Snacking "Expose" on Good Morning America Tomorrow

[RJLupin]

Good Morning America will be running a show on kids and snacking tomorrow, the 12th. I saw an ad for it earlier, and it looks like it's going to be critical of the snack habit and the massive overeating that comes along with it. I hope I catch the program.

[wosnes]

Here's a link to the story. I was disappointed that there wasn't more of an emphasis on NOT snacking. Of course, the low-fat, no-fat stuff annoys me, too.

[RJLupin]

I know, instead of telling people to give "healthy snacks" why not tell them "no snacks at all?" As long as you eat healthy meals, there is no reason to be constantly nibbling on things between them. Regardless of how "healthy" the snack might be, it only reinforces the permsnacking behavior that leads to obesity, because let's face it, most of the time snacks tend to come from vending machines or drive throughs. When I was little, we never ate between meals and yet somehow managed not to die from starvation.

[NoelFigart]

I know, instead of telling people to give "healthy snacks" why not tell them "no snacks at all?" As long as you eat healthy meals, there is no reason to be constantly nibbling on things between them. Regardless of how "healthy" the snack might be, it only reinforces the permsnacking behavior that leads to obesity, because let's face it, most of the time snacks tend to come from vending machines or drive throughs. When I was little, we never ate between meals and yet somehow managed not to die from starvation.

It is about meal size, though. I have a teenager. He wanted snacks before bedtime for awhile. I don't forbid snacking, but I gently discourage it. When I started serving family style instead of plating up restaurant style, my son started serving himself a bit more of a substantial dinner and stopped wanting bedtime snacks.

He does eat a snack after school often. I don't sweat it, as there isn't TIME for him to eat a full meal on his lunch break. On weekends, I notice he doesn't snack and his lunch is a more substantial one than he has during the week.

[wosnes]

I know, instead of telling people to give "healthy snacks" why not tell them "no snacks at all?" As long as you eat healthy meals, there is no reason to be constantly nibbling on things between them. Regardless of how "healthy" the snack might be, it only reinforces the permsnacking behavior that leads to obesity, because let's face it, most of the time snacks tend to come from vending machines or drive throughs. When I was little, we never ate between meals and yet somehow managed not to die from starvation.

One thing I've noticed in all my reading about how people eat is that many don't eat 3 meals daily. The French, for instance, are famous for not snacking. They eat breakfast and lunch at about the same times we do, but dinner usually isn't until at least 7 PM and often later. So, sometime around 3 or 4 they have something small to eat.

When I was growing up, a friend's family always ate dinner/supper at 4 PM. Around 7 or 8 they had something light to eat.

Four meals seems to be fairly common. Generally only one meal is a big meal. The others are smaller and one is most often very small.

[sophiasapientia]

I agree with NoelFigart. It has a lot to do with meal size, timing of lunch, etc.

My 7 year old is usually famished when she gets home so she typically has a small after school snack which, a'la Michael Pollan, tends to be stuff that you could get at farmer's market: a serving of nuts, or a slice or two of cheese or some fresh fruit or veggies, etc (i.e. actual, non-processed food.) We don't do permasnacking in our house -- we put an end to that long before I discovered No S because kiddo would snack and then not eat at meals -- although, if she is truly hungry, fresh cut-up veggies or fruit are always an option at other times ... She rarely takes us up on that, though.

I figure she is 7, slender, active, has an early lunch and has different dietary needs than I do. And if I made her wait the 2 hours between school ending and dinner, I'd end up with a very cranky child.

My hope is that, by doing No S, I will set a good example for my daughter and that she will have a healthy perspective on food and body image as she gets older. No crazy binge diets. All things in moderation.

[marygrace]

I know, instead of telling people to give "healthy snacks" why not tell them "no snacks at all?"

A lot of people can't deal with that. They seem to go nuts at the suggestion. "If you're hungry, you should eat!" Yes, that's true, but 1) You don't have to eat right away or at the slightest whim of hunger and 2) A lot of people take that to mean "if you're craving something, eat it."

[RJLupin]

I know, instead of telling people to give "healthy snacks" why not tell them "no snacks at all?" As long as you eat healthy meals, there is no reason to be constantly nibbling on things between them. Regardless of how "healthy" the snack might be, it only reinforces the permsnacking behavior that leads to obesity, because let's face it, most of the time snacks tend to come from vending machines or drive throughs. When I was little, we never ate between meals and yet somehow managed not to die from starvation.

One thing I've noticed in all my reading about how people eat is that many don't eat 3 meals daily. The French, for instance, are famous for not snacking. They eat breakfast and lunch at about the same times we do, but dinner usually isn't until at least 7 PM and often later. So, sometime around 3 or 4 they have something small to eat.

When I was growing up, a friend's family always ate dinner/supper at 4 PM. Around 7 or 8 they had something light to eat.

Four meals seems to be fairly common. Generally only one meal is a big meal. The others are smaller and one is most often very small.

My best friend is French (I met him here while he was here doing classes at SMU.) He was shocked by American food; he had never seen so many snack foods, and hadn't ever heard of a lot of what I think of as common (like Chex Mix and most of the sodas.) He was also amazed by things like those Lunchables, "instant brownies," and a lot of other stuff he found at the local store (he even sent pics of it home.) Well, while he was here he gained 25 pounds in six months. I still thought he looked thin, but when he went home everyone was shocked. He's lost it now, though, and offered me advice on how to do it myself.

