Reply to: Supper

[doodab]

If you're a hobbit, there is also second breakfast (between breakfast and elevenses).

Also true of Germans.

[doodab]

I like ham.

[Ignis Fatuus]

Actually large meals are a waste of calories. In anyone sitting the body can only convert so many grams of carb and so many grams of protein. Normally for a meal it is suggested that you have 30 grams of protein, 90 grams of carbs, which is 480 calories. If you go over that the body cannot convert quick enough and the excess turns to fat.

...

By whom? On what grounds.

[Pondlife]

So far I've seen no mention of the following contractor constitutionals;

1st pot noodle after breakfast when the wife leaves for work
The mid morning pot noodle
I also like to sneak in a pot noodle while watching Nigella on the cooking channel about lunchtime
Generally I can manage a pot noodle whilst 'hands free' during afternoon conf calls
The missus gets home about 5:30 so I normally give her something satisfiying about 6ish.
I find I'm quite tired in the evenings with no real appetite but I try to make sure the wife gets some decent meat in her. Ususally at the kitchentable. We're quite informal.
Then I probably get my head down about 10:30.

I always sleep well though.

[Lockhouse]

Back in the land of On Topic....

I love supper! Normally at weekends if we're not going out and are catching up on the telly, we'll share a plate of cheese and biscuits with a glass of wine around 22:30 or so. If we've got any cold meat and pickles lying around they that gets included as well. Alternatively we'll snaffle up some Welsh Rarebit or summit similar.

Don't have time during the week unfortunately.

[Incognito]

And what is this old fashioned dining time table called?
MF may have a point about sculpting a diet around these 6 meals.

I'll wager the 3 meals a day society we live in a responsible for obeseness. Off to find me ration book

Not true.

The Frequent Small Meal Myth

Dispelling the myth behind frequent meals and why eating three meals a day with no snacks is the healthiest option.

Wherever you turn there is someone extolling the virtues of eating five to six small meals per day. From doctors to dieticians, from Cosmopolitan to Women's health, there has been an explosion of acceptance that frequent small meals are the key to everything from weight loss to lower cholesterol and longevity. Almost all diet books either base their recommendations on this principal or incorporate aggressive snacking as part of their program. Yet remarkably, despite its presentation as dietary dogma, there is almost no science to support such information. In fact it flies in the face of everything we know about metabolism and the hormonal regulation of our energy supplies.

The myth that frequent small meals were the key to weight loss likely arose from two sources. The first involved dietary studies performed in the late 1990's that showed how frequent small carbohydrate meals could lead to more stable blood sugar and insulin levels along with lower cholesterol. Aimed primarily at diabetics, the concept spread rapidly to normal and then overweight individuals. The second related to research indicating that metabolic rate increased temporarily after a meal. This led to the concept that more meals would somehow "supercharge" the body and allow it to burn off fat. However, that was the '90's. Things have changed and new research is available. In addition, the fact that our population is growing steadily larger and unhealthier is certainly a compelling argument against frequent small meals being a dietary panacea!

In order to dispel the myth of frequent small meal eating, consider some of the theories proposed as to why it works. For example, does it really "supercharge" our metabolism? The answer is "no". While it is true that there is a temporary increase in the metabolic rate associated with the ingestion, absorption and metabolism of food, it only amounts to about 10% of your calorie intake and is independent of meal size. So, whether you eat 3 meals of 900 calories or 6 meals of 450 calories (both totalling 2700 calories) you will only increase you metabolism by 270 calories per day. Unfortunately, the frequent small meal option reduces your leptin levels, which actually lowers your metabolic rate!

Eating numerous small carbohydrate meals during the day may well lead to more stable blood sugar but at what cost. The persistent secretion of insulin this type of diet causes will actually increase the risk of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. The studies that showed how frequent small meals could reduce cholesterol only compared small carbohydrate meals to large carbohydrate meals rather than to balanced protein-complex carbohydrate intake. This latter type of diet achieves stable blood sugars without overstressing the pancreas and also stops the liver from producing cholesterol.

For those on a diet, frequent small meals are offered as the answer to food cravings and satiety. That is a little like trying to get someone to stop smoking while allowing them to light up every time they have a nicotine yearning! Recent research on the real reasons behind hunger and craving relate to neurochemical changes in the brain, abnormal behaviour patterns that need to be changed not reinforced.

