Do you really need three meals a day? Experts debate the traditional rule
Statistics show that most Americans (64%) consume three meals daily and 28% consume two meals — but some may struggle to hit three meals a day, while others prefer smaller, more frequent meals.
Serena Poon, a certified nutritionist and longevity wellness advisor based in Los Angeles, said she considers the concept of three meals a "more cultural convention" than a "biological necessity."
"There's no magic in 'three meals a day,'" she told Fox News Digital. "What matters is the quality of your food, the timing of your meals, and how well both align with your unique biology and lifestyle."
"A flexible routine, such as two nourishing meals and a snack, or three well-balanced meals eaten within a 10- to 12-hour window, has strong scientific backing and fits comfortably into most modern schedules."
A 2024 review published in JAMA found that lower meal frequency, earlier calorie distribution and time-restricted eating led to greater weight loss and metabolic improvements than the traditional three-meal pattern, Poon pointed out.
"From a nutrition and metabolism perspective, what you eat matters more than when you eat."
In another study published this year in Nature Medicine, overweight or obese adults who ate only during an eight-hour window "reduced visceral fat and cardiometabolic risk" just as effectively as standard eating.
Extremely low frequencies of eating, such as one meal a day, can "heighten hunger and risk micronutrient gaps, so they require professional guidance," Poon warned.
Lauri Wright, PhD, RDN, director of nutrition programs and associate professor at the USF College of Public Health, agreed that the idea of eating three meals a day is cultural, evolving largely from social norms, work schedules and industrialization rather than scientific evidence.
"From a nutrition and metabolism perspective, what you eat matters more than when you eat for most people," she said.
"Some individuals thrive on three balanced meals a day, while others do well with smaller, more frequent meals. What's important is meeting your body's nutritional needs across the day."
Regular meals can help stabilize blood sugar, support energy levels and prevent overeating, especially for those who have conditions like diabetes or are prone to "energy crashes," Wright noted.
"But there's no one-size-fits-all pattern," she said. "Skipping breakfast or consolidating meals, for example, can work for some people without negative health effects, as long as nutrient quality and total intake are adequate."
"In short, three meals a day can be a helpful guideline, but it's not a strict requirement for health."
Poon suggested that "personalization is key" when it comes to eating frequency, but most healthy adults thrive on an eight- to-12-hour eating window that begins within two hours of waking and ends at least three hours before bedtime.
She also pointed to study data showing that eating within a 10-hour window for eight weeks improved appetite regulation, sleep quality and morning GLP-1 levels in young adults.
People who rise early in the day may benefit from "front-loading" calories into breakfast and lunch, Poon suggested, while shift workers may function better with a later window.
Those with conditions such as diabetes, eating disorder histories or pregnancy should ask their doctor about individualized diet plans.
"Consider lifestyle, medical needs (like diabetes), age and preferences," Poon advised. "Some thrive on three meals, others on intermittent fasting or grazing — it's about consistency, nutrient quality and listening to your body."
The expert also recommended paying attention to internal signals and hunger cues, like gentle stomach rumbling, a dip in focus or mild irritability. A meal should end at "comfortable satiety," or a feeling of satisfaction.
"Intuitive eating practices have been linked to lower morning cortisol, better mental health and sleep scores, and improved mood metrics," she said.
Instead of eating based on the clock, listening to authentic hunger and fullness cues will help maintain steady energy, sharpen focus and avoid last-minute, less-nutritious choices, Poon added.
For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health
"Whatever cadence you choose, keep the focus on whole foods, balanced macronutrients and nutrient-rich options," she recommended.
