I'm far from a gambling man, but I'd be willing to bet a fair amount that you could go into great detail about the best Christmas and birthday gifts you've ever received. The daily double that could induce me to drop a little more dinero: (1) that those gifts served - and maybe still serve - an important use; (2) that the items are - for whatever reason - ones you always wanted but hesitated to buy for yourself.

But this third wager is where I'd be willing to stake serious bucks. I'd bet the car, the house, and even all seven bikes that you can't remember the design and color of the gifts' wrapping paper.Now, as you pay out my winnings, I'll explain the intent behind this introduction: to clear my conscience and continue this column.Metaphorically speaking, these columns are my gifts to you. I hope more than a few contain information that's useful - sometimes even stuff you really wanted to know but never had the time or resources to uncover.Yesterday morning I wanted to gift you again. Instead, I spent a couple of hours creating what I first thought was an exceptionally clever introduction. Then I read it, realized it was rubbish, and called myself a couple of bad names. After hitting the delete button (and myself on the side of the head), I realized the error in my ways.Instead of taking pains with the gift, I was putting all my effort into the wrapping paper.So consider what you've just read the equivalent to a brown paper bag. Now read what's inside it and have a Merry Christmas or Happy Birthday or a pleasant whatever.***Are you trying to keep everyone in the house at a healthy weight and in good heart health?If so, don't let your kids skip meals, and don't do so yourself. Two studies published last year have found that missing meals makes it more likely to add weight, increase belly fat, and increases the eventual likelihood of contracting type 2 diabetes and heart disease.In the first study, published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Finnish researchers used the results from a population sample of 512 six- to eight-year-old boys and girls and determined those who skip meals are more likely to have excess body fat. Moreover, the meal skippers also recorded fasting serum insulin, fasting plasma glucose, triglycerides, cholesterol, and blood pressure scores elevated enough to increase the likelihood of one day developing type 2 diabetes and heart disease.The second study, performed on mice and published in The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, indicates that meal skipping hurts adults, as well.In essence, these researchers allowed one group of mice to eat for a brief four-hour window once a day but allowed a second group to graze and eat whenever. After restricting the calories of the once-a-day eaters by half to encourage gorging later, both groups consumed the same number of calories daily. The researchers altered the number of calories every three days.After the once-a-day group began eating the same number of calories as the all-day group, their weights eventually matched. When body fat testing was conducted at the experiment's end, however, something didn't match.The once-a-day eaters carried far more body fat -- and in a potentially dangerous place: the abdomen.In humans, excess belly fat has been linked to insulin resistance, which leads to a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes and heart disease.Additionally, the once-a-day eaters had more markers of inflammation - the harbinger of many types of diseases - than the all-day grazers.For readers with strong recall, this information should create a number of questions. That's because two "Fitness Master" articles published in late January of this year cited two prior studies performed on mice about the frequency of meals that produced conflicting results.Those, in short, found that limiting eating to an eight- to 10-hour window not only managed weight more effectively but also produced better blood-work results. This lead to me to joke about my usual 16- to 17-hour personal eating window and to explain my success this way: that different people change food into energy and get affected by that process differently.While I still believe that statement is true, something about the conflicting results in the mice studies bothers me. Since all the studies used mice created solely for laboratory experimentation, I wouldn't expect such dramatic differences in the results.What I would expect is the same or even greater degree of weight control when mice were limited to eating four hours a day when prior research showed that limiting eating to eight hours a day produced it.And I definitely wouldn't expect the blood-work results of the mice limited to eating four hours a day to show an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease after the prior study showed limiting eating to an eight hour window decreased it when compared to a control group.Research always create questions, contradictory results even more so. All I can offer in response is a reminder that eating healthy foods creates different metabolic responses in your body than eating unhealthy stuff.Once you establish a regular pattern of healthy eating, how often you should eat should simply be gauged by hunger. You create false feelings of hunger, however, if you eat junk.