The Politics of Three Square Meals

The concept of three square meals a day is perhaps the most successful piece of health marketing in human history. We treat it as an evolutionary requirement, a biological rhythm. However, when we look closely at the politics, we find that the three-meal structure is less about what our bodies need and more about how our societies have been organised over time.

The word “square” itself carries the weight of this history, originating from the wooden boards used by sailors who needed a reliable, substantial portion of food to survive the gruelling labour of life at sea. To have a square meal was to have a fair, honest, and complete serving. It was a promise of stability in an unpredictable world. It suggested a level of decency and social standing that was earned through hard work. This linguistic relic has, however, stayed with us, reinforcing the idea that anything less than three full sittings is an aberration.

Globally, the idea that everyone should eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner is a relatively recent Western export. Before the Industrial Revolution, humans were far more opportunistic and fluid in their eating habits. Many cultures survived on two main meals, while others grazed throughout the day based on the availability of harvest. The shift occurred when the factory whistle replaced the natural clock. Employers needed a way to synchronise hundreds of workers, leading to the creation of the lunch break. By standardising when people ate, the state could standardise when people worked.

The truth is that the three-meal day was effectively the first productivity hack, designed to keep the engines of capitalism humming rather than to optimise the human metabolism. It changed the act of eating from a biological or social standpoint to that of maintenance for the human machine. As European influence expanded, so did this rigid schedule. It often overwrote indigenous eating patterns that were better suited to local climates and physical demands.

The politics of three square meals takes on a much more poignant and often painful meaning, particularly in the Nigerian context. For many families across the country, the ability to provide three meals a day has become the primary metric of success and dignity. We grew up in a culture where the question of whether one has eaten is synonymous with a query about one’s well-being.

The economic reality of the twenty-first century has turned the three-square-meal standard into a luxury. This standard has, therefore, become a source of immense psychological pressure, where parents who can only provide two meals feels as though they are failing a fundamental societal test. This pressure is compounded by the globalised image of abundance that flickers on our screens, suggesting that anything less than breakfast, lunch, and dinner is a sign of personal or national failure. We find ourselves in a strange paradox where we strive for a three-meal structure that our ancestors never needed, yet we feel impoverished when we cannot maintain it in the face of skyrocketing inflation.

Now, from a health perspective, the benefits of the three-meal structure are largely centred on stability. For a person with a consistent, active lifestyle, three meals can prevent the blood sugar crashes that lead to overeating and poor decision-making later in the evening. It provides a reliable framework for ensuring that we get a diverse range of nutrients across the day. When we sit down at regular intervals, we are more likely to prepare whole foods rather than reach for processed snacks in a moment of desperation. Regularity can also assist in regulating the circadian rhythm, as the body begins to expect fuel at certain times, which can improve digestion and even sleep quality for some.

Yet, the disadvantages of three square meals per day are becoming increasingly clear in our sedentary modern lives. We are often eating because the clock says it is lunchtime, not because our bodies are signalling genuine hunger. This mechanical way of eating contributes to the rising rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome because we have lost the art of listening to our internal feeding cues. We consume calories we do not need simply to satisfy a schedule that was invented for Victorian factory workers who were burning thousands of calories in physical toil.

Furthermore, the obsession with the number three ignores the nuance of individual biochemistry. The calorie requirements of a teenage athlete are vastly different from those of an office worker who spends eight hours seated at a desk. By clinging to the three-meal dogma, we often ignore the fact that our digestive systems benefit from periods of rest. The modern habit of constant consumption, fuelled by the fear of missing one of those three squares, means our insulin levels rarely have the chance to drop. This constant state of digestion can lead to chronic inflammation and a sluggishness that we then try to cure with more caffeine or more frequent snacking.

Moreover, the psychological toll of the three-square-meals ideology cannot be overstated. When we treat a specific eating schedule as a moral imperative, we create a culture of guilt. If a person skips breakfast, they are told they are ruining their metabolism. If they skip lunch, they are seen as too busy or perhaps struggling financially. This social surveillance of when we eat makes it difficult for people to practise intuitive eating. We have outsourced our internal wisdom to a cultural script. We are simply eating to please others, to satisfy the clock, and to prove our status, but rarely are we eating simply because our cells require nourishment.

The hard truth we must face is that the politics of three square meals will always be influenced by the economy and the culture, but the biology of the body is an individual responsibility. Whether you eat three times a day, twice, or five times, the focus must shift from the frequency to the quality and the necessity of the food. We have spent too long treating our stomachs like clocks that need to be wound at specific intervals. We must recognise that the three-meal structure is not a biological law; it is an inheritance from a different era.

Personal responsibility in this regard means reclaiming the power to decide what constitutes a full life and a full stomach. It requires the courage to eat when hungry and the discipline to stop when satisfied, regardless of what the traditional schedule dictates. We must move past the idea that three square meals are the only path to health. If we continue to follow a rigid, industrialised eating pattern while living a sedentary, digital life, we are inviting a health and wellness crisis.

The ultimate goal is not to achieve a perfect three-meal day but to achieve a body that is nourished, resilient, and respected. We must be the masters of our own appetites, with the understanding that true health is found in the balance between what the world expects of us and what our bodies actually require to thrive. Every meal we eat should be a conscious choice rather than a programmed response to a bell that stopped ringing a century ago.

Ojenagbon, a health communication expert and certified management trainer, lives in Lagos.

Nigerians can now invest ₦2.5 million on premium domains and profit about ₦17-₦25 million. All earnings paid in US Dollars. Rather than wonder, click here to find out how it works.

Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.