A debate has emerged on whether sticking rigidly to set meal times or listening to your body's hunger signals is better for health and wellness. Celebrated cardiologist Dr. Belle Monappa Hegde recently sparked discussion by claiming scheduled eating may not be the most suitable approach. He argues we should consume food based on internal cues rather than external schedules.
This view challenges common guidelines recommending fixed breakfast, lunch and dinner hours daily. While convenient for many, constrained windows may conflict with natural rhythms. Consulting dietician Kanikka Malhotra weighed in on potential physiological impacts and benefits of both stances.
She notes benefits of scheduled eating include stabilized blood sugar, especially for those with diabetes, from predictable digestion. However, ignoring hunger could lead to overindulging later, disrupting metabolism. On the other hand, hunger-focused eating matches bodily signals for smoother nutrient absorption and metabolic stability. Yet an erratic schedule may cause unplanned, excessive consumption if cues are missed due to busy days.
In terms of weight management, Malhotra acknowledges scheduled patterns can curb mindless snacking through prevented overeating. However, varying activity levels mean caloric needs change daily, so rigid plans don't always suit active lifestyles. Above all, mindful eating through differentiating true hunger and emotional triggers is key for balanced nutrition, she stresses.
The expert's consensus is a balanced hybrid approach suits most. Listen to hunger cues primarily but keep loose meal frameworks, especially for those managing blood sugar, to strike the right physiological and lifestyle balance. Are your body's signals or the clock a better nutrition guide? Consider your unique situation and find the healthy harmony.
