On Jan 15, 2006, at 1:17 pm, Robert Kesterson wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:22:45 -0600, Debby Padilla-Hudson  
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Do you feel that small frequent meals is an important
>> factor in weight loss?
>
> I do.  For one, it keeps your metabolism slightly elevated.  For  
> another, it keeps you from getting extremely hungry between meals,  
> so the tendency to "snack" is reduced.  I don't think every two  
> hours is necessary, but definitely more than "three squares".


I used to think this too, but I read something that made me think  
otherwise.  It was in the Daily Mail of all places. (For those who  
don't know the Daily Mail only prints political scandal, conspiracy  
theories about Princess Diana and scare stories, so there might be  
something in it.)  They were talking about this new-fangled "warrior  
diet" (eating only in the evenings during a 4-hour time period).  It  
was hardly paleo, as it basically condensed a standard western day's  
food into a few hours.  So you'd have cornflakes at 6pm, sandwiches  
at 7, steak and chips and ice cream at 8 and a cake at 10, or  
something like that.  Surprisingly they found that on average, the  
test subjects lost weight.

Presumably the reason eating non-paleo like this causes weight loss  
is that your insulin levels aren't through the roof all day- they're  
through the clouds but only for a couple of hours.  Whether you'd get  
the same effect on paleo I don't now.

I eat like this anyway, and I find it convenient as I only spend  
about 1.5 hours a day preparing and eating food, and I tend to eat  
less too.  But the main short-term benefit of that is saving money,  
as I haven't got any extra weight to lose.  Also I plan to live to  
120 and every little helps :)

Ashley