"Most importantly, stay consistent in a pattern that honors your circadian rhythm, accommodates your social life and supports your personal health goals."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
US and Mexico sign deal to stop sewage release into Tijuana River
Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who traveled to Mexico to sign the memorandum of understanding with Alicia Bárcena Ibarra, Mexico's environment secretary, wrote in a statement that the countries are aiming for a 'permanent, 100% solution.' Under the deal, Mexico agreed to complete an allocation of $93 million toward sanitation infrastructure, and complete all projects by Dec. 31, 2027, the EPA said. The United States, which had withheld funds for water infrastructure improvements on the border, will release money to complete the rehabilitation of a pump station and other projects. Advertisement 'The Trump administration is proud to deliver this massive environmental and national security win for Americans in the San Diego area who have been living with this disgusting raw sewage flowing into their communities for far too long,' Zeldin said in a statement. Advertisement Bárcena Ibarra said in a statement the agreement 'strengthens collaboration to address environmental and health challenges along the northern border.' San Diego County residents have suffered acutely. The Office of the Naval Inspector General this year found that more than 1,100 Navy recruits contracted gastrointestinal illnesses after training in southern San Diego waters. And nearly half of the 40,900 households in the region have experienced health problems, including rashes and shortness of breath, that were most likely attributable to the sewage, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The agreement comes three months after Zeldin visited San Diego to begin negotiations with Mexico. It drew praise from local officials, including from Democrats, but some environmental advocates said more needs to be done. Jim Desmond, a Republican supervisor of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, wrote on the social platform X that the announcement 'marks a significant step forward.' He said the federal government had previously failed to hold Mexico accountable for the sewage flowing into California. 'Our beaches must be clean, safe, and open year-round — anything less is unacceptable,' he wrote. Todd Gloria, the mayor of San Diego and a Democrat, thanked Zeldin on X and called the deal 'a huge step toward ending this crisis.' Matthew Tejada, senior vice president of environmental health for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, called the agreement a good start. 'It's great that we're starting to roll up our sleeves' on this issue, he said. But he added that the waste-water improvements are enormous and complicated infrastructure projects that are likely going to be hit with unexpected problems, including worsening levels of runoff and sewage exacerbated by climate-fueled storms. 'These are really tough projects to implement, with really elusive outcomes,' he said. Advertisement This article originally appeared in
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Criminalization or support? President Trump's executive order on homelessness gets mixed reaction
An executive order signed by President Trump purporting to protect Americans from 'endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks' attributed to homelessness has left local officials and homeless advocates outraged over its harsh tone while also grasping for a hopeful message in its fine print. The order Trump signed Thursday would require federal agencies to reverse precedents or consent decrees that impede U.S. policy 'encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.' It ordered those agencies to 'ensure the availability of funds to support encampment removal efforts.' Depending on how that edict is carried out, it could extend a lifeline for Mayor Karen Bass' Inside Safe program, which has eliminated dozens of the city's most notable encampments but faces budget challenges to maintain the hotel and motel beds that allow people to move indoors. Responding to the order Friday, Bass said she was troubled that it called for ending street homelessness and moving people into rehabilitation facilities at the same time as the administration's cuts to Medicaid have affected funding 'streams for facilities for people to stay in, especially people who are disabled.' 'Of course I'm concerned about any punitive measures,' Bass said. 'But first and foremost, if you want to end street homelessness, then you have got to have housing and services for people who are on the street.' Kevin Murray, president and chief executive of the Weingart Center homeless services and housing agency, saw ambiguity in the language. 'I couldn't tell whether he is offering money for people who want to do it his way or taking money away from people who don't do it his way,' Murray said. Others took their cue from the order's provocative tone set in a preamble declaring that the overwhelming majority of the 274,224 people reported living on the street in 2024 'are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.' The order contradicted a growing body of research finding that substance use and mental illness, while significant, are not overriding factors in homelessness. 'Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.' A February study by the Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative at UC San Francisco found that only about 37% of more than 3,000 homeless people surveyed in California were using illicit drugs regularly, but just over 65% reported having regularly used at some point in their lives. More than a third said their drug use had decreased after they became homeless and one in five interviewed in depth said they were seeking treatment but couldn't get it. 