Snacking, not

[mhackett234]

Hello, About 18 months ago I came upon the human / biological concept of 1, 2, or 3 distinct 30-40 minute meals each day, with at least 5 hours between them. Lately. I still occasionally casually reach during the "stomach resting & repair 5 hours" for a blackberry along the path or a stray strawberry on the counter or a sample at a store. Ninety percent of the time I resist and pull back my hand. According to my extensive broad-ranging research, not leaving 5 hours between meals, aka snacking, does a number on nearly all your hormone systems: thyroid, adrenal, insulin, etc. I currently do two meals a day and take any pills/supplements/etc. before/with/after the meal. It evidently takes 1-2 years to get the maximum benefit from the new no-snack regimen. I am counting from July 1, 2017 which I feel is a legitimate, genuine no-snack start point. Already (Aug 17th) my son"s and my blood pressure is slowly drifting down. If any of you want to try this routine, 1) it can't hurt and 2) it might help.

[shaws Administrator]

Thanks for posting. It is very interesting.

[Ruby1]

Fascinating. As I am naturally a grazer, I think I'd find this really difficult. My brain starts to go addled with even 3 hours between meals I do generally have small meals though.

I tend to have low blood pressure if anything, so perhaps what works for one person may not work for another.

Let us know how you get on.

[mhackett234 in reply to Ruby1]

I try one thing after the other to improve my health. My mom turns 97 in a few months. I intend to live to over a hundred, in good health. My son and I plan to stick to this 5 hr minimum between meals routine for at least another year. By then, the thought of a snack won't cross our minds (even a cup of black coffee is a snack). Other than my mother not snacking all her life, no one else has shown any interest in giving up their snacks themselves. Keep in mind that the "snacking" industry began at about the same time as the start of the pandemic of dozens of "modern" diseases. Snacking is the money-maker for quite a few billionaires who made their fortunes in soda pop, candy bars, snack cakes, potato chips (A penny's worth of potato makes a US$2.99 bag of potato chips, slathered with taste chemicals.) etc. Too many people who get sick seem to think that "continuing to do their same-old-thing will create better results". My view on illness is that if you are sick, something you did or are doing/eating/experiencing is the culprit and that the so-called germs simply move into your sickly carcass to eat the dead/dying body tissues. Most people have been trained by school and by advertising and by doctors and by each other to believe the false assumption that there is a pharmaceutical cure for everything that ails you, or else a cure just around the corner, if you will just make that donation to the cause. It is hard to buck years of eating habits. My last obstacle to getting it down pat was to cease drinking coffee or tea during the 5 hour period.

[Ruby1 in reply to mhackett234]

I think there is a big difference between eating a little and often and filling up with rubbish. I rarely eat biscuits, sweets or crisps.

If your Mum is 97, I'd do what she does - she is plainly doing very well!!

[HLAB35 in reply to Ruby1]

dailymail.co.uk/health/arti...

I just found this article. If you're having cravings then this may help... the really interesting one is that a craving for bread and pasta may come from a need for tryptophan! Bread and pasta don't contain tryptophan, but help send available tryptophan to the brain, thus reducing the amount of available tryptophan.

[HLAB35]

This is interesting.

I don't believe in one-size-fits-all diets as I pointed out to a young vegan who adamantly believed that my body would adapt to their diet even though (a) trialling it in my twenties and feeling rubbish and (b) genetics and (c) nutritional deficiencies that I actually know about have proven otherwise. Many people do benefit from 100% vegetable diet (some say 30% of Americans) that incidentally must include a lot (more than I can handle) good-quality carbs - they have genes switched on that allow them to process and convert vegetable proteins, non-haem sources of iron and have gut enzymes that help them to manufacture b12 which I envy, because, being a vegan is an inexpensive path to perfect health for someone who has the right genetics.

I need a reasonable portion of (ideally) organic grass-fed meat / chicken or fish every day! Staying with vegans gave me (a) appalling wind; (b) anaemia and (c) pre-diabetic symptoms.

Once you've found your perfect diet in terms of balance of protein and carbs then blood sugar will be stabilised and your point about number of meals can be fulfilled. However, for someone who thinks they 'ought to' do a particular diet (rather than listen to their body), or continue to eat a lot of empty carbs and then reduce their number of meals could end up having severe energy crashes!

[mhackett234 in reply to HLAB35]

The no-snacking routine is not a diet. It is a timing of meals with 5 hours to allow the stomach to digest the food and then "rest and repair". Not allowing the stomach to rest and repair is probably not a good idea. My 97 year old mother who drives every day and lives independently has never snacked. She was almost 40 when the snack industry began inundating children with "snack food" commercials and missed out on being indoctrinated by their trillion dollar industry propaganda to eat junk food all day long. The reason for mentioning the topic of no-snacking is that there is new evidence in the past decade with scientific data that supports the proposition that snacking/grazing is a major contributor to disruption of endocrine systems of the body, such as insulin, adrenalin, thyroid, estrogen, etc.

[HLAB35 in reply to mhackett234]

My husband's Scottish relatives say that they always feel bloated when they eat more than a few morsels of meat, so don't eat animal protein. They almost need reminding to eat their meals which, when they do finally get round to are typically very large with lots of carbs (wheat especially), sugar and fats. They don't snack at all either. My body couldn't handle the food and this pattern of eating at all and I passed out (had a morning in A&E). Annoyingly they are incredibly healthy eating what I can only describe as 'stodge'.

I agree that allowing the stomach to rest makes digestion work better.. less demands to make stomach acid and a predictable body clock must take a huge load off the endocrine system especially in an older person. I just think that if the food doesn't suit a person then changing the pattern won't work..

Since I began having high protein breakfasts I no longer snack in the mornings and my lunch is typically very small now (I could probably skip it altogether) so I know where you're coming from, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to someone who starts the day with sugary cereal and milk!