The Paleo approach to meal frequency

Furthering our discussion of postprandial (after-eating) phenomenona, including chylomicron and triglyceride "stacking" (Grazing is for cattle and Triglyceride and chylomicron stacking), here's a comment from the recent Palet Diet Newsletter on the closely related issue, meal timing and frequency:


We are currently in the process of compiling meal times and patterns in the worlds historically studied hunter-gatherers. If any single picture is beginning to emerge, it clearly is not three meals per day plus snacking ala the typical U.S. grazing pattern. Here are a few examples:

--The Ingalik Hunter Gatherers of Interior Alaska: 'As has been made clear, the principal meal and sometimes the only one of the day is eaten in the evening.'
--The Guayaki (Ache) Hunter Gatherers of Paraguay: 'It seems, however, that the evening meal is the most consistent of the day. This is understandable, since the day is generally spent hunting for food that will be eaten in the evening."
--The Kung Hunter Gatherers of Botswana. "Members move out of camp each day individually or in small groups to work through the surrounding range and return in the evening to pool the collected resources for the evening meal."
--Hawaiians, Tahitians, Fijians and other Oceanic peoples (pre-westernization). 'Typically, meals, as defined by Westerners, were consumed once or twice a day. . . Oliver (1989) described the main meal, usually freshly cooked, as generally eaten in the late afternoon after the day’s work was over."

The most consistent daily eating pattern that is beginning to emerge from the ethnographic literature in hunter-gatherers is that of a large single meal which was consumed in the late afternoon or evening. A midday meal or lunch was rarely or never consumed and a small breakfast (consisting of the remainders of the previous evening meal) was sometimes eaten. Some snacking may have occurred during daily gathering, however the bulk of the daily calories were taken in the late afternoon or evening. This pattern of eating could be described as intermittent fasting relative to the typical Western pattern, particularly when daily gathering or hunting were unsuccessful or marginal. There is wisdom in the ways of our hunter gatherer ancestors, and perhaps it is time to re-think three squares a day.



In other words, the notion of "grazing," or eating small meals or snacks throughout the day, is an unnatural situation. It is directly contrary to the evolutionarily more appropriate large meal followed by periods of no eating or small occasional meals.

I stress this point because I see that the notion of grazing has seized hold of many people's thinking. In my view, grazing is a destructive practice that is self-indulgent, unnecessary, and simply fulfills the perverse non-stop hunger impulse fueled by modern carbohydrate foods.

Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars and you will find that grazing is a repulsive impulse that equates with gorging.


The full-text of the Paleo Diet Newsletter can be obtained through www.ThePaleoDiet.com. You can also read and/or subscribe to the new Paleo Diet Blog, just launched in November, 2009.

Comments (12) -

  • Kevin

    11/24/2009 3:18:05 PM |

    I can't rememeber exactly when but several years ago a melting glacier uncovered a 5000 year old man in the Pyranees area. He was dubbed 'Oetzi'.  Since he carried a bow and arrow and kit with seeds he was certainly a hunter-gatherer.   It's logical that he was hunting and carried seeds to sustain him during the day.  But he died of an arrow attack so possibly he was killed for the game he had found, or perhaps by a tribe mate wanting to move up the social ladder.  Who knows.  

    kevin

  • Adolfo David

    11/24/2009 4:10:24 PM |

    And what about 3-4 small high fat (Omega 6 free) low carbs (no glycemic) meals during the day? Its for example my case

  • KENNY10021

    11/24/2009 5:23:26 PM |

    Plus grazing would result in higher levels of digestive acid present in the stomach more often. More acid, more often.......This too is unhealthy...is it not?

  • Richard Nikoley

    11/24/2009 7:58:11 PM |

    Excellent data, doc.

    I rarely eat anything big during the day, and almost never before 10am. It's now 12:00 noon and I'll be headed for an intense workout at 12:30 lasting for 30 minutes and will include a lot of pushing weight around. I may eat a bit in the afternoon, but most probably will have a large meal this evening.

