You don’t eat three meals a day because you have no money.
I don’t eat three meals a day because I want to lose weight.
We’re not the same.
You don’t eat three meals a day because you want to lose weight
I don’t eat three meals a day because shit is it already 5 pm? Why did my hunger response not say anything? Time to eat my entire daily caloric allowance in one sitting
We’re not the same
I don’t eat three meals a day because I take my work drugs for that sweet temp upgrade from ADHD to AD4K instead.
Wait when did the 4K upgrade come up!? I missed it.
It’s called adderal, but good luck getting a prescription filled. All the tech companies are hoarding it for their H1B guys to code twice as much.
Dexedrine is better anyway but good luck getting it filled anywhere ever
Shh! Hehe
So it’s not just me that has no appetite on methylphenidate.
Also sweat profusely.
I do both, so kinda the same but not quite?
On any given day I can eat 1-4 meals.
It depends if I’m hungry. Mostly it’s 2 meals and I stop when I’m full.
I think it helps that I treat food like fuel rather than something I actively enjoy doing. On the days I’m more active I’m more hungry and so eat more.
There is no point to this comment other than to put out my odd relationship with food I guess.
That’s okay, we all have our quirks.
When in really into the zone (whatever zone that might be) I tend to not have any appetite and “forget” to eat. But that doesn’t happen all this often. Also, I just like good, or basically yummy food. Makes it kind of hard to change your habits and eat junk only about once weekly.
Thanks.
Yeah it’s those habits that are hard to break. Like I eat too much sugar for my liking.
IKR to being in the zone and forgetting things. It’s that reason I have a very strong bladder lol
Removed by mod
Why is it contra productive? If their daily calorie intake goes down than it is effective. That’s all that matters. Doesn’t matter if they achieve that trough intermittent fasting or calorie restriction.
Not the person you replied to but one reason not to eat all your calories in one or two meals a day would be that your blood sugar levels can spike higher that way, putting you at more risk of adverse health effects from that. Of course it also depends on what you eat and how much in general.
because your metabolism consumes the most calories - and if you don’t eat anything, it’ll just slow the process of consuming calories.
So, to keep it running, you have to give it at least SOMETHING to work with.
All our calories are consumed by the metabolism. It’s like saying that all the wood fed to an oven is consumed by fire, it’s in the definition of the thing.
And, no, skipping meals doesn’t slow down the metabolism. What kind of survival strategy would that be, be hungry but don’t have energy to gather and hunt food? Up to about 48 hours of fast you get a metabolic boost on the order of 4 to 16%, then it returns to baseline before going down. And this isn’t fucking new and no I won’t cite anything because it’s been known since we can fucking measure it. If you find a source contradicting it it’s going to be some fad diet propaganda, not actual science. Searching online you’ll find papers and bad scans of graphs from the 70s but the data should go back at least to the 40s or so.
These mechanisms are practically identical in pretty much all living critters on earth as they’re very old because evolutionary speaking food insecurity is the rule, not the exception, meaning our genome is accustomed to it and our bodies right-out need periods of fast to switch on certain crucial programs, such as autophagy – which isn’t just starvation-grade “let’s eat all the muscle mass” but also “hey that skin is quite loose now let’s shrink it a bit”. General maintenance work, gotta rip out and recycle some old stuff once in a while to keep everything running smoothly.
And that’s before getting hunger and satiation hormones into play. “Just eat less calories” is kinda hard to do when you’re choosing the maximally difficult way to do it – compare and contrast the Minnesota starvation experiment. Sure all those diet comparisons generally show that equal reductions in calories imply roughly equal reductions in weight but have a look at which diets are ad-lib (eat as much as you want, but only certain stuff, or at certain times of day), or not (eat only so and so many calories), and how well people are able to actually keep those up.
do you have a source for that? I would like to read more about that claim
That’s not saying anything about fasts in the range of 12-24 hours, it’s talking about severe caloric reduction over months.
As you seem to like that site, have a paragraph that actually talks about this stuff even with citations! Actual papers!
Nah man, two meals a day is whete it’s at
OMAD!
That’d be too little for me
I haven’t eaten three times a day in almost 20 years. Nothing to do with money - I just like black coffee in the morning and nothing else.
