24 ms·

38% of Europeans no longer eat three meals a day

31 points by belltaco 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
golol 3y ago
[flagged]
- Longlius 3y ago
  It's not good when the reason they're skipping a meal is inflation.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    maybe their standards became too high, hard to believe some basic food (pasta, bread, milk) are not affordable anymore..
    - CobaltFire 3y ago
      If you aren’t aware of the cereal grain price issues in Europe I’m not sure you are paying attention. Here’s one recent relevant article; there are a ton more if you look: https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176714159/italy-pasta-crisis-us-food-costs https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176714159/italy-pasta-crisis...
      - riku_iki 3y ago
        Base on numbers in that article, average Italian eats 51lb of pasta annually or spends around 50-60 euro/y, or 5 euro/month, it is still not believable that it makes significant impact.
        potatopatch 3y ago
        I think food costs like many other costs remain near historic lows, but a euro stolen is a euro earned in every subsequent month for the coalition to prevent housing supply.
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
[flagged]
- idle76 3y ago
  [flagged]
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  [flagged]
- signatoremo 3y ago
  [flagged]
saaaaaam 3y ago
I’ve not eaten three meals a day since I was about 8 years old. I eat one meal a day and if I’m hungry - which is rare - I’ll have something small mid afternoon, some bread dipped in oil and vinegar or an apple and cheese. I then eat late in the evening around 8pm. I always hated breakfast. I can only assume that most people who eat three meals a day have kids and so think they have to.
- bequanna 3y ago
  Many of us have high caloric needs, high metabolism and have to eat 3 meals a day. This article is about people who would like to eat 3 meals but their financial situation prevents them. Many people don’t have the amount of food they need. That sounds pretty damn scary to me.
  - tharkun__ 3y ago
    Not to diminish the point you're making about the financial situation, I don't see how most people nowadays have high caloric needs. In fact I believe most people today have very small caloric needs. Definitely compared to the olden days, where a 4000+ calorie diet for a farm hand would totally be OK and nobody would get fat from that. But even physically active people won't need that today. What most people have is cravings for sugary stuff and way too easy access to sugary stuff and they get fat and unhealthy from it (even if they stay lean because of their specific metabolism and not putting on the kilos but they might still be diabetic, have high cholesterol etc.) You parent probably eats a diet that (costs more but) is skewed towards proteins and fats and fiber and more akin to a diet one might have found prior to us discovering cheap and easy ways to make sugar and mass produce grains and process them into dead white flour. Personal anecdote to corroborate your parent's view (i.e. `anecdata+=1`): When I went full on Keto I could easily go for just one meal a day. I just wasn't hungry and the body used up my fat stores instead. It somehow learned over some time that it no longer had access to all that quick sugar and the cravings stopped. And when I did eat, it was lots of veggies, fat and protein and only incidental carbs from those veggies basically. On the other hand, when I came off Keto I immediately noticed again that if I do eat normal carb-y breakfast, I get hungry for lunch time again, while on Keto with nothing but a coffee w/ some butter or coconut oil in it, I wouldn't get any feeling of hunger during the entire day. Now with that said, it's probably cheaper for people to eat a sugary 3 meal diet than to eat a healthy diet of lots of protein, fat and veggies, as that's even more expensive if you don't grow a lot of it in your own garden from heirloom seeds. And who's got the time (or garden) for that like grandma did.
ImJamal 3y ago
Since some people who have commented here seem to not think it is a big deal because they don't eat 3 meals a day. The article is saying this change is due to economic impacts, not for dieting/fasting/health purposes.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  It's tone-deaf to be sure. But the assumption, only 3 meals is acceptable, is certainly debatable. Not to say 'let them starve'. But folks decide to cut back on food instead of other things, let's look at the bigger picture. That's fair, right?
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    >It's tone-deaf to be sure. But the assumption, only 3 meals is acceptable, is certainly debatable I'm not suggesting that only 3 meals is acceptable. I'm just saying if somebody wants 3 meals, which has been the standard for some time, and can't afford it, that is not good. If somebody voluntarily cuts back on food that is fine. That is not what appears to be happening. >Not to say 'let them starve'. But folks decide to cut back on food instead of other things, let's look at the bigger picture. That's fair, right? Frankly, we don't know if they have also cut back on other things and food was the last to be cut back on. You are making an assumption that food was one of the first to be cut back on. Look at these quotes from the article >Other compromises include not turning heaters on, borrowing money and not treating a health problem in the face of the rising costs. >21% of the parents surveyed said they have experience at least one instance of "not eating enough" in order to feed their offspring
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      I just think this may be similar to the 'think of the children!' argument. Seems like a slam-dunk. But everything is complicated. In my student days I'd routinely miss a meal to make a class or see a movie or hang with friends. Didn't think anything of it. Gotta be a big drag to have to ration food to your family. Not had to do that. Can imagine its more than a calorie thing - it's an emotional blow.
mrtri 3y ago
[dead]
zamadatix 3y ago
To me hearing 17% "at risk of" poverty but 38% not able to have 3 meals per day on a regular basis due to financial constraints is just confusing. I've always felt like poverty has too broad a coverage as a term. It can mean anything from not having the same amount of spending money as others in the region to borderline starvation.
makingstuffs 3y ago
I think the title is poorly phrased and should be something along the lines of “38% of Europeans Feel They are Unable to Meet Their Calorific Requirements Due to Finances” to remove the debate as to whether or not we need 3 meals a day. The reality is there is no hard and fast rule as to how many meals one should eat as we all have different lives and biological factors playing a role here. The headline is that people feel they are not getting the sustenance they require because they simply cannot afford to, which is terribly sad.
- dudul 3y ago
  In the author's defense, it is a bit unexpected that people would miss the point so much that they would turn it into a debate about how many daily meals you should have.
kgbcia 3y ago
2 meals for me. I skip lunch since I feel so bloated if I eat it.