    This approach has worked wonders in terms of body comp and especially, hunger. I'm just almost never ravenous as I was with all the junk, which I think is the root cause of the grazing dysfunction.

    Also, note that it's probably far easier for them to keep their minds off food when they're busy hunting and gathering it.

  • UofMWolverine81

    11/24/2009 9:54:10 PM |

    ting caught up on what meal frequency or timing is "best" and shift the focus toward ensuring an adequate micro and macronutrient intake that supports your goals and lifestyle?

    If I am highly active and making quality food choices that fall in line with that activity level, it seems like there wouldn't be anything inherently wrong with eating 4-6 small meals/snacks per day .  That's not to say that 1 or 2 relatively larger meals wouldn't work as well, but I can't see there being much overall difference provided overall daily intake is roughly equivalent (if not the same) and and the focus is on undamaged fat sources, lean protein sources, plenty of vegetables, and a modest intake of fruit (especially things like berries).

    Some folks find that various styles of intermittent fasting work best for them when it comes to controlling intake, and others have found that a higher number of smaller feedings work better. So while I do not dispute the wisdom in observing patterns from various hunter-gatherers, I don't feel that mirroring their patterns is something that fits my lifestyle and individual tendencies.

    Of course I could be living with my head in the sand and the joke is on me, but I figured I'd just offer up my general thoughts.  I am far from being an expert on these issues.

    In any event, thank you for sharing this post, Dr. Davis.

  • Helen

    11/25/2009 12:21:24 AM |

    I'm against grazing (especially since it's usually crap that people graze on), but I do have a question about this.  I recently read that the rate of strokes increases during Ramadan, which mirrors this pattern - a large evening meal every day.  

    http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/does-ramadan-fasting-increase-risk-of-stroke_10038409.html

    My father used to just eat one big meal a day at night.  He had a massive heart attack in his 50s.  He ate a lot of meat, butter, eggs, and bacon grease.  I doubt that all of that caused it - I think the primary cause was his two-pack-a-day unfiltered Camels habit.  But all of that didn't prevent it, either.

  • The Mick Solomons Experiment

    11/25/2009 1:59:47 AM |

    I've found going down to 2 main meals a day, and only eating between 11am and 6pm that my body fat has dropped considerably.  

    I was stuck on about 70kgs for 12 months after starting a high fat, low carb diet, since I've started IF I've dropped nearly a kg of body fat a week for the past 6 weeks (you can see photos on my blog) And I know its body fat because I'm maintaining and even increasing the amount of weight i'm lifting at the gym.

    I also feel great too Smile

  • Kathryn

    11/25/2009 2:44:44 AM |

    Then, why the insistence, heard over & over that breakfast is so important?  My body just doesn't seem to want something early in the day, & i've been trying to trust instinct.  But then i wonder if it is just a habit i've gotten into?  

    I'm not eating a lot of calories & i eat no wheat (on rare occasion i break this, but have been 95% gluten-free for about 4 years or more).  But no weight loss.  I sometimes wonder if it is because i'm resistant to having breakfast.  

    I really don't understand.

  • PERKDOUG

    11/25/2009 4:18:43 PM |

    I borrow here from the Diabetes community. Blood sugar spikes may be the root cause of or a major contributor to Type 2 diabetes. The bigger the meal the bigger the spike. Most of us that have endured the SAD for most of our lives are well on our way to Type 2 (in my opinion) even after taking to the Low Carb WOE. Thus we are damaged goods and probably would be well advised that if we eat fewer meals per day, we should test the effects on our blood sugar. I do this. Blood meters are dirt cheap. Low carbing no doubt helps but does not assure "no spikes".

  • Methuselah

    12/3/2009 2:16:43 PM |

    Kathryn, the answer to your question "then why the insistence" is because the people who are doing the insisting are basing their advice on little or no real evidence, just pseudo science and old-wivery. Don't confuse exposure with validity. Bad ideas very often get more air time than good ones and the world of medicine and nutrition is rich with examples.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:40:00 PM |

    I stress this point because I see that the notion of grazing has seized hold of many people's thinking. In my view, grazing is a destructive practice that is self-indulgent, unnecessary, and simply fulfills the perverse non-stop hunger impulse fueled by modern carbohydrate foods.

