They say you should only eat if you are hungry.
Ok, so let's say you are not hungry at supper time so you don't eat supper.
Then at let's say....8 PM you get hungry so you eat.
Does that really make any difference to your body?
If you ate at dinner time with everyone else wouldn't that be a "preemptive" meal, and therefore you wouldn't be hungry at 8 PM? Is it better to eat at regular intervals even if you're not hungry, if you know you will be hungry later anyway?
Its the same amount of food, but you just consume it when your body is in a different state of hunger. Doesn't it all even out in the end?
Is this a dumb question?
5 comments:
hmmmmm...
Every eating 'guru' has a different opinion, but what makes sense to me is -- small meals at regular intervals. Then your body will not go into 'starvation mode', and call out the big guns to slow down your metabolism, which will make your fat-burning capability weaken, and inevitably make it harder to burn calories. Thus,waiting till you are really hungry and then eating = gaining weight in the long run. I'm no expert or anything..
My eating habits must be horrible. I pretty much eat when I'm hungry AND at dinner time... whether I'm hungry or not (though if I'm not very hungry, I just end up eating less naturally.) :P
My code of eatery is to consume the minimum required to keep the body running until a above-par meal(usually one that consists of mashed taters) presents itself so that you will always be prepared to gorge yourself on it.
I say we eat like hobbits. Eat at 5 AND at 8! :) But .. ya .. the small meals at regular intervals thing would definitely apply there. But Paul has a good point there too.
Anyways, we have much to learn from the Hobbits. :D
Post a Comment