|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2006 : 22:25:55 [Permalink]
|
I think the "standard" of three meals a day came from an old US Gov effort to promote better nutrition. Some time back in the post WW2 days.
That is what is tickling the back of my memory, can't provide any reference for it however.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 23:25:01 [Permalink]
|
Well breakfast being the most important meal of the day is conventional wisdom because of a biological fact - your blood sugar lowers with the amount of time in between eating. For most people, the longest amount of time you go without eating is between your last meal of the day and your first. So if you skip breakfast, you are liable to drag out the morning crankiness.
Of course this varies from person to person. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 07:53:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Well breakfast being the most important meal of the day is conventional wisdom because of a biological fact - your blood sugar lowers with the amount of time in between eating. For most people, the longest amount of time you go without eating is between your last meal of the day and your first. So if you skip breakfast, you are liable to drag out the morning crankiness.
Of course this varies from person to person.
I agree this may be what people are thinking when they make the 'most important meal' claim, but is it backed up by actual evidence?
Here's an article I found about breakfast and it's affect on metabolism. I was thinking, well, here's something, when I read it. Then I saw the author's credit....lol....check it out below.
http://umanitoba.fitdv.com/new/articles/article.html?artid=24
relevant quote:
quote:
how can you increase your metabolic rate?
Eating right and exercising regularly are keys to improving your metabolism. Start with breakfast. Eating breakfast stokes your metabolism and gears your body up to burn calories all day. Don't starve yourself. Eat four to six small meals, two to three hours apart throughout the day, rather than three widely spaced big meals. Timing is essential: carbohydrates should be eaten at breakfast and post workout because of insulin's anabolic effects, but for the rest of the day control your insulin by eating only leafy green, fibrous vegetables and proteins.
Author credit:
quote:
About the Author: Elizabeth Weinstock is a senior consultant with the Life Extension Foundation's research department, specializing in nutritional therapies. Elizabeth, a senior on the Dean's List at Florida International University, pursues a dual bachelor degree in biology and psychology while working full time and raising three children.
I'm beginning to think people are making these recommendations and declarations based on 'conventional wisdom' in lieu of actual knowledge. The 'stokes your metabolism' claim seems like bull shit. And if I eat carbs for breakfast, I have an insulin spike that crashes my blood sugar exactly 2.5 hours later. It's not pleasant.
I'm thinking that diet is something the human body likely acclimatizes to. It's like when people train to climb mountains. They have to get acclimated to the lower oxygen at high elevations. The body adapts, lungs become more efficient with oxygen take-up, metabolism becomes more efficient with oxygen use. Same goes for endurance and strength training. The body becomes stronger when stressed like that.
Why do we assume you get all mushy when your regular, 'clock work' food supply is mixed up and interupted? Why not assume your body will become more efficient? If the former were true, then how in the world did our ancestors survive times of even light famine??? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/31/2006 07:56:29 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 08:08:07 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi,
I had a Cultural Anthropology professor who spent part of a lecture discussing the cultural differences of "meal norms". He did comment about how our "3 meal a day" dogma pretty much runs counter to logic. He also mentioned about a "people" or "tribe" (it's been 20-plus years since the lecture) that nibbles or grazes small meals all day long.
Around this time, I switched over to my "5 meals a day" routine. I am a practicing Olympic Weightlifter, so I was looking for ways to gain weight, optimize protein intake, etc. etc. etc. My meals are "smaller" than most people's breakfast, lunch and dinner. I am still on this routine.
On a side topic, some years ago, there was a lot of press about a low-calorie/densely nutritional diet that enabled all the lab animals to live upwards of twice as long as their normal lifespan. Last I heard, they were testing it on primates. Anyone heard anything on this before I need to wade through Google searches? |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 13:01:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
Chaloobi,
I had a Cultural Anthropology professor who spent part of a lecture discussing the cultural differences of "meal norms". He did comment about how our "3 meal a day" dogma pretty much runs counter to logic. He also mentioned about a "people" or "tribe" (it's been 20-plus years since the lecture) that nibbles or grazes small meals all day long.
Around this time, I switched over to my "5 meals a day" routine. I am a practicing Olympic Weightlifter, so I was looking for ways to gain weight, optimize protein intake, etc. etc. etc. My meals are "smaller" than most people's breakfast, lunch and dinner. I am still on this routine.
On a side topic, some years ago, there was a lot of press about a low-calorie/densely nutritional diet that enabled all the lab animals to live upwards of twice as long as their normal lifespan. Last I heard, they were testing it on primates. Anyone heard anything on this before I need to wade through Google searches?
Cultural Anthropology, huh? I think that may be the best way to get to the bottom of this whole 3 meals thing.... I'm thinking it must be a cultural construct, rather than a medical necessity. I'm really surprised, though, how little writing there is no the topic....