  • mike

    5/29/2012 7:35:12 PM |

    If the typical hunter-gatherer tribe eats only once a day and if humans can only absorb around 35g of protein at one time, this would mean that even H-Gs eating very high protein diets would ACTUALLY be on very low protein diets. This is huge no?

Loading
Flat tummy . . . or, Why your dietitian is fat

Flat tummy . . . or, Why your dietitian is fat

When I go to the hospital, I am continually amazed at some of the hospital staff: 5 ft 4 inch nurses weighing over 200 lbs, etc.

But what I find particularly bothersome are some (not all) hospital dietitans--presumably experts at the day-to-day of healthy eating--who waddle through the halls, easily 40, 50, or more pounds overweight. It is, to say the least, credibility-challenging for an obese dietitian to be providing nutritional advice to men or women recovering after bypass or stent while clearly not in command of nutritional health herself.

What's behind this perverse situation? How can a person charged to dispense "healthy" nutritional information clearly display such clear-cut evidence of poor nutrition?

How would you view a success coach dressed in rags? Or a reading coach who can barely read a sentence?

Easy: She follows her own advice.

Hospital dietitians are essentially forced to adhere to nutritional guidelines of "official" organizations, such as the American Heart Association and the USDA. There is some reason behind this. Imagine a rogue dietitian decides to advocate some crazy diet that yields dangerous effects, e.g., high-potassium diets in people with kidney disease. There is a role for oversite on the information any hospital staff member dispenses.

The problem, of course, doesn't lie with the dietitian, but with the organizations drafting the guidelines. For years, the mantra of hospital diets was "low-fat." More recently, this dated message has begun--only begun--to falter, but now replaced with the "healthy, whole grain" mantra. And that is the advice the hapless dietitian follows herself, unwittingly indulging in foods that make us fat.

Sadly, the "healthy, whole grain" message also contributes to heart disease via drop in HDL, increased triglycerides, a huge surge in small LDL, rise in blood sugar, increased resistance to insulin, tummy fat, and diabetes. Yes, the diet provided to survivors of heart attack increases risk.

The "healthy, whole grain" message also enjoys apparent "validation" through the enormous proliferation of commercial products cleverly disguised as healthy: Cheerios, Raisin Bran, whole grain bread, whole wheat pasta, etc. The "healthy, whole grain" message, while a health disaster, is undoubtedly a commercial success.

I'll bet that our fat dietitian friend enjoys a breakfast of healthy, whole grains in skim milk, followed by a lunch of low-fat chicken breast on two slices of whole grain bread, and ends her day with a healthy meal of whole wheat pasta. She then ascribes her continually climbing weight and size 16 figure to slow metabolism, lack of exercise, or the once-a-week piece of chocolate.

Wheat has no role in the Track Your Plaque program for coronary plaque control and reversal. In fact, my personal view is that wheat has no role in the human diet whatsoever.

More on this concept can be found at:

What's worse than sugar?

The Wheat-Deficiency Syndrome


Nutritional approaches: Large vs. Small LDL

Are you wheat-free?

Comments (19) -

  • Brock Cusick

    12/20/2008 5:26:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    In your clinical practice, do you see good results from patients who continue to eat oats and/or brown rice as long as they cut out sugar, wheat and corn?  

    I ask because Dr. Weston Price's research found examples of cultures that used these grains (oats and rice) while continuing to exhibit signs of good health. He did not have access to modern diagnostics however, so perhaps he missed some indicators.

    Kind regards,

    Brock Cusick

  • baldsue

    12/20/2008 7:16:00 PM |

    Each time I contemplated seeking advice from a dietitian, I changed my mind after I saw the dietitian and decided I was doing well enough on my own.  Never felt like I could believe or trust dietary advice from someone whose BMI was obviously higher than my own.