31 points by belltaco 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

golol 3y ago

[flagged]

Longlius 3y ago
It's not good when the reason they're skipping a meal is inflation.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  maybe their standards became too high, hard to believe some basic food (pasta, bread, milk) are not affordable anymore..
  - CobaltFire 3y ago
    If you aren’t aware of the cereal grain price issues in Europe I’m not sure you are paying attention. Here’s one recent relevant article; there are a ton more if you look: https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176714159/italy-pasta-crisis-us-food-costs https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176714159/italy-pasta-crisis...
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      Base on numbers in that article, average Italian eats 51lb of pasta annually or spends around 50-60 euro/y, or 5 euro/month, it is still not believable that it makes significant impact.
      - potatopatch 3y ago
        I think food costs like many other costs remain near historic lows, but a euro stolen is a euro earned in every subsequent month for the coalition to prevent housing supply.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

[flagged]

idle76 3y ago
[flagged]
Rebelgecko 3y ago
[flagged]
signatoremo 3y ago
[flagged]

saaaaaam 3y ago

I’ve not eaten three meals a day since I was about 8 years old. I eat one meal a day and if I’m hungry - which is rare - I’ll have something small mid afternoon, some bread dipped in oil and vinegar or an apple and cheese. I then eat late in the evening around 8pm. I always hated breakfast. I can only assume that most people who eat three meals a day have kids and so think they have to.