Breakfast is against nature and I am ready to die on this hill.
Try telling this to my kids…
Okay once again very slowly for the people in the back:
“Kids’ metabolism != adults’ metabolism”
You’ll gain fifteen pounds a year eating like this.
I’ll gain fifteen pounds a year eating like this.
We are not the same.
The actual statistic of the headline is that people surveyed reported that over the last two years they “sometimes” or “regularly” no longer ate three meals a day because of inflation and the fall in their purchasing power.
But, but… Neoliberalism is for your good and anything socialist is bad.
It’s time to end neoliberalism.
Unless those meals are teeny tiny, 3 meals a day reliably means weight gain for me
Yep ditto. I have to stick to 2 a day most of the time and do regular cardio. Shit sucks
Did you count the calories on those meals? Because my meals are always pretty much exactly on 450kcals, so that’s only 1350kcals. With a Banana, a proteine shake, milk coffees and a chocolate bar that would still be way below 2000kcals.
deleted by creator
No, no, we must open borders and let everyone in so that big corporation do not have to pay more salaries, and so the minimum wage does not increase, and anyway only old people are a burden on the social welfare system right? We have enough doctors and surgeons, comrads.
Just tell us you’re scared of the brown people moving into your neighborhood and move on.
Of course, it’s even worse, I’m scared everytime I look in the mirror.
You should, you ARE scary.
and here I am trying to eat 4-5 times a day to get >3000 calories in so I can gain weight.
Whole milk brother. It’s much easier to drink than eat calories
Yeah, that’s probably something I need to look into as I don’t really drink milk. Not sure if whole milk has ‘too much’ fat as I also don’t want to gain weight in a bad way. I’m looking to build muscle and get lean but nothing crazy like under 15% body fat. I’d be happy with 220 lbs and 20-25% body fat.
Peanut butter sandwiches can get really calorie dense rather quickly.
My go-to “energy sandwich” that I will eat before a day of surfing has crunchy peanut butter on both slices of bread, and dried apricots, cherries, cranberries, raisins, or banana slices, with some granola and a drizzle of maple syrup.
They’re delicious, and about 1000 calories per sandwich
That sounds like my kinda sandwich. I was thinking of drinking my calories via smoothie with oats, protein powder and almond butter with some frozen fruit like berries.
2-3 meals a day and gaining weight over here. Nuts are your best friend if you’re bulking.
I guess it matters how heavy you already are but 3 meals a day isn’t enough for me to hit 100KG. Nuts is something I do need to eat more often.
Just gotta up the calories per meal, other than the meal right before the gym in the morning, they’re always 1000+kcal for me.
I tried meal prepping and eating less per meal, but more often, but it just takes too much time out of the day personally.
100kg is quite the bulk though, what’s your starting point?
Nuts is something I do need to eat more often.
Unsalted cashew nuts is my personal go to.
I’m at 97KG right now and I started at 93KG but my starting weight was all fat (45%+) and zero muscle whereas now, I’m 4 months into a 5 day workout with weights so I’m reversing those numbers and trying to eat lean while getting to 100KG with half the amount of fat but I’m still around 35% but also 4KG heavier so I just need patience as I think what I’m doing is working.
Sounds like you’re doing great progress, keep the good work up! 💪
Thanks bro!
deleted by creator
Just out of interest: have you considered preparing your meals yourself?
This. Skipping a meal to afford food delivery is not a financial problem. It’s like saying “I am poor because I can only afford to drive one way with my Lamborghini and have to walk home”.
I mean, there are good reasons why people would choose to order food rather than cooking it: no time between three jobs, disabilities and so on. My comment wasn’t meant as an offense.
deleted by creator
Sorry, I indeed misunderstood. Looks like, I was not the only one. So, you’re not wasting money, neither do you waste food. It seems you’re just a camel :)
deleted by creator
Who eats three meals a day and why? I haven’t eaten three meals a day in years now, and I surely have more than enough money to afford food.
Hopefully it’ll help with the obesity epidemic.
I bet it will make it worst: the cheapest foods are the worst in terms of calories density.
They will get fat but malnourished.
deleted by creator
How will eating 3 junky meals be better than eating 2 of them?