'As with most executive orders, it doesn't have much effect on its own,' said Steve Berg, chief policy officer for the National Alliance to End Homelessness. 'It tells the federal agencies to do different things. Depending on how the federal agencies do those things, that's what will have the impact.' In concrete terms, the order seeks to divert funding from two pillars of mainstream homelessness practice, 'housing first,' the prioritization of permanent housing over temporary shelter, and 'harm reduction,' the rejection of abstinence as a condition of receiving services and housing. According to the order, grants issued under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should 'not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called 'harm reduction' or 'safe consumption' efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.' And the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should, to the extent permitted by law, end support for 'housing first' policies that 'deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency.' To some extent, those themes reflect shifts that have been underway in the state and local response to homelessness. Under pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California legislature established rules allowing relatives and service providers to refer people to court for treatment and expanded the definition of gravely disabled to include substance use. Locally, Bass' Inside Safe program and the county's counterpart, Pathway Home, have prioritized expanding interim housing to get people off the streets immediately. Trump's order goes farther, though, wading into the controversial issue of how much coercion is justified in eliminating encampments. The Attorney General and the other federal agencies, it said, should take steps to ensure that grants go to states and cities that enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering and squatting. Homeless advocacy organizations saw those edicts as a push for criminalization of homelessness and mental illness. 'We'll be back to the days of 'One Flew Over the Cuckcoo's Nest,' 'Berg said, referring to the 1962 novel and subsequent movie dramatizing oppressive conditions in mental health institutions. Defending Housing First as a proven strategy that is the most cost-effective way to get people off the street, Berg said the order encourages agencies to use the money in less cost-effective ways. 'What we want to do is reduce homelessness,' he said. 'I'm not sure that is the goal of the Trump administration.' The National Homelessness Law Center said in a statement saying, 'This Executive Order is rooted in outdated, racist myths about homelessness and will undoubtedly make homelessness worse.... Trump's actions will force more people into homelessness, divert taxpayer money away from people in need, and make it harder for local communities to solve homelessness.' Murray, who describes himself as not a fan of Housing First, noted that key policies pressed in the order—civil commitment, encampment removal and substance use treatment—are already gaining prominence in the state and local response to homelessness. 'We all think if it came from Trump it is horrible,' Murray said. 'It is certainly overbearing. It certainly misses some nuances of what real people with mental illness and substance use are like. But we've started down the path of most of this stuff.' His main concern was that the order might be interpreted to apply to Section 8, the primary federal financial tool for getting homeless people into housing. What would happen, he asked, if someone with a voucher refused treatment? 'It might encourage more people to stay on the streets,' he said. 'Getting people into treatment isn't easy.'
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
The next big health care fight that's splitting Republicans: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. Happy Friday! In today's edition, Sahil Kapur notes that a looming Obamacare deadline is dividing Republicans on Capitol Hill. Plus, Kristen Welker breaks down the political fallout thus far from the Jeffrey Epstein saga. And Scott Bland answers this week's reader question on Texas Republicans' redistricting efforts. — Adam Wollner The next big health care fight that's splitting Republicans By Sahil Kapur After passing President Donald Trump's sweeping megabill that included steep cuts to Medicaid, Republicans have another big health care fight on their hands. GOP leaders are facing growing calls from their members to extend a bucket of funding for the Affordable Care Act that is set to expire at the end of this year as some look to avert insurance premium hikes and millions of Americans losing their health coverage. But the cause faces opposition from conservatives who detest Obamacare and don't want to lift a finger to protect it. Some argue it'd be too expensive to continue the premium tax credits, which cost over $30 billion per year and were initially adopted as part of a Covid-19 response. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that about 5 million Americans will lose their insurance by 2034 if the money expires. The divide: Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., who represents a swing district that Trump lost in 2024, said that Congress should continue those ACA tax credits in order to avoid price increases. 'I think we gotta be doing everything to keep costs low across the board — health care, groceries, energy, all of the above. So I am currently working on addressing that as we speak,' he said. But Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., the chair of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, said he 'absolutely' wants that funding to end. 