When he went home, he went back to how he ate before: one or no sodas a day, cooked at home, ate some kind of fibery cereal for breakfast, cut out ALL snacks, and started riding his bike everywhere (that's another thing, he's never been to a gym and said nobody there goes to them....lucky people!) Though sadly they are losing this habit, for most French mealtimes are more formal....they sit down to eat with family and friends; they don't scarf down a bagel dog while walking from place to place.

Easy things that he should have no problem sticking with. Compare that to what would have happened here: you gain some weight, you go on some kind of bizarre and unsustainable diet (low carb, very low calories, shakes and potions, pills) and kill yourself at the gym for a few months. Finally, it gets to be too much and you just give up, gain back all the weight you lost and then some, and end up worse off than when you started.

[RJLupin]

I know, instead of telling people to give "healthy snacks" why not tell them "no snacks at all?"

A lot of people can't deal with that. They seem to go nuts at the suggestion. "If you're hungry, you should eat!" Yes, that's true, but 1) You don't have to eat right away or at the slightest whim of hunger and 2) A lot of people take that to mean "if you're craving something, eat it."

People in America seem to treat hunger as a dangerous disease. While it's never good to be ravenous, feeling a little hungry an hour or so before a meal is a GOOD thing; you will enjoy your food more. It's not an emergency requiring immediate food consumption. Sure, it takes a little willpower to say "no" to the cookies, but who's in charge, the cookies, or you?

Just to share an example of how out-of-control the "snacking is good for you" nonsense has gone, I was on another diet board the other day. Well, this lady posted that she had eaten way too much on this particular day, and had gone considerably over her assigned calorie count. Now, it was 10pm and she wanted to eat something (I am not even sure she was hungry) and wanted snack ideas. Somebody else actually wrote to her "yeah, be sure to eat! Otherwise, your body will go into starvation mode!"

So, she had already eaten too much, and two hours later she has to eat MORE (snack) lest she go into "starvation mode?" Is that what things have come to?

[pirateman2k]

Starvation mode is the biggest lie that the diet industry has ever come up with, along with 'confusing" your "metabolism" and any other stupid excuse to over eat.

When you haven't eaten for 72 hours, that's when fasting switches into starvation.

Not eating for six hours? You might actually lose some weight like that...

[RJLupin]

Starvation mode is the biggest lie that the diet industry has ever come up with, along with 'confusing" your "metabolism" and any other stupid excuse to over eat.

When you haven't eaten for 72 hours, that's when fasting switches into starvation.

Not eating for six hours? You might actually lose some weight like that...

No doubt. The way some people think, it's a miracle we are alive at all, since according to them if we don't eat every two hours, being sure to have equal percentages of lean protein/complex carbs, we will go into "starvation mode!"

I sometimes wonder if the food industry isn't behind some of the dietary "advice" we get. Someone, and I don't know whom, once said "the food industry will support any diet, as long as it doesn't actually involve eating less." It seems like people will get behind any theory so long as it doesn't really involve cutting back; hence the current fad for magic food diets. "Gorge yourself on X," they promise, "as long as you don't eat any Y!" Simply cutting back on eating in general, and cutting out snack and goodies, makes so much more sense but actually involves willpower and portion control...much less fun.

[wosnes]

I sometimes wonder if the food industry isn't behind some of the dietary "advice" we get. Someone, and I don't know whom, once said "the food industry will support any diet, as long as it doesn't actually involve eating less." It seems like people will get behind any theory so long as it doesn't really involve cutting back; hence the current fad for magic food diets. "Gorge yourself on X," they promise, "as long as you don't eat any Y!" Simply cutting back on eating in general, and cutting out snack and goodies, makes so much more sense but actually involves willpower and portion control...much less fun.

I'm sure the food industry is behind the dietary advice we get. Watch any dietitian on a morning news show and see what kind of food they suggest we eat. If it comes in a package and says "healthy" -- you can bet they'll recommend it. Unfortunately, they're the professionals, the ones who are supposed to really know what's going on, and they're giving us terrible advice.

The food industry supports their education like the pharmaceutical industry supports the education of physicians.

[leafy_greens]

http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips. ... myths.aspx

Here's a great podcast on "Metabolism Myths" from a registered dietician. I'm sick of hearing other registered dieticians, and "personal trainers", telling people to "keep their metabolism going" by grazing all day. This has completely destroyed our innate hunger signs. If you eat only 200 calories 6 times a day, you will NEVER be satisfied and eat only cardboard rather than real food. There's no such thing as a broken metabolism. It's an excuse for a food-obsessed society to not feel guilty about permasnacking.

[satikat]

I'm grown now, but I recall one year in high school....

class started at 715, so I had to eat breakfast by 7am at the latest (and since mornings sucked, it was usually a muffin or fast food combo meal, etc)

lunch was at 1115. 4 hours after breakfast, not too bad. However, lunch was usually a small ham sandwich and some chips and a drink.

school got out at 215 and I was starving! Dinner wasn't until 630/7, so I always had a snack after school. Generally something greasy (chips) or sweet (cookies).

My mom had no concept of healthy snacking/meals/etc and she was a stay at home so she knew what I was eating. Years laters I'm still breaking those eating habits. Eating breakfast is still tough. Since I started NoS, I'm trying to have breakfast around 930, lunch before 2 and dinner around 730. It's working really well, with the occasional food craving late afternoon.