    And I love my new flat stomach.

  • Anonymous

    12/20/2008 9:44:00 PM |

    My father had surgery 7 years ago at a well known Indianapolis hospital. During visitation I could not help but notice how overweight (some obese) the female receptionists and nurses were. They all looked to be in their early to mid 30s.I was speechless.

  • Anonymous

    12/21/2008 7:40:00 AM |

    that's what can happened even to a best-selling author of diet books http://tinyurl.com/8d4d4m

    in my country there's a saying "a shoemaker that walks on bare feet"

  • Anonymous

    12/21/2008 7:42:00 PM |

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19083495

    Long-term consumption of a carbohydrate-restricted diet does not induce deleterious metabolic effects

  • Leniza

    12/22/2008 5:51:00 PM |

    I don't think that overweight dieticians (and nurses, and doctors)even follow their own advice. Not that that advice isn't garbage anyway, but I doubt that whole grains and lots of fruit and lean meats make up the bulk of their diets. It's probably more the case that these people aren't following the rules they give their patients (not that the rules would work, anyway). "Knowing" something and choosing to do it are two different things. I completely agree with you on sugar and wheat, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to indulge without guilt during the holidays (I don't have any health problems, though.)

    It's like with smoking. People KNOW it's bad for them, but they still do it. I know several doctors who tell their patients to quit smoking, but who smoke like chimneys themselves. I used to work with a PULMONARY PATHOLOGIST who was a chain smoker.

  • Jean-Luc Boissonneault

    12/22/2008 7:40:00 PM |

    Thank you, I'm so glad you said this! This makes me sick! I say practice what you preach or don't preach at all. At my personal training centre, my trainers are all in good shape. I tell them it's like a hopelessman giving financial advice.

  • Anonymous

    12/23/2008 3:27:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis, thought you'd find this interesting:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215184308.htm

    Journal reference:

       1. Piconi et al. Treatment of periodontal disease results in improvements in endothelial dysfunction and reduction of the carotid intima-media thickness.

    The FASEB Journal, 2008; DOI: 10.1096/fj.08-119578

  • Ricardo Carvalho

    12/29/2008 1:16:00 PM |

    Dear Dr. Davis, I suppose the WHO wants everyone to be fat, don't they?! Nutritionists simply follow these poor recommendations. Who's fault? -> http://www.euro.who.int/nutrition/20030321_1

  • extropolitca

    12/29/2008 11:03:00 PM |

    WHO is right in his recommendation.
    Right with the mean of the people living on Earth.
    I'm italian, living in Italy.
    Mediterranean diet (the real deal) is very good if you are a peasant in agricultural job doing hard work (4.000 Kcal/day). Than you can eat your pound or two a day of bread plus salami, cheese and olive oil and fruits, be full, lean and healthy.

    You move to city, start to work in an office, cut all to 2.000 kCal/day proportionally and you find yourself hungry, gaining fat and lacking minerals and vitamins with the same diet.

  • Juhana Harju

    1/1/2009 1:22:00 PM |

    This is a naughty blog entry... but I agree. Smile I have been pondering the same question.

    While I approve the use of whole grains, I agree with Extropolitcan's view that reduced energy expenditure should lead to changes in diet. We should probably use more nutrient dense foods. I would also like to promote the idea of moderation, which is really a beautiful and positive idea, not appreciated enough in our Western culture.

    Wishing everyone a Happy New Year,

    Juhana Harju
    BMI 22

  • Anonymous

    11/25/2009 5:35:44 PM |

    I've seen more fat doctors than fat dietitians. I'm a dietitian and I'm at a perfect body weight, AND I follow my own advice, which is to eat in moderation. This is an extremely unfair stereotype to make. Between doctors and nurses thinking they know all about nutrition with minimal education in it, and patients asking for advice and then telling you that you're wrong right to your face, it's no wonder clinical nutrition has such a high burnout rate and low rate of job satisfaction.

