Dr. Davis first posted this: Grazing is for cattle

Then he posted a couple of charts that show why grazing is bad (things that promote heart disease)
Triglyceride and chylomicron "stacking"

Basically the bad things increase, stacking on one another like building blocks, when the amount of time between meals is too small.

Every time you eat it weakens you -- the body has to work overtime and delegate precious energy resources and make enzymes to process all the food we eat. Many cultures over the ages have realized the inherent benefits of fasting, it's even part of religions -- but not the American culture -- we eat non-stop.

Look at an injured animal, the first thing instinct tells them is to rest and avoid eating for a day or more. If I get an injury I do the same, it works

Would grazing be considered having 3 main meals and 2 decent snacks?

I always would have thought grazing didn't hurt. My mother does it all the time - yet she's one of the most energetic I know. But then she also has a very low PUFA-omega 6 intake, so its foggy.

Not everyone who grazes has obvious health problems, but I find it fascinating that in a society that typically eats 6-10 times a day (counting "nibbling")the powers that be would come up with a theory that the secret to weightloss is to eat more often.

Yeah, it takes quite awhile to clear the bad stuff out of your blood.

Here's the notion he's trying to convey...

Imagine that every time you eat you pour 1 cup of water into a bowl. Every hour that passes empties out about 1/4 of a cup. But every time you eat adds another cup. (Just an illustration).

So you eat breakfast at 8:00.
8:00 Bowl contains 1 cup of water.

10:00 Bowl contains 1/2 cup of liquid (it drains 1/4 cup every 30 minutes)
Eat a snack. Add 1 cup of water to the bowl.
10:05 Bowl contains 1.5 cups of water. (Total has increased by .5 cup)

12:00 Bowl contains 1 cup of water.
Eat lunch. Add one cup of water.
12:05 Bowl contains 2 cups of water.

3:00 bowl has 1.25 cups of water. Eat another snack, add another cup.
3:05 bowl as 2.25 cups of water.

And so on.


The levels of these bad blood thingies increases during the day each time you eat. Like the water accumulates in the bowl because it hasn't had enough time to drain out.

Overnight, the bowl empties out but it can't while one is constantly pouring water into it.

I think he's making a point here that intermittent fasting (like having a small eating window each day) is probably best. Or the next best thing is only eating 3 meals and don't snack.

3 meals for me would mean around 800 calories per meal - that's a lot for one sitting. I'm not even sure I can pull that off.

I used to do one hour-long meal a day and never felt better, but it's demanding to get in 1,800 calories

I plan to go back to, or close to 24/1 this Winter -- I miss that "fasting high" and the increased energy fasting gives. Protein shakes are one trick that helps, also eating enough of the saturated fats. Another thing that helps is a small snack at night like some black olives, a strip of bacon or HB egg.

You are working yourself back up to health after being underweight, right?

In your shoes I would either do 4 meals 4 hours apart, or breakfast, early lunch, snack, late-ish dinner.

List of authors who advocate 4-6 hours between meals without snacks:

Kwasniewski
Groves
Byron Richards (Leptin guy)

I have 3 meals, my goal weight is also 125, but I would only have 400 cals per meal, so that is easier than 800 at a sitting. Although 800 calories of something dense like cream is not that hard.

I think it's possible to work up to it. If you go a little longer until your next meal, and then eat as much as you feel like you need, your body will begin to learn how to process a larger meal.

I remember when I started IF I felt like I was really stuffing myself, and I would have to eat again a few hours later. But now I can pack away 2000 calories in a meal, no problem. It helps if you take the "volumetrics" idea in reverse: A high-fat food with very little water or fiber will not fill up your stomach, but it will get you the calories and make you feel satisfied for longer.

I think it also helps to approach a meal with the Slow Food idea, which stems from Old World European cultures: Take your time, sit with your companions, eat many courses, savor every bite, enjoy the conversation. You might have to rearrange your life to have something like that (and my version includes a lot of compromises like snacking while I'm cooking and staying at the table after everyone else has gone), but in my opinion, it's worth it.

I notice the levels drop much more sharply after the second large meal. If it indicates a trend, then the peak after the third meal would be lower, contrary to his suggestion that the blood levels would continue to rise with every meal. It would be interesting too if they had done a comparison of eating all the foods from the two meals in just one sitting so the resulting blood levels could be compared.

Just to point out, these studies were people probably eating the usual crap that people eat these days. Who knows how low carbing affects all this.

I'm happy you said this Nancy as when I read the study he was using....and the fact that he said that veggies don't have any impact....I was confused by his cherry picking info to support his theory.

I eat 3-5 times day, in a very controlled carb way, depending on my activity level and my hunger. It works for me.

I've felt for awhile now that eating fewer times per day is probably better. But my body rarely complies with these ideals my mind conceives of.

Actually, that's pretty good, because that's what I was doing anyway (or approaching it - the 4 meals a day plan). Kwasniewski recommends the optimal diet, right? He doesn't sound too off - but it's not for me at such a young age.

I have a feeling that the body can probably handle 2-3 meals a day - but it takes a lot of adjustment.

I also try to eat as slow as possible, but that's insanely impossible in today's New York! Really - people love to gulp their meals and eat bags of chips while they walk. It becomes a challenge of who's faster.

The best thing that I have done towards my diet, next to Low Carb, is intermittent fasting. Learning to keep my meal frequencies to a minnimum has helped me to begin to shed the weight that I regained while sticking to my LC lifestyle.I believe that as digestion comes to completion we begin to get symptoms of hunger. Peristalsis for example, is our Pavlov's bell that makes us believe that we are hungry. When our stomach growls we are feeling peristalsis but we don't think to ourselves "Oooo, my digestion is coming to completion". No, we think of a growling stomach as a signal to eat.


I quit eating 3 -4 meals a day plus snacks. I eat once or twice a day with rather large, filling meals. I have never felt "full" or stuffed when I eat. One thing that supports my theory that the body needs to complete the digestion process by the BMs that occur around 1 hour after eating my first meal. I consider that a reward.

Nancy, I used a similar analogy when I first began IF. I speculated that by having a meal too soon after the previous like the candy factory episode of the "Lucy SHow". You all know what I mean. While the conveyor belt stayed slow and steady they were able to keep up with production. As the belt speeded up they ended up stuffing candy down their clothes and in their mouths. What if our bodies worked the same way...we'd be more careful with the amount of meal frequencies we stuck in our mouths.