Re: Feeling full longer

[Guest guest]

Good question Beth,

I think it is individual whether it is " better " to eat 3 planned meals or

frequently throughout the day. The overriding goal should be to eat in response

to hunger (not overeat in response to hunger and not overeat in response to

other cues or " just because it is there " constantly) whether that is better done

in small snack-type meals throughout the day or in 3 planned meals that your

body responds to best consistently.

But I know why you ask the question. I have openly disagreed with popular diet

books whose authors seem intent on " killing hunger " . The goal should be to get

hungry, and eat appropriately in response to that hunger. Everyone is intent on

killing our hunger rather than learning how to respond to it for optimal health.

After all, since everyone is so into evolution (which I am not) and so many

recent popular diet books in fact promote the theory as the basis for their

dietary conclusions and recommendations, then wouldn't it make sense to conclude

that we have evolved with hunger cues being a strong part of our nature for some

not-too-hard-to-figure-out reason? Personally, I believe it is part of our

Creator's wisdom. But the reader has often tamed their appetite, at least for a

time, and often finishes these books feeling confident in their newfound

knowledge. Whether armed with simple new understandings or a virtual arsenal of

heady information, their confidence is truly astounding, as in the case of a

reader quoted in South Beach Diet (not meaning to single out that diet only):

" But I know a lot more about what I eat than I did before. Like, people don't

realize that the MSG in their Chinese food is made from beets, which contain a

lot of sugar. Or that carrots have a high glycemic index, too. I used to eat a

lot of carrots, especially when I was trying to lose weight. I even traveled

with little bags of them. So I was shocked to learn that carrots have so much

sugar in them. You don't realize that those carrots, or those onions, just turn

right into sugar that gets stored in your body as fat. " p. 60

The fact that this reader has the fearful idea that healthy foods " just turn

right into sugar that gets stored in your body as fat " is unnerving to say the

least. There are a lot of other foods we should be worrying about (not to

mention the epidemic lack of activity) that get stored in our body as

fat--carrots, beets, and onions being the least of our concerns. I would feel

better (slightly) about people following these diets if they were pre-screened

with a 5-7-day food diary to see what their real dietary problems are and

evaluated for activity in the lifestyle. Many of these diets set people up for

losing sight of the forest for the trees--my guess is carrots are not her

problem.

But to your question--I tend to agree with Digna about smaller, more frequent

" meals " . I think most people can relearn how to get in touch with their hunger

(after years of not being in touch with it) better in little doses (i.e., more

frequent smaller snack-type " meals " ) and have better blood sugar control for

energy, but 3 meals a day is fine too if the overriding goal is to eat the

correct amount of calories and respond to hunger appropriately. If the advice

is to eat frequently to " prevent getting hungry " , I think in the long-term it is

not helpful. I realize we want to eat to prevent getting TOO hungry in the

middle of a meeting, work, school, etc., but not to eat frequently as a

lifestyle to prevent getting hungry as a consistent goal. I also realize that

there are times it is best to eat when we are not hungry (i.e., the schedule

ahead for the day is crazy and we need a meal to go on), but in general it's

best that people are guided overall by hunger, and learn to eat (even carbs!) in

response to that hunger for optimal health.

I think your question is 2-part, and the advice to eat frequently or eat 3 meals

a day is another question than the hunger question. Again, I believe hunger,

and eating appropriately in response to hunger, is the more important issue,

whether it is best done in 3 meals or smaller feedings throughout the day.

I didn't read the article in Washington Post, but if it was in the kids section

it sounds like it was comparing a doughnut and banana for the purpose of not

" crashing " once they get to school on a doughnut? I do agree with you that any

messages interpreted or intended to communicate " full good, hunger bad " as an

overall health goal are missing the mark.

Diane Preves, M.S., R.D.

N.E.W. LIFE (Nutrition, Exercise, Wellness for LIFE)

www.newlifeforhealth.com

e-mail: newlife4health@..., newlife@...

http://www.linkedin.com/in/newlifedianepreves

http://www.facebook.com/people/Diane-Preves/1357243185

http://twitter.com/DianePreves

Feeling full longer

Does anyone else think that there's too much focus on " feeling full

longer " ? That maybe the advice to eat frequently to " prevent getting hungry "

could result in over consumption of calories and weight gain?

What is wrong with a little bit of hunger between meals? It is definitely

easier to tolerate if you have the next meal planned. I'm backing off the

rec eat frequently, recommending people eat a minimum of 3 meals per day,

focusing on planned, balanced meals and not skipping meals. If snacks are

desired then meals have to be smaller.

I just read and article in the KidsPost section of Sunday's Washington Post

titled: Which would you choose? (picture of 1/2 doughnut and a medium

banana) Lots of sound nutrition information re: calories, calorie needs,

importance of physical activity, nutrient density, etc. But then " A banana

also makes you feel full for a longer time. "

Even kids are being delivered the message full good, hunger bad.

Looking forward to feedback from the list,

Beth Triner, RD, CSR, LDN