"to snack or not to snack: That's the question"

2»

Replies

  • SweetestLibby
    SweetestLibby Posts: 607 Member
    I like eating and snacking therefore I snack. 3 meals and 3 to 4 snacks. For me it help regulate my appetite and cut down on the chances that I'll start random snacking on junk food. I have x snack planned so I'm less likely to take the random chips, candy, or what have you offered to me at work or out and about. It also helps me work in the "treats" that I want. Yesterday morning my mid-morning snack was a doughnut. It all comes down to personal preference.
  • avocado12
    avocado12 Posts: 197 Member
    There's no right or wrong answer really, you've just got to find that balance and what works for you.
  • SteelySunshine
    SteelySunshine Posts: 1,092 Member
    Log everything. Including times you eat if that helps you track what is going on. That way you find out what works for you. No two people are exactly the same. I don't eat before I go to bed and I can sleep even if I am hungry. I delay breakfast sometimes as well. That approach isn't going to work for everyone. Just make sure you are eating nutrient dense food most the time, the whole version if possible. Focus on getting enough protein (oh that's for me) and the other nutrients will follow.
  • mistesh
    mistesh Posts: 243 Member
    Basically, there isn't scientific evidence to prove that one method works better than another.

    How about this one?

    "Results: Late lunch eaters lost less weight and displayed a slower weight-loss rate during the 20 weeks of treatment than early eaters."

    Timing of food intake predicts weight loss effectiveness
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955
  • MB_Positif
    MB_Positif Posts: 8,897 Member
    Well, I wouldn't sleep at all if I went to bed hungry. I managed to lose over 50 pounds in a year (up a few after a major surgery) while eating snacks in between meals and all the way up until bedtime. I know that the same things don't work for everyone, but I personally believe being too restrictive results in eventual failure.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Basically, there isn't scientific evidence to prove that one method works better than another.

    How about this one?

    "Results: Late lunch eaters lost less weight and displayed a slower weight-loss rate during the 20 weeks of treatment than early eaters."

    Timing of food intake predicts weight loss effectiveness
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955

    I think that while the study is interesting, there's a pretty significant amount of things occurring here that would make me "not put too much concern" over the results of this study. If we saw examples of this repeatedly then I'd be more inclined to go with it.
  • mistesh
    mistesh Posts: 243 Member
    Whoever heard of no snacks? Pretty much everyone who lived before 1980. Snacking between meals is a pretty recent phenomenon. People used to eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And that was it. Going back about 200 years, people ate one meal a day. So over time we've started eating more and more often, and obesity has been getting worse and worse. Coincidence?

    Yeah, you know, they were pretty poor and sick back then too... Coincidence? :wink:

    "The change is interesting, as is our ever-increasing longevity--something that scientists think may now reverse as a result of the global obesity epidemic."

    WHAT KILLS US: The Leading Causes Of Death From 1900-2010
    http://www.businessinsider.com/leading-causes-of-death-from-1900-2010-2012-6?op=1

    "The researchers parsed the data [back to 1986] by the caloric content of the foods being eaten, and found the top contributors to weight gain included red meat and processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages and potatoes, including mashed and French fries. But the largest weight-inducing food was the potato chip. The coating of salt, the fat content that rewards the brain with instant feelings of pleasure, the sugar that exists not as an additive but in the starch of the potato itself — all of this combines to make it the perfect addictive food."

    "The increased use of potato chips and other [Frito-]Lay’s products as a part of the regular fare served by restaurants and sandwich bars should be encouraged in a concentrated way. A string of examples: potato chips with soup, with fruit or vegetable juice appetizers; potato chips served as a vegetable on the main dish; potato chips with salad; potato chips with egg dishes for breakfast; potato chips with sandwich orders."

    "In fact, everyone in the country, on average, was eating more salty snacks than they used to. The rate of consumption was edging up about one-third of a pound every year, with the average intake of snacks like chips and cheese crackers pushing past 12 pounds a year."

    The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all
  • Moonbeem11
    Moonbeem11 Posts: 32 Member
    Lol this thread is too funny. Whoever replied to my post saying "you're wrong" with nothing to back it up, you are wrong, sorry.

