Who mostly happens when three meals a day are changed to two meals? A dieter, especially a novice dieter. Because most people's direct life experience is that "being fat is because of eating more, so eating less can make you thin." So "three meals to two meals" is a matter of course. However, friends who take this approach should know something about dieting and lose weight, and it is not too late to decide after weighing the pros and cons.

Question 1: How to change three meals a day into two?

In fact, when dieters adopt the method of "changing three meals into two meals", there are various combinations, which are nothing more than the following three possibilities:

The first combination, no breakfast, normal lunch and dinner.

The second combination, breakfast and lunch are normal, and dinner is not eaten.

The third combination is breakfast and dinner, not lunch.

From a practical point of view, if the third combination is adopted, the time between meals is too long, and many people can't stand hunger, so relatively few people use this "no lunch" combination diet.

The first combination is "no breakfast". Many people want to save trouble, because office workers are pressed for time in the morning and get up late, so they simply skip breakfast as a way to lose weight. In fact, skipping breakfast is very harmful to the body and is not conducive to losing weight at all, so it is not suitable.

In contrast, only "no dinner" is more reliable than the "three meals without two meals" scheme that can be considered. Although there are many problems, they can be made up by some dietary arrangements, which will be mentioned later.

Question 2: What is the purpose of "three meals without two meals"? What are the pros and cons?

"Three meals to two meals" is of course to lose weight. Such an answer is not enough. We must also consider the following questions:

(1) What's the effect of changing three meals to two?

(2) Is it harmful to health?

(3) How long does this diet weight loss measure need or can be maintained?

Let's discuss one by one:

(1) What's the effect of changing three meals to two?

There are many kinds of scientific diet to lose weight, each with its own weight loss theory and basis. The original intention of "changing three meals into two meals" is nothing more than trying to lose weight by eating less, and its essence should be "reducing calorie intake to lose weight", that is, "negative calorie balance method" Therefore, it is meaningless to lose weight in theory if the total calorie intake level is not reduced after three meals are changed to two meals.

After taking this measure, another problem is to reduce the number of meals. If the total calories and food intake are indeed greatly reduced, it will trigger the body's self-protection mechanism. The body will get such a signal, "food supply is insufficient, reduce energy consumption", so the metabolic level will drop, that is, the body is not prepared to stay at the original calorie consumption level, and the level of fat burning will also drop. However, many people do lose weight in a short time, which is mostly caused by the loss of water and nutrients, rather than the consumption of fat.

Of course, you can't keep your calorie intake low forever. Once you return to your original eating habits, your body will quickly and efficiently convert your calories into fat and store it for the next "famine". This process is a rebound. That's why people who lose weight by hunger will eventually get fat, and may get fatter.

(2) Is it harmful to health? Of course there is.

If dieters simply reduce the number of meals and food intake, it is likely to cause nutritional imbalance. In addition, long-term hunger will be automatically compensated in the next meal, and the eater either doesn't realize it, or can't resist his appetite and can't help eating more. This unhealthy diet consisting of hunger, overeating or overeating will stimulate the gastrointestinal system and cause various digestive system diseases.

Some people take more radical measures, such as eating little breakfast and lunch, and eating nothing next time, which may also lead to malnutrition, anemia, osteoporosis and other problems.

(3) How long does the diet of "three meals to two meals" need or last?

It is best to finish it within three months, and then change to another diet to lose weight. Because:

First, the weight-loss effect of various weight-loss methods has a "validity period", that is, it cannot be effective forever. You will find that this method of losing weight by hunger seems to be quite effective at first. You have lost weight, but as time goes on, your weight changes less and less until it stops.

Secondly, one of the instincts of human existence is "eating", and long-term hunger is not feasible, which is why so many people use hunger to lose weight, but it soon fails. Because this is against your appetite instinct, winning is as small as zero.

Then, can't we adopt a "three meals without two meals" diet?

Yes, you can. Yu Hangjun said in the first question that the method of "not eating dinner" is more reliable, based on such conditions:

First, ensure a balanced nutrition. If you don't eat dinner, you should ensure more nutrition for breakfast and lunch to make up for the nutritional loss caused by not eating dinner.

Secondly, after three meals are changed to two meals, the total calorie intake level should be controlled to ensure the formation of an energy gap to consume excess body fat for energy supply. Note that "controlling calories" is not "controlling food intake" (although there is a certain relationship between them). For example, you can increase satiety by eating foods with high dietary fiber content and low calories.

Third, if you have to take part in exercise at night, it is likely that your body will be overwhelmed. At this time, you can still supplement it by eating "food with high protein, low fat and low carbon water", which will not affect the fat-reducing effect. (See Beijing Science and Technology Press, Encyclopedia of Fitness and Nutrition, "Diet without dinner", page 259. )

Question 3: Did you really eat nothing but dinner?

After changing three meals to two meals, if the method is proper, it will really help to lose weight. However, many people failed. One of the important reasons is that they only pay attention to dinner and indulge in diet control outside dinner. The so-called "diet other than dinner" refers to everything you eat, including snacks, cakes, drinks, fruits and so on.

These out-of-meal diets are likely to involve two main obstacles to losing weight, one is high calorie, and the other is high carbohydrate content.

The high calorie of food means that "the calories absorbed by meals other than dinner" are likely to offset "the calories you reduced for dinner", and there may be a surplus. As a result, all efforts to control dinner were in vain.

The content of carbohydrate (sugar) is high, because sugar can promote the secretion of insulin in large quantities, thus promoting the synthesis of fat and making you fatter. Including refined pasta, cakes, drinks, sweets, fruits (especially high sweetness) and so on.

It can be seen that diet control is a systematic problem, and dieters should not only focus on dinner, but also look at the whole diet structure completely.

To sum up, we can draw the following conclusions.

(1) Changing from three meals to two meals is not good for your health. But if dieters can scientifically design the overall diet plan after "three meals to two meals", the diet of "three meals to two meals" is still feasible. However, I only suggested "no dinner", not breakfast or lunch.

(2) Changing from three meals to two meals is essentially a diet, but the effect of losing weight through hunger is not ideal in the long run, and it also increases the risk of related diseases. Not a long-term way to lose weight.

(3) Diet is a systematic project, and dieters should keep a global vision. In addition to dinner, snacks, cakes, drinks, fruits and other non-dinner diets should also be included in the overall diet plan to control.