Seems there’s a lot of latent anxiety about fat-shaming in this thread. Being fat is unhealthy, end of story.
deleted by creator
It’s not nearly as bad as in the US but unfortunately people are getting fatter here too. What we don’t have is peoole so fat they can barely walk. But 15kg too much on a 60 year old person? Way too common.
What we don’t have is peoole so fat they can barely walk.
What we also don’t have is cities so car-centric that you can’t walk at all because of lack of side-walks in residential areas.
If true, which it’s basically not, this is dumb distraction and click-bait.
So what is this “third meal” that so many people are supposedly giving up? Kebab? Big Mac and fries? Well surely that’s a win for everyone? Duh.
Sorry, but the reality is that poor people are not literally going hungry anywhere in Europe. Anyone who opens their eyes can see that. In almost every country in the world today, i.e. except the very poorest, poor people are fatter than rich people.
Completely inane and irrelevant and insulting to intelligence.
Addendum. To clarify, my point is that the problem with food today is the quality, the calories, the correlation with social inequality. It’s not the quantity and it’s certainly not the number of meals taken. Idiotic.
If only there was some way to confirm, short of only reading the headline, if theres more to this.
Oh, apparently theres further text in the article, for example 29% said their financial situation is precarious. 11% say they regularly dont eat enough, so they have enough food for their kids, 24% say theyre very concerned with coping with the increase in food prices. Oh and 12%, within the past 6 months, have skipped meals while hungry.
So the article sources survey data, you’re basing your claims on better primary data I take it? Or maybe secondary public health database datasets? Something else?
Yes, exactly.** Reading the article disproves the headline. **
When I hear ‘not eating three meals a day’ I do not think ‘has skipped one meal in the last two years.’ (which is how the headline get’s it’s 38% statistic.)
It’s not that deprivation does not exist in the EU, it’s that the scale of that deprivation is of an entirely different order than implied by the headline.
I don’t get this. My problem is being taken to be a fool.
How do you, personally, square these two observations:
- There’s a worldwide obesity epidemic affecting all but the poorest of countries, and within each society the fattest people tend to be the poorest ones
- Poor people - in rich Europe - are so poor that they can’t eat enough meals
Sorry, but something has to give. Which is it?
Addendum. Downvoting just proves you have no answer to the question.
Just because people can consume pure lard, and gain a tonne of weight, it doesnt mean theyre not malnutritioned. It also doesnt mean they dont experience hunger.
If you take a step back and consider the primary question that needs to be answered is it
a) What weight is a measure of hunger/poverty - people must be over x weight irrespective if health and were good. b) What food availability us a measure of hunger/poverty - people must have reasonable acess to a basic set of nutritional inputs and were good.
You seem to be following a - people are fat, so hunger doesnt exist
When it would be equally truthful, with a different conclusion to say - people are feeling hunger and experiencing malnutrition. When they can eat, what they can afford causes increased body mass without fulfilling their nutritional requirements. They also continue to feel hungry.
Treat food similar to medicine, the good benefit is the target, but there are also side effects. Cheaper food has a worse profile - fewer (not none) benefits, and higher side-effects.
Theres also more complexity to this - poverty isnt just $. Education, transportation, time, exhaustion, health. Many intersections and impacts that paint a persons life.
You are tying yourself in knots to pretend that that fat people are “hungry”. Why bother? Why not just use appropriate language, instead of mangling English like this?
I do not deny that there is a problem. I just hate being manipulated with language. It is dishonest, disingenuous, insulting. Fat people are not going hungry. Find another word.
Routine addendum. Downvoting does not make you right. It just proves you to be intolerant of other people’s opinions.
Downvoting just proves you have no answer to the question.
The answer is simple: Humans are neither omniscient nor perfectly rational.
Obviously, humans who always make the perfect choice to optimize their long term health won’t get obese just because empty calories are cheap. But if a typical human had such superhuman willpower and intellect, poverty wouldn’t exist anyway and humanity would be occupied with putting up a dyson sphere around Vega or whatever.
In reality however humans are flawed and practically all will make stupid choices if the right ones are harder. Hence we need to create systems that make it easier to chose wisely. Because as individuals that’s not something we’re capable of.
