To eat or not to eat?

Ashl3yS

Generally I find that if I eat breakfast, lunch and dinner I am fine. Just those three meals and I may be hungry as I get close to the next meal but that's it. When I had my meeting with my personal trainer at my gym she said no matter what, eat a snack between breakfast and lunch and another snack between lunch and dinner. I have been, but I'm really not hungry when I eat those snacks. Is it really essential to eat those snacks? I almost always feel silly for having them because I'm not hungry when i eat them, and why eat if I'm not hungry?

sweetn3ss

It is better to eat 5-6 small meals per day instead of 3 large meals. snacking between meals helps me control how much I consume at the next meal. I tend to eat a very filling breakfast, then 3 or 4 hours later I will make my lunch and eat half (saving the other have for a little later), and finally my dinner is filling so I do not eat super late. I believe the snacks keeps your metabolism up as well.

Keltinator

I think it's really up to you. As long as you're not eating giant meals because you're super hungry from not snacking, who is to say you HAVE to snack? It's just that for a lot of people, snacking helps them control portions during meals. I don't really snack, but rather I have 4 smaller meals a day, because that's what I find works for me. So, just find what works for you. :flowerforyou:

LotusF1ower

Generally I find that if I eat breakfast, lunch and dinner I am fine. Just those three meals and I may be hungry as I get close to the next meal but that's it. When I had my meeting with my personal trainer at my gym she said no matter what, eat a snack between breakfast and lunch and another snack between lunch and dinner. I have been, but I'm really not hungry when I eat those snacks. Is it really essential to eat those snacks? I almost always feel silly for having them because I'm not hungry when i eat them, and why eat if I'm not hungry?

I'm with you on this one. I don't snack inbetween, if I did it would be a cup-a-soup or something, but on the whole I just have breakfast, lunch and dinner. As you stated, you may be hungry as you get close to the next meal, me too, however, I don't know about you, I thoroughly enjoy my meal if I am hungry.

Some people like to eat every few hours, everybody is different.

I guess your personal trainer is thinking of your metabolism. To be honest, I don't know how you deal with this, it's irritating, because you probably are loathe to undermine the advice and not do it and yet you are not hungry when you have these snacks and it probably feels as though you are going against your own common sense.

What does your personal trainer say when you tell her you are not hungry when you have to have those snacks?

rescuepete

I am a firm believer in the eat-only-when-you're-hungry mentality, however your body can trick you into thinking you're not hungry when you really are. That has more to do with starving yourself, and if you're a good three meals a day, I don't see the big deal.

It probably wouldn't hurt to eat a little less at breakfast, lunch and dinner and that way you could fit a couple of snacks in throughout the day and feel somewhat hungry for them. All of it has something to do with your metabolism, and that keeping it's motors running all day long instead of starting-and-stopping for each of your meals is better for you. There's some science there to explain it, but I'll wait for someone more qualified to lay all that out.

LotusF1ower

It is better to eat 5-6 small meals per day instead of 3 large meals. snacking between meals helps me control how much I consume at the next meal. I tend to eat a very filling breakfast, then 3 or 4 hours later I will make my lunch and eat half (saving the other have for a little later), and finally my dinner is filling so I do not eat super late. I believe the snacks keeps your metabolism up as well.

The only problem with eating 5-6 small meals per day, is this. If somebody is only on 1200 calories per day, six meals would only make 200 calories per meal - that would mean than not one of those meals would be anything substantial, a jacket potato would already take the calories over 200 - see what I mean?

I do agree if somebody is prone to snack and eat rubbish if they get hungry, five or six small meals would definitely be a better option, however the OP doesn't have that problem and is happy on just the three per day.

Regarding the metabolism, it is already moving as they are eating regularly and exercising, which the OP is already doing. :flowerforyou:

Stewie316

It is better to eat 5-6 small meals per day instead of 3 large meals. snacking between meals helps me control how much I consume at the next meal. I tend to eat a very filling breakfast, then 3 or 4 hours later I will make my lunch and eat half (saving the other have for a little later), and finally my dinner is filling so I do not eat super late. I believe the snacks keeps your metabolism up as well.

The only problem with eating 5-6 small meals per day, is this. If somebody is only on 1200 calories per day, six meals would only make 200 calories per meal - that would mean than not one of those meals would be anything substantial, a jacket potato would already take the calories over 200 - see what I mean?

I do agree if somebody is prone to snack and eat rubbish if they get hungry, five or six small meals would definitely be a better option, however the OP doesn't have that problem and is happy on just the three per day.

Regarding the metabolism, it is already moving as they are eating regularly and exercising, which the OP is already doing. :flowerforyou:

I totally agree. I'm on a 1200 calorie a day diet, so either 5-6 meals a day wouldn't be real meals. I eat 3 meals a day and a snack between lunch and dinner. This works for me.