bequanna 3y ago
Many of us have high caloric needs, high metabolism and have to eat 3 meals a day. This article is about people who would like to eat 3 meals but their financial situation prevents them. Many people don’t have the amount of food they need. That sounds pretty damn scary to me.
- tharkun__ 3y ago
  Not to diminish the point you're making about the financial situation, I don't see how most people nowadays have high caloric needs. In fact I believe most people today have very small caloric needs. Definitely compared to the olden days, where a 4000+ calorie diet for a farm hand would totally be OK and nobody would get fat from that. But even physically active people won't need that today. What most people have is cravings for sugary stuff and way too easy access to sugary stuff and they get fat and unhealthy from it (even if they stay lean because of their specific metabolism and not putting on the kilos but they might still be diabetic, have high cholesterol etc.) You parent probably eats a diet that (costs more but) is skewed towards proteins and fats and fiber and more akin to a diet one might have found prior to us discovering cheap and easy ways to make sugar and mass produce grains and process them into dead white flour. Personal anecdote to corroborate your parent's view (i.e. `anecdata+=1`): When I went full on Keto I could easily go for just one meal a day. I just wasn't hungry and the body used up my fat stores instead. It somehow learned over some time that it no longer had access to all that quick sugar and the cravings stopped. And when I did eat, it was lots of veggies, fat and protein and only incidental carbs from those veggies basically. On the other hand, when I came off Keto I immediately noticed again that if I do eat normal carb-y breakfast, I get hungry for lunch time again, while on Keto with nothing but a coffee w/ some butter or coconut oil in it, I wouldn't get any feeling of hunger during the entire day. Now with that said, it's probably cheaper for people to eat a sugary 3 meal diet than to eat a healthy diet of lots of protein, fat and veggies, as that's even more expensive if you don't grow a lot of it in your own garden from heirloom seeds. And who's got the time (or garden) for that like grandma did.

ImJamal 3y ago

Since some people who have commented here seem to not think it is a big deal because they don't eat 3 meals a day. The article is saying this change is due to economic impacts, not for dieting/fasting/health purposes.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
It's tone-deaf to be sure. But the assumption, only 3 meals is acceptable, is certainly debatable. Not to say 'let them starve'. But folks decide to cut back on food instead of other things, let's look at the bigger picture. That's fair, right?
- ImJamal 3y ago
  >It's tone-deaf to be sure. But the assumption, only 3 meals is acceptable, is certainly debatable I'm not suggesting that only 3 meals is acceptable. I'm just saying if somebody wants 3 meals, which has been the standard for some time, and can't afford it, that is not good. If somebody voluntarily cuts back on food that is fine. That is not what appears to be happening. >Not to say 'let them starve'. But folks decide to cut back on food instead of other things, let's look at the bigger picture. That's fair, right? Frankly, we don't know if they have also cut back on other things and food was the last to be cut back on. You are making an assumption that food was one of the first to be cut back on. Look at these quotes from the article >Other compromises include not turning heaters on, borrowing money and not treating a health problem in the face of the rising costs. >21% of the parents surveyed said they have experience at least one instance of "not eating enough" in order to feed their offspring
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    I just think this may be similar to the 'think of the children!' argument. Seems like a slam-dunk. But everything is complicated. In my student days I'd routinely miss a meal to make a class or see a movie or hang with friends. Didn't think anything of it. Gotta be a big drag to have to ration food to your family. Not had to do that. Can imagine its more than a calorie thing - it's an emotional blow.

mrtri 3y ago

[dead]

zamadatix 3y ago

To me hearing 17% "at risk of" poverty but 38% not able to have 3 meals per day on a regular basis due to financial constraints is just confusing. I've always felt like poverty has too broad a coverage as a term. It can mean anything from not having the same amount of spending money as others in the region to borderline starvation.

makingstuffs 3y ago

I think the title is poorly phrased and should be something along the lines of “38% of Europeans Feel They are Unable to Meet Their Calorific Requirements Due to Finances” to remove the debate as to whether or not we need 3 meals a day. The reality is there is no hard and fast rule as to how many meals one should eat as we all have different lives and biological factors playing a role here. The headline is that people feel they are not getting the sustenance they require because they simply cannot afford to, which is terribly sad.

dudul 3y ago
In the author's defense, it is a bit unexpected that people would miss the point so much that they would turn it into a debate about how many daily meals you should have.

kgbcia 3y ago

2 meals for me. I skip lunch since I feel so bloated if I eat it.