Probably the biggest problem with the whole concept of frequent small meals is that they rapidly become frequent large meals. Research shows us that having a snack between meals does not reduce the size of the next meal. In addition, the availability of fast, unhealthy food means that snacks often become highly calorific themselves. Giving an individual carte blanche to eat whenever they like in a society where food is so readily available may be a popular and painless option, but it is highly unlikely to be successful long-term. It will certainly never address the many health issues associated with overeating and a dysfunctional metabolism.

Normal human physiology is not designed for frequent small meals and remains essentially unchanged from that of our prehistoric ancestors. Neanderthal man was more accustomed to starvation and long gaps between meals than tucking into limitless dinosaur snacks by the fire. As such, humans are hardwired to be hungry and to store food away as fat. The two major hormones, insulin and leptin work together to manage fat stores. After a meal insulin rises for three hours, initially replacing glycogen stores and then shunting any extra calories into fat. As insulin levels fall we become able to access our fat stores as a source of energy. Eating another meal or snack at this point causes a further release of insulin, which not only inhibits our ability to burn fat but also acts as a strain on the pancreas. This secondary rise in insulin is more prolonged and when the cycle is repeated will eventually lead to hyperinsulinaemia and insulin resistance, forerunners of metabolic syndrome. In addition, this pattern leads to leptin resistance resulting in food cravings and a slower metabolism.

For individuals using exercise to lose weight, fat is normally mobilized at two to five time normal with even moderate activity, mostly from the abdominal area. However, even a slight increase in insulin immediately shuts off this process and prevents any access to fat stores. So snacking effectively reverses any weight-loss benefits of your exercise program.

The No-Crave Diet

[russell]

If you're a hobbit, there is also second breakfast (between breakfast and elevenses).

[d000hg]

I'll wager the 3 meals a day society we live in a responsible for obeseness. Off to find me ration book

Absolutely. Keep your current meals the same but make sure to find time for an extra couple as well. Those germs will soon be drowned in grease and you'll feel much better.

[suityou01]

You missed dinner, you're actually supposed to have:

1. Breakfast
2. Elevenses
3. Lunch
4. Tea
5. Dinner
6. Supper

And what is this old fashioned dining time table called?
MF may have a point about sculpting a diet around these 6 meals.

I'll wager the 3 meals a day society we live in a responsible for obeseness. Off to find me ration book

[d000hg]

I often heard of my grandparents telling me about supper. It's a meal we don't seem to have any more.

Breakfast
Lunch (Actually dinner)
Tea (4ish, bit of cake and a cuppa)
Supper (Cheese and crackers or a sarnie)

Does anyone still do supper in the evenings? If so, what do you have?
And if we structured our meals in this way would we all biffer out or control our weight better? Aren't we told to eat little and often?

You missed dinner, you're actually supposed to have:

1. Breakfast
2. Elevenses
3. Lunch
4. Tea
5. Dinner
6. Supper

[MarillionFan]

Hey, I worked hard to get down to a trim 22 stone, I can't help it if I'm a babe magnet (nothing to do with my proficiency as a banjo player).

What first attracted you to the overweight, balding, millionaire 1970's musician Miss Jones?

[EternalOptimist]

Hey, I worked hard to get down to a trim 22 stone, I can't help it if I'm a babe magnet (nothing to do with my proficiency as a banjo player).

heh heh.

top man

[Cliphead]

It's hard to bear.

you work all your life to keep in shape, then some skinny, 22 stone, sixpack bellied bastid comes on here boasting


git

Hey, I worked hard to get down to a trim 22 stone, I can't help it if I'm a babe magnet (nothing to do with my proficiency as a banjo player).

[EternalOptimist]

Same here, 22 stone is hard to get rid of though.

It's hard to bear.

you work all your life to keep in shape, then some skinny, 22 stone, sixpack bellied bastid comes on here boasting


git

[Cliphead]

We used to have tea at 5pm on the dot round the kitchen table.

Always a fry up and I seem to recall bulking up with a lot of sliced white bread & marg.

Traditional working class fayre & it never did us any harm.

Same here, 22 stone is hard to get rid of though.