    Doesn't it make sense that eating small meals frequently (like every 3-3 1/2 hours) would rev up your metabolism more than say 2 small meals and 1 giant dinner? Of course, if you eat few enough calories per day, you'll lose weight no matter what. But for optimal burn of calories - think of how small kids eat. They eat all day long but they typically don't overeat. They eat when they're hungry but not too much at once. They sort of graze all day. 3 square meals is just more convenient to our lifestyles, it doesn't mean it's what we're "suppose" to do. I think the best way to work is let your body be your guide, if you're hungry eat, if not don't, and don't let yourself get to "too" hungry.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Lol this thread is too funny. Whoever replied to my post saying "you're wrong" with nothing to back it up, you are wrong, sorry.

    Doesn't it make sense that eating small meals frequently (like every 3-3 1/2 hours) would rev up your metabolism more than say 2 small meals and 1 giant dinner?

    No, it doesn't. Diet induced thermogenesis is not frequency based.
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
  • leeanneowens
    leeanneowens Posts: 319 Member
    I think it's a preference thing. I love my snacks.
  • malena43
    malena43 Posts: 31
    The trouble with this is, if you go read 10 different books, blogs etc, you will invariably get 10 different opinions on what to do or what not to do. A drop in metabolism is overrated as a reason to just go eat. Learn to feel hunger between meals. Personally, I eat 3 squares and a top up around 3 - 3.30 in the afternoon - so roughly 4 hourly feeds. Eat protein with each meal, keep carbs down, esp simple carbs (to be avoided in general), don't forget your healthy fats (that includes saturated fats), limit your fruit intake to 1 - 2 serves a day (you don't need the fructose - get your fibre from veg), eat as much salad and veg as comfortable for you when you have your meals, and after all that, hunger should not be an issue between meals if your daily water intake is sufficient (30ml per kg body weight) and evenly spread over the course of the day. The age old "eat like a king for breakfast, eat like a prince for lunch and eat like a pauper for dinner" should take care of the snacking issues.

    I love your advice!! Thanks.!!!
  • melindasuefritz
    melindasuefritz Posts: 3,509 Member
    yes snack
    100 calorie packs, fruit, pretzels, popcorn, whatever
  • malena43
    malena43 Posts: 31
    Thanks everyone!!!! I lost .5 pound this week yay!!! I hope is not only water!!
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Eating little and often is good and keeps your metabolism going at a good pace. If you're hungry then eat! just make sure its something healthy that will give you energy. A few nuts, a piece of fruit or some carrot sticks. Whoever heard of no snacks? As long as they're healthy I don't see the issue.
    Whoever heard of no snacks? Pretty much everyone who lived before 1980. Snacking between meals is a pretty recent phenomenon. People used to eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And that was it. Going back about 200 years, people ate one meal a day. So over time we've started eating more and more often, and obesity has been getting worse and worse. Coincidence?

    Yeah, you know, they were pretty poor and sick back then too... Coincidence? :wink:
    Yeah, because they were sick due to meal frequency, and only ate one meal a day due to being poor.

    Maybe you should study some history. People were sick due to a lack of sanitation, had nothing at all to do with eating patterns, mostly it was due to contaminated water. As for eating one meal a day, they simply didn't have time to eat multiple times per day, people worked 14 hours a day, 6-7 days a week. Get up at sunrise, start working. After a few hours take a break to eat. Go back to work until sundown. Go home and go to sleep. Wake up around midnight to socialize for an hour or so, then go back to sleep until sunrise and repeat.

    We have always eaten one large meal per day (or every 2-3 days, depending on food supply.) this is why the human body evolved to store fat so readily and easily, due to the fact that we aren't really expected to be constantly shoving food in our faces, because, quite frankly, until a few decades ago there just wasn't enough food available for that sort of behavior.
  • mistesh
    mistesh Posts: 243 Member
    Diet induced thermogenesis is not frequency based.

    "Diet induced thermogenesis (DIT) can be defined as the increase in energy expenditure above basal fasting level divided by the energy content of the food ingested and is commonly expressed as a percentage. It is, with basal metabolic rate and activity induced thermogenesis, one of the three components of daily energy expenditure. Although DIT is the smallest component, it could play a role in the development and/or maintenance of obesity."

    http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/5

    "Basically, thermogenesis is the number of calories burned when the body breaks down the food you eat."

    http://www.livestrong.com/article/469048-define-dietary-induced-thermogenesis/

    So just calories? What happens if you focus on heath rather than calories?
  • SanjuMelts
    SanjuMelts Posts: 3 Member
    Have more filling meals! Greens are a good way to stay full on low calories... also lifting can also boost your metabolism :)

Categories