Whats worse? Eating unhealthy meal or skipping a meal?

[speedmachine]

I normally take my own food from work as I don't really like what the cantine has to offer. Recently I've been a bit slack. So today, i had deep fried fish and chips from the cantine and afterwards I thought if would it have been better to skip the meal or just eat the meal even if its somewhat unhealthy?

What do you think? Yes I know its not a mahjor concern in the grand scheme of things but the thought occured to me so I posted it

[_DeeJay_]

Surely your body needs energy, so eating is better than not eating. I'd assume the protein and carbs you got for from the fish and potato would have been useful to your body.

Going hungry can't be good for your body, especially if you're trying to maintain muscle.

A one off 'bad' meal won't have any real negative effects, you wouldn't think.

[996 sps]

Do you know what that's a really good question, your right not the most important priority in the scheme of things.

My take on it is if your overweight then you have enough calories in your system to ensure no danger in 1 day, you have whats called basal metabolic rate, which is the minimum amount of calories you require to just tick over (stay alive) for most average people this is not high.

I suppose it also depends what you do for a job if your just sat at a desk no dramas if you have a job which requires a lot of calorie crunching then you will fatigue.

Also you will have a slump were blood sugars will drop and the body may run out of glycogen supplies (unlikely for 1 lunch time). If you continued to miss meals your body has a safety mechanism were it begins to slow down it metabolic rate (hence why people who diet put weight back on quick).

I actually miss lunch a lot but if there was a plate of chips in front of me or miss lunch then my decision would be to miss lunch on the other hand if your in a canteen I presume there was some fruit in there so i'd shove some bannanas down me.

Edited by 996 sps on Friday 15th January 16:16