Sure. I agree with all that.
I don’t agree with labelling something “hunger” which is not hunger in the way ordinary folks understand it. You are talking about addiction. Hunger is the thin end of the wedge for starvation and famine. That is a thing in the world, still. It has all but nothing to do with the West’s inequality-fuelled addiction problems, or at least is something very, very different.
I just wish we would use language more correctly.
I think that’s a sophisticated re-rendering, and that most ordinary folks do associate the word “hunger” with famine, with starving, with terrible deprivation.
I don’t think the definition is that narrow. There’s definitions like this:
a compelling need or desire for food. the painful sensation or state of weakness caused by the need of food: to collapse from hunger. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hunger
- a craving or urgent need for food or a specific nutrient
- an uneasy sensation occasioned by the lack of food weakened condition brought about by prolonged lack of food
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hunger
It’s indeed often used to describe more dire situations around a lack of food, but it’s not exclusively used for those situations. Hunger is also the corresponding noun to “feeling hungry”. Hungriness isn’t used that often.
The two things are actually often related: junk food is faster, more accessible, stores longer, and is cheaper per calorie. So you can be hungry, skip a salad meal (that would need to be bought fresh and prepared) while having “mcdonalds”/microwave meal/high calorie meal for your leftover meal. Third has been the pattern, following US, where it is very common for the poor to eat more calories than the rich, while eating less healthy meals.
Yes sure, I know all that. There is a real problem. Fundamentally it’s about economic inequality, like so many other social problems.
So people should stop using the damn word “hunger”.
This has nothing to do with hunger. it’s dishonest and manipulative to talk about hunger when the problem has nothing to do with being hungry.
Personally I’m fed up of being taken to be an idiot like this.
It’s not a famine and fortunately no one is calling it that here. What it is, is “food insecurity”.
Eating healthy is already something that most humans don’t manage to do. Even those with money. After all humans are wired to love sugar and avoid work and cooking is work. If I had a penny for every time thought to myself “fuck being healthy” and then ate something, I could solve food insecurity. And I’m not even overweight, so probably mere average in that sort of irrationality.
Adding monetary constraints makes good food choices even less likely. And to make maters there’s also a bunch of other issues that arise people who have to worry about getting enough food. That type of stress is very much not healthy.
With your attitude, you could just go into a drug den and tell everyone there that all they have to do is “say no”. Sure, technically it’s correct, but reality doesn’t work that way.
Reality is that feeding people is fairly cheap option to curb social programs.
Yes, your point is that “hunger” should be interpreted very loosely, meaning in a sort of addiction-psychology way.
I think that’s a sophisticated re-rendering, and that most ordinary folks do associate the word “hunger” with famine, with starving, with terrible deprivation. Which is a real situation in a handful of desperate places in the world. I don’t think we should be conflating these two problems. One of them is far more urgent than the other.
I see this as just another instance of disingenuously sensationalist language and I would prefer people used the correct terms for what they are in fact talking about.
For the underlying substance, I agree with you and all the other censorious downvoters. I am just concerned about vocabulary and manipulation.
Yes, your point is that “hunger” should be interpreted very loosely, meaning in a sort of addiction-psychology way.
I’m saying that it simply isn’t well defined. There’s a reason we have terms like “malnurished” or “undernourished”. Your definition is only as narrow in certain contexts, e.g. “world hunger”. I personally wouldn’t use the word in the context of first-world issues either, but that’s because it’s ambiguous, not because it’s wrong.
While I think that you’ve got a valid broader point about misrepresentation – my pet peeve is the use of “relative poverty” in poverty infographics, which has got nothing to do with being poor, but rather is a sort of metric of inequality – I’m not sure that describes what is going on here. They highlight Moldova as having a particularly high rate of going without meals. Moldova is not, by European standards, wealthy, but also has a low obesity rate by European standards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_obesity_rate
You wouldn’t expect to see that if the poorer == more obese effect dominated in that case.
Finally, a decent rebuttal to my argument!
I agree about the conflation of absolute and relative poverty.
How fucking dare you. Pick up your pitchfork and put your blindfold back on right this instant.