'It'll cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Can't afford it,' he said. 'That was a Covid-era policy. Newsflash to America: Covid is over.' For now, top Republican leaders are keeping their powder dry about whether — or how — they will take up the issue. 'I think that goes to the end of the calendar year, so we'll have discussion about the issue later. But it hasn't come up yet,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said when asked about an ACA subsidy extension. 'But it's on the radar.' A midterm warning: Veteran GOP pollsters Tony Fabrizio and Bob Ward recently released a memo warning that extending the health care tax credits is broadly popular, even with 'solid majorities of Trump voters and [s]wing voters.' They warned that the GOP will pay a 'political penalty' in the competitive districts in the 2026 midterm elections if the funding expires on schedule. Analysis by Kristen Welker The Jeffrey Epstein saga is the political headache that won't go away for President Donald Trump, as the drip-drip of new reporting on his past relationship with the convicted sex offender and repeated attempts to deflect have only fed the story. It's the first time we've really seen Trump's base break with him to this degree. Even though the impulse to rally around their leader remains as each new story breaks, no matter how Trump tries to change the subject, the calls for his administration to release more information from the Epstein files are only growing louder. The issue transcends politics — it's a devastating reminder of the victims of the crimes committed by Epstein and those who enabled him. As far as how it's playing out on Capitol Hill, Democrats and even some Republicans are trying to hold the Trump administration's feet to the fire. Both parties believe the GOP could pay a political price on the issue as they look to defend their congressional majorities in next year's midterms. That includes Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., one of our guests on 'Meet the Press' this Sunday. 'People will become apathetic again. They'll say, we elected President Trump. We gave him a majority in the House and the Senate, and they couldn't even release evidence of an underage sex trafficking ring. They couldn't even bring themselves to release that. I thought we were the party of family values, and I guess we're not,' Massie said this week on the 'Redacted' podcast. And Democrats, including Rep. Ro Khanna of California — another one of our guests this Sunday — argue the issue has salience on multiple fronts. They note it divides Trump and his base while also making a relatively popular appeal for transparency, one piece of a broader Democratic line of attack that the administration isn't being open with the American people. While it's unsurprising that Democrats overwhelmingly disapprove of how the Trump administration is handling the Epstein files, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, 71% of independents disapprove, too. And Republicans are about evenly divided, with 40% approving and 36% disapproving of the administration's handling of the issue. The political cost for Republicans isn't clear yet. Will it depress the enthusiasm of voters Republicans are scrambling to motivate to turn out with Trump not on the ballot? Will it force the party onto the defense at a time where it needs to be cementing public sentiment about its landmark tax cuts and spending bill, which Democrats are already weaponizing as a key midterm issue? Could Democrats overplay their hand if it overshadows their message on the most important issue to many voters, the economy? We'll discuss this and more on this Sunday's 'Meet the Press.' In addition to Khanna and Massie, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., will also be joining us. Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on Republicans' attempts to draw new congressional maps in Texas. 'Is it legal what Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Republicans want to do for Trump?' To answer that, we turned to senior politics editor Scott Bland. Here's his response: Redistricting happens every decade after the decennial census, so that each state has representation in the House of Representatives reflecting its official population and each district in a state has the same number of people in it. But this isn't the first time someone has moved to change the maps mid-decade. In fact, this isn't even the first time it's happened in Texas. In 2002, Texas Republicans gained full control of the state Legislature, and they decided the following year to draw a new map to replace a court-drawn one that had been imposed for that decade — and to increase the GOP advantage in the state. 'I'm the majority leader and we want more seats,' Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told reporters at the time. What flies in Texas doesn't necessarily fly everywhere, though. Colorado Republicans also tried to redraw maps in their state in 2003, but the state Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution forbade revisiting the maps more than once per decade. While Democrats are eager to fight back against the GOP's effort to draw more red seats in Texas, such obstacles could stand in their way. As New York Democratic Party Chair Jay Jacobs told Politico this week, 'I understand those in New York who are watching what's happening in Texas and Ohio want to offset their unfair advantage.' But, he added, 'The [state] Constitution seems pretty clear that this redistricting process should be done every 10 years.'