That last bit you're talking about is Caloric Restriction. Do a Yahoo Search on those words and you'll get some good stuff. There's a lot of evidence it works wonders for lower animals and short term results for humans practicing the diet are very compelling. Currently the only way available to give you the hope of living to 140.... |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 13:12:06 [Permalink]
|
I remember reading newspaper articles mentioning studies which found that people who skipped breakfast were more likely to gain weight than those who ate a healthy meal to start their day.
Googling a little, I did find this study: Deleterious effects of omitting breakfast on insulin sensitivity and fasting lipid profiles in healthy lean women.
This Web MD article summarizes the findings:
quote:
Researchers found that healthy women who skipped breakfast for two weeks ate more during the rest of the day, developed higher "bad" LDL cholesterol levels, and were less sensitive to insulin than women who ate breakfast every day.
High LDL cholesterol levels and impaired insulin sensitivity are both major risk factors for heart disease.
Although previous studies on the effects of eating or skipping breakfast in obese people may have produced conflicting results, researchers say the findings of this study show that skipping breakfast may lead to weight gain as well as increase the risk of heart disease in healthy people over time.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 13:21:54 [Permalink]
|
Whoa thats weird, in Todays(10/31/06) NYT -Science Times Scetion they have an article about the monkey diet thing you were talking about. Of course I didnt read it all and dont have the paper anymore. The jist was that one monkey ate lessof the same food as another monkey and the one who ate less was far more healthy in general.
EDIT: Link here it is...
quote:
Calorie-restricted diets, which involve eating about 30 percent fewer calories than normal, can extend life consistently in a variety of animal species.
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 10/31/2006 13:27:50 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 14:13:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Cultural Anthropology, huh? I think that may be the best way to get to the bottom of this whole 3 meals thing.... I'm thinking it must be a cultural construct, rather than a medical necessity. I'm really surprised, though, how little writing there is no the topic....
Completely agree. I do feel that 3 meals a day is a cultural construct. It has repeated so many times and practiced by everyone we know in this country such that every aspect of our life revolves around the three meals a day concept that it simply never gets questioned.
This reminds me a little of the "8 glasses of water a day" canard. Do you remember when every "certified trainer" espoused the 8-a-day, citing that "science" has determined that to be optimum. Then, an enterprising researcher discovered that there was NO study to support it. I laughed when I read quotes in the paper from "trainers": "I don't believe. The scientist is wrong."
Anyone see the irony?
Off topic: When I go to the gym, I see these "trainers" teaching the most ridiculous exercise concepts (straight from the Joe Weider crap factory) to new gym members. People spend HOURS doing every variation of curls under the sun. And they look at me weird because I do squats and cleans. I hate "what muscle group does that work?" questions.
Sorry. Had to vent.
Chaloobi, this is a great topic. Worthy of more serious thought than whether or not secretly placed explosives brought down the WTC. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 14:31:16 [Permalink]
|
well when we were hunter gatherers we tended to die of old age at about 30, so I wouldn't hold that lifestyle up as some kind of ideal model
I dont have any support for the 3 meals a day thing, but my problem is with the logic of your initial argument.
Maybe thousands of years ago humans had long fast periods and monotonous diets. It seems more the case that we evolved to tolerate that as a hardship rather than thrive on it.
Its like suggesting that people will be healthier if they expose themselves to the elements, because no one had central heating in the bronze age. These hardships we are bred to endure, but not thrive on |
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
| Edited by - Vegeta on 10/31/2006 14:41:17 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 08:05:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I remember reading newspaper articles mentioning studies which found that people who skipped breakfast were more likely to gain weight than those who ate a healthy meal to start their day.
Googling a little, I did find this study: Deleterious effects of omitting breakfast on insulin sensitivity and fasting lipid profiles in healthy lean women.
This Web MD article summarizes the findings:
quote:
Researchers found that healthy women who skipped breakfast for two weeks ate more during the rest of the day, developed higher "bad" LDL cholesterol levels, and were less sensitive to insulin than women who ate breakfast every day.
High LDL cholesterol levels and impaired insulin sensitivity are both major risk factors for heart disease.
Although previous studies on the effects of eating or skipping breakfast in obese people may have produced conflicting results, researchers say the findings of this study show that skipping breakfast may lead to weight gain as well as increase the risk of heart disease in healthy people over time.
Excellant! An actual study.... 
Right off the bat, I have to call into question the conclusions of the study for two reasons. First, it's only a 2 week period. They took women who presumably ate breakfast every day, then had them stop for only two weeks and watched what happened to them. To go back to my oxygen deprivation analogy, or even exercise, what do you think doctors would find happening to someone, after two weeks, who suddenly started training for high altitude climbs? Or consider how someone feels after two weeks of intense exercise when they hadn't exercised before? Pain & misery....