  • Anonymous

    5/13/2010 1:52:39 AM |

    I'm a fat dietitian, and we fat dietitians know how much we are hated.

    I find it interesting that the topic of "dietitians that follow their own advice" had to be written with such contempt. Consider the message your readers came away with...many commented on their contempt of fat people rather than grasping the diet advice you are promoting. "A naughty post" BMI 22 wrote. Why naughty? Because ridiculing someone for being fat is still acceptable behavior in this part of the world, even though we know we should not "throw stones". Consider promoting your message without inciting the contempt of others.

    In addition, consider how being fat can't be hidden, the way other characteristics can. For example, what physical characteristics are required of a realtor, plumber, grocery clerk, insurance salesperson? It might not matter if they were fat since they are not dispensing "health" advice, but consider all of the unseen ways they might deviate from the norm.

  • Anonymous

    7/6/2010 6:47:04 PM |

    I'm a dietitian as well, and although not "fat", I find it challenging to maintain weight. This not because of any "bad" advice I'm giving, it's just the way life is sometimes.

    That said---I hope that someday you are publicly ridiculed for something you struggle with. I hope you are ridiculed for your imperfections, which I'm sure you have. Dietitians aren't any more perfect than anyone else. Just because we understand the physiology behind things doesn't mean that life is any easier for us. Maybe the "fat dietitian" in the hallway has things going on in her life that you don't know about, and you should keep your "fat" mouth shut about it.

  • buy jeans

    11/4/2010 6:34:29 PM |

    Sadly, the "healthy, whole grain" message also contributes to heart disease via drop in HDL, increased triglycerides, a huge surge in small LDL, rise in blood sugar, increased resistance to insulin, tummy fat, and diabetes. Yes, the diet provided to survivors of heart attack increases risk.

  • Michael Scott

    10/1/2011 2:31:15 AM |

    I'm 69 and have been on Atkins, level one, for a little more than eleven years.  I now consider myself a "former" overeater because as long as I remain below twenty grams of carbs per day, I'm totally in control of my eating.  Even after eleven years I understand that my chances of ever being able  to eat more than 20 grams of carbs per day will never happen!  Like an alcoholic, whenever I reach my "carb limit" I have to stop at that point.  I can't eat even a single bite of any grain products without "falling off the wagon".  A single bite of bread or pizza crust and I become an alcoholic with food!  I'm just amazed that more dietitians  are not overweight eating grains.  Anyone who can eat grains and still remain under 400 pounds has my admiration.

    Mike Scott

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/1/2011 1:45:47 PM |

    Hi, Mike--

    Your experience is something like my personal experience, though my carbohydrate cutoff is around 30 grams per day. Some of us are just not equipped to handle the high insulin requirement, while others can get away with much more. Find your individual path and stick to it!

  • Michael Scott

    10/1/2011 3:21:52 PM |

    This information is for the dietitian who suggested eating in moderation.  Is this the same advice we give to an alcoholic?  Do we tell them to drink in moderation?   About the only advice an over eater receives from a doctor or dietitian is:  Starve yourself for the rest of your life and don't forget to kill yourself exercising!  Now we all know that these may not be their exact words, but trust me that is exactly what an over eater hears just before going into “full panic mode”.  When my eating was “totally out of control”, I had as much chance of stopping at one slice of bread as a “down and out” alcoholic has of stopping after one drink!  Until we all understand this, there is almost no long term hope for a “fat” person.  We do not suggest that an alcoholic drink in moderation for a very good reason.  How can we advise someone with a major eating disorder to eat the very foods they are addicted too.  Had I not given up whole grains, fruit and any high carb vegetables, I would now be 400 pounds.  I learned this thanks to Dr. Atkins.  If not for him I wouldn't be here now.  How many 400 pound, 69 year old men do you know?  Moderation of grains/alcohol will never work.  

    Michael Scott (again)

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/2/2011 2:44:08 PM |

    Well said, Michael!

    You make a crucial point: How many 400 pound, 69 year old men do you know?

Loading