack of snacks.

My trainer keeps reminding me that from a nutrition and biological point of view, your body is fairly agnostic about when you eat. It's almost all to do with how your head feels about it!

nyponbell

I can't stomach fewer but larger meals and prefer to eat "snacks" (maybe an hardboiled egg and apple slices, some other fruit etc) between them. I have been this way since I was a child and although I often feel that for weight-loss it would be easier to eat fewer but larger meals, I know it won't work for me - not unless I work through the stomach pains (both from basically overstuffing and then from hunger) and that is not something I want to do. My current schedule works with my eating pattern so there is no reason to change it.

jgnatca

I got used to frequent meals and snacks as part of my diabetic training as a way to keep blood sugars normalised. But of course people without diabetes don't have to worry about that.

Ironandwine69

I'm not sure why people keep thinking that skipping breakfast is considered IF. If you use creamer with your morning coffee, chances are you are not IF-ing. If you are drinking half a cup of milk in the morning, you are not IF-ing.
But anyway, this is the main point here.
No it doesn't take superpowers to not eat for 16-18 hours, many people do it every day without even labeling it. And to be honest, I think it's not the number is meals what gets people "in trouble" with their weight, is the snacks they eat all day. I am amased at how many overweight people say " look I only eat twice a day" but they forget about the snacks they keep eating all day long. We are not toddlers that need snacks every two hours.

StealthHealth

I naturally gravitate towards a non-standard IF of 10:14 (I basically just skip breakfast but I do tend to continue eating much later in the day) but what I came here to say is...

Growing up in the 70s in the UK, snacks were virtually unheard of in our household and that of my friends. We had three meals a day and that was it.

• Breakfast was typically toast or cereal in the week and we had boiled eggs and toast on Saturday and a full English cooked breakfast on Sunday.
• Lunch was a cooked school dinner in the week and at weekends was a hot lunch on Saturday and a cold lunch on Sunday.
• Dinner (or "tea" as we called it) was a typical meat and 2 veg affair in the week, Saturday was an afternoon tea type thing of sandwiches, cakes and a massive pot of tea. Sunday was always a roast dinner except in the very rare sunny days when we had salad with ham, cheese, and pork pie!

I can't remember any kids in junior school taking snacks to school and it was pretty rare for secondary (13+) kids to take stuff in (although there was a shop which sold sweets - I never took any money and never thought to ask my mum if I could - I just wasn't bothered)

We only had biscuits or cakes outside of mealtimes when we had visitors, ice cream was a treat at the seaside only, and supper was a rarity.

I remember being told off for helping myself to biscuits (cookies for the US readers) between meals: "You'll ruin your tea!". I also remember my Nan buying me chocolate which I was encouraged to eat after school but her telling me "Don't tell your Mum".

So, since we had our evening meal at about 6pm and breakfast was probably about 8am - I guess "fasting" was something pretty common and natural.

Things seemed to change for me in the mid 80s where snacking and eating on the go became much more common. By that point more snack products had entered our house and my Mum was happy to have my brother and me cook our own convenience food, as and when we wanted something (although family meals were still a big part of our life).

Fast forward to today and how my kids are: I've got two daughters and one is a grazer the other a big meal eater but both use snacks much more often that I ever did.

My opinion is that much of the snacking/energy crash talk has been driven by marketeers to sell their products. UK readers of a similar age to myself will remember Milky Way being marketed as "The treat you can eat between meals, without ruining your appetite", Mars bars were "A Mars a day, helps, you work rest and play", and Cadbury's fudge was advertised as "A finger of Fudge is just enough to give your kids a treat".

lemurcat12

kommodevaran wrote: »

@lemurcat12

Yes, weird and distorted are definetely words I was looking for. I too grew up with an afternoon snack, and usually an evening meal, in addition to the three regular meals, but at the time I would have been old enough to handle only three meals, the concept of snacking as an important part of good nutrition, for all age groups, had already become ingrained. My own ideas are distorted as well, and it's really weird: There's a gap between what I believe and what experience has told me. I "knew" I should eat often to keep my "metabolism" going, and that skipping a meal was bad because it would lead to overeating later. But real life tells me differently; skipping a meal is not a big deal. It's not even a real issue; I have never fasted for a full 24 hour period. And it's very hard to prove the metabolism thing, it would take weeks of consistently following one eating pattern, logging food intake and weighing myself, and then another pattern, food intake and weighing. And when I think about it, my common sense tells me it can't, just can't, make a difference. I try to challenge those false beliefs, but it's hard! We need to become aware of them first, and it's difficult, because factoids feel just like facts.

To the 3 meals OR intermittent fasting thing - breakfast, lunch and dinner at (for instance) 10, 13 and 16 - which is a common enough occurence in my home - is the "hardcore" version 18:6, while still eating three meals.

Today one of my projects is to investigate the dynamics between habits and preferences.

Maybe it's because I'm old or set in my ways or always thought diet stuff was bunk, but I NEVER believed that it was important to eat a bunch of small meals. As a kid we ate an afternoon snack because we were growing (this was before everyone was fat) and we were assumed to have been doing some kind of physical activity during the day/after school. For me, I mostly did not snack as a kid (other than the planned snack), skipped breakfast off and on as a teenager and often in my 20s, and was always normal weight. I started gaining when I started eating outside of meals, and I started eating outside of meals because food was around and it tasted good and I am a stress eater and had a stressful job, so I never thought it was actually healthy, just a bad habit.

I did delude myself easily about how much I was eating when grazing much of the day, because my meals were quite small. When I forced myself to think it through I realized how much I was actually eating, in a way that was unsatisfying to me, and realized that for me the key was not to eat outside of meals.

I went through a period in my teens when I basically IF'd (without knowing it was a thing) because I was lazy -- I wouldn't make breakfast or dinner, would eat a large snack after school and a normal dinner (I couldn't get up to make breakfast and was still picky about the options for lunch and also liked to use my lunch period for other things -- my mother didn't know I was skipping lunch or she would have freaked, she thought it was bad enough I was skipping breakfast, but that it was my responsibility to get up in time to make/eat it). I didn't find this difficult or gain or lose weight. I still find it easy to skip breakfast (I drink only black coffee, so get no calories in the morning if I skip breakfast), I just enjoy the meal and get up early now, so like to include it in my calories. I also have fasted for religious reasons from time to time (couple times a year) and though a full fast is not required it was something I wanted to do, so I realized it was not that big a deal.

What I find is that I adapt to whatever schedule I eat at, but I know some people have strong preferences, so maybe I'm lucky I don't.

I couldn't do 10, 13 and 16, as I am not home at 10 or 16, and one of my preferences -- and why I couldn't IF, IMO, is that I like eating at home when possible. I actually think skipping lunch might be the ideal for me if I wanted 2 meals, but I eat a 6 am and 9 pm due to schedule most days (but on Fridays and Saturdays often have two meals with an earlier/larger dinner).