It may be what they found happening in this study is an intermediate state in the process of acclimating to a new diet. I think at the very least they should run it over a period of 8 weeks - the time period fitness experts say it takes for the benefits of fitness training to fully manifest.
Another issue is culture. The other breakfast related study mentioned in this thread concluded that people would skip breakfast, go to work, feel hungry and snack out of a vending machine because that's all that's available in a work place. Hence the weight gain, choleserol increase, etc. But to get to a true medical conclusion, they have to control for that too. No breakfast and no snacking before lunch - and lunch has to be a normal meal. Then see what happens.... |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 08:25:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vegeta
well when we were hunter gatherers we tended to die of old age at about 30, so I wouldn't hold that lifestyle up as some kind of ideal model
What you are quoting here is not the maximum age of hunter gatherers but the average life span. But note, average life span for these folks was heavily influenced by factors like very high infant mortality rates and a rather brutish life-style with no access to medical care. A badly twisted ankle or a touch of stomach flu would be life threatening to these folks. Also note these guys were infested with parasites and rolled the dice every time they took a drink of water... So you can't really make a conclusion that their diet was the culprit in their short average life span.
quote:
I dont have any support for the 3 meals a day thing, but my problem is with the logic of your initial argument.
Please elaborate.
quote:
Maybe thousands of years ago humans had long fast periods and monotonous diets. It seems more the case that we evolved to tolerate that as a hardship rather than thrive on it.
Please keep in mind I'm not advocating long fasts and monontonous diets. I'm advocating a skeptical look at the recomendations of 3 meals a day from the 5(?) basic food groups. I'm asking if that is based on science and is that eating pattern the most healthy for a body designed for a hunter-gather diet?
quote:
Its like suggesting that people will be healthier if they expose themselves to the elements, because no one had central heating in the bronze age. These hardships we are bred to endure, but not thrive on
A couple comments here... First, we're talking about the stone age, not the bronze age. I'm operating under the premise that most of our genes regarding diet and metabolism evolved when humans were stone age hunter gatherers. From that premise, I am skeptical of 3 meals/day and 5 food groups. So I ask the obvious: are they based on scientfic study?
Next, it's not inconceivable people WOULD thrive on greater exposure to the elements. Who's generally more healthy, the one who spends a great deal of time working and playing outside, or the one who spends their time inside, sitting at a desk or on a couch? Consider also why people are ill more in Winter vs. Summer... not because of cold, but because they spend more time indoors, cooped up with other people, in air that's far more recirculated than in summer. That is a perfect environment for spreading disease. Humans are not designed for sedentary indoor life -- they are designed to be active and exposed, somewhat (I'm not talking extremes here), to the elements. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 11/01/2006 08:27:56 |
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 09:18:27 [Permalink]
|
I'll just start by saying that I don't know where the 3 meals a day thing came from, I don't take it as fact and I don't know of any evidence for it. I do however think that its pretty sensible. If you think we evolved to eat like hunter gatherers then I think we evolved to eat when we're hungry.
quote:
Please keep in mind I'm not advocating long fasts and monontonous diets. I'm advocating a skeptical look at the recomendations of 3 meals a day from the 5(?) basic food groups. I'm asking if that is based on science and is that eating pattern the most healthy for a body designed for a hunter-gather diet?
I just don't see how you can logically say that the diet we had in the stone age was ideally suited to us. Like I said what we had to put up with in those days doesn't make it the ideal situation. Diet isn't the driving force of evolution, survival is, and human beings evolved to survive on a wide range of foods.
You have to take into account that hunter gatherers' diet all over the world would be completely different, there is no specific 'hunter gatherer diet'.
Also many conditions can arise from the lack of a certain vitamins such as rickets or scurvy, so I simply do not see the logic of suggesting a varied diet can be anything but healthy. The 5 a day may be a bit gimmicky but the basic principle is sound. No I don't have any studies to support this, but I also don't have any studies to show jabbing my finger in my eye is unhealthy. This is just based on a few facts and common sense.
If you look at the lifestyles of hunter gatherer tribes that still exist today, they do not just eat what they pick or kill on the day. They store food. So I don't think breakfast would be a big issue.
People are taller and have longer lifespans nowadays than any time in history, the lifespan issue is due to healthcare as well as diet, but people growing taller for no abnormal reason only suggests better diet to me. There's certainly been no selective breeding of tall people in the last few thousand years that I know about. |
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 11:48:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vegeta
I'll just start by saying that I don't know where the 3 meals a day thing came from, I don't take it as fact and I don't know of any evidence for it.
Here I'd say we agree, and you've hit on the notion that started this whole thread. "Where did this idea come from and is it valid?" quote:
I do however think that its pretty sensible.
But here we digress because I don't see the sensibility in it that you do. quote:
If you think we evolved to eat like hunter gatherers then I think we evolved to eat when we're hungry.
It's possible we've evolved since being hunter gatherers to eat in other ways, but there's strong evidence we have not. And 'eat when we're hungry' is a gross oversimplification. People who eat whatever they want whenever they want often end up obese and unhealthy. Yes they evolved that way, but the CONDITIONS they evolved to suit have changed, which is my whole point. I suspect we have hunter-gather metabolisms and digestive systems but we have adopted a completely DIFFERENT way of eating.
quote:
I just don't see how you can logically say that the diet we had in the stone age was ideally suited to us.
No, I'm saying we were suited, via natural selection, to be healthy under the conditions that we lived. Not just diet, but frequency of various kinds of food too. For example, our apetites are designed to crave and binge on fat because fat is extremely energy dense and we rarely got a chance to eat much of it. But today we can have fat whenever we want, and far too many of us overindulge, which turns out to be unhealthy long term in more ways than one. quote:
Like I said what we had to put up with in those days doesn't make it the ideal situation.
Well, if you accept evolution as fact, and you accept diet as a natural selector, then you have to accept that humans as hunter gatherers must have evolved to suit the available food and associated patterns of availability. It makes no sense at all to think that evolution somehow has fine-tuned the human metabolic and digestive systems to a 3 meal/day diet consisting of some arbitray portion of each of the 5 basic food groups. How in the world could that possibly happen???
quote:
Diet isn't the driving force of evolution, survival is, and human beings evolved to survive on a wide range of foods.
First, you better believe diet is a force in evolution. It's a huge factor. Second, your sentence above completely contradicts itself. First you say Diet is not a force in evolution, then you say humans evoloved to survive on a wide range of foods. How can the second be correct if the first is true!?!?!
quote:
You have to take into account that hunter gatherers' diet all over the world would be completely different, there is no specific 'hunter gatherer diet'.
I don't necessarily agree and I suspect you have no facts to base this claim on. That said, yes humans are omnivores and can eat a wide range of things. Yes, hunter gatherers in the Brazilian rain forest likely eat different specific things from those in Africa and those in Australia. And maybe they've even evolved a bit to specialize on their local mix, I don't know. It may be that an ideal diet for someone depends to some degree on their specific heredity. For example, I know people who seem to be able to eat as much junk food as they want and even without exercising still maintain a trim figure. (I hate them for it too...  ) But this STILL means that 3 meals 5 food groups is arbitrary and senseless.
quote:
Also many conditions can arise from the lack of a certain vitamins such as rickets or scurvy, so I simply do not see the logic of suggesting a varied diet can be anything but healthy.
I'm not sure I suggested a varied diet was unhealthy.... but one thing that is clearly true is that too much of some things is not healthy, like fat and refined sugars. Scurvy is about a nutrient deficiency, which is really not what we're talking about. I think somewhere I specifically included the caveat of adequate nutrition. But I suspect you can get by easily enough by have certain vitamins only every few days rather than every day. I doubt that our bodies are so fragile they'll fall into disease if we don't have every vitamin every day....but that's a different question I guess...
quote:
The 5 a day may be a bit gimmicky but the basic principle is sound.
And this statement is based on what evidence???
quote:
No I don't have any studies to support this, but I also don't have any studies to show jabbing my finger in my eye is unhealthy.
They eye-jab is a bit of a straw-man. A physical injury is not analgous to long term eating patterns.
quote:
This is just based on a few facts and common sense.
Which facts??? And common sense is NOT a good basis for making decisions. It's very often dead wrong.
quote:
If you look at the lifestyles of hunter gatherer tribes that still exist today, they do not just eat what they pick or kill on the day. They store food. So I don't think breakfast would be a big issue.
Please cite some sources.
quote:
People are taller and have longer lifespans nowadays than any time in history, the lifespan issue is due to healthcare as well as diet, but people growing taller for no abnormal reason only suggests better diet to me.
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 14:14:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Further, perhaps they're right about breakfast, or at least about having something to eat right away in the morning. But what about lunch & dinner? Do we need these as 3 distinct, descreet meals? Why do that? Why not have a more or less continuous supply of healthy snack food and never actually eating a set of big meals? Or why not just ONE big meal - dinner say - and spend the earlier part of the day snacking lightly?
I can see one reason why you would not want to snack too much, namely the impact this would have on your teeth.
As for the impact on cognition, I have after a cursory glance through the literature (this was a 5 minute job, btw) found nothing in particular discussing this in adults. All I can offer is something anecdotal in the form of a family of friends who are muslims. During Ramadan, they only eat after eight pm (this is rather flexible as they often get up in the middle of the night to have some snacks). I'm not sure how this affects their mental abilities, but they don't look too fancy after a few days of this - mainly appearing a "bit" lethargic. But then I suppose that getting up in the middle of the night can do that to you as well. Was this of any value? Probably not. Just rambling while waiting for one of my gels to set. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
