Can you answer this question please..
Why do people choose to have a "snacking lifestyle"??
Can someone help me please!!!!!
Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating
Can someone help me please!!!!!
Help me please!!
-
gratefuldeb67
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
- Location: Great Neck, NY
Hi Lukeoo,
I think it's because of a lot of reasons..
Bad habits from years of just noshing whenever food is around..
Boredom...
Actively seeking a snacking lifestyle, however, I think, is due to two main things..
1. The bogus claims that "grazing" is healthy, which have been in the fake nutritionists prescriptions for health and weight loss for this past decade or so..
2. The feeling of a traditional "dieter" that they have somehow, now, outsmarted the system, or are getting away with something, with the permission of these false diet plans and snack selling charlatans...
Look at the ads you see when you Google in "Diet" or "Snack/Diet"...
I guarantee many will come up which say
"EAT ALL DAY and LOSE WEIGHT"
People who want to be fooled will allow themselves to think this is a possible reality...
Unless you have seriously tiny amounts, this just isn't realistic...
Was that what you were thinking too? Or was your question rhetorical?
LOL...
Anyway.. If you are beginning NoS, welcome
Peace and Love,
Deb
I think it's because of a lot of reasons..
Bad habits from years of just noshing whenever food is around..
Boredom...
Actively seeking a snacking lifestyle, however, I think, is due to two main things..
1. The bogus claims that "grazing" is healthy, which have been in the fake nutritionists prescriptions for health and weight loss for this past decade or so..
2. The feeling of a traditional "dieter" that they have somehow, now, outsmarted the system, or are getting away with something, with the permission of these false diet plans and snack selling charlatans...
Look at the ads you see when you Google in "Diet" or "Snack/Diet"...
I guarantee many will come up which say
"EAT ALL DAY and LOSE WEIGHT"
People who want to be fooled will allow themselves to think this is a possible reality...
Unless you have seriously tiny amounts, this just isn't realistic...
Was that what you were thinking too? Or was your question rhetorical?
LOL...
Anyway.. If you are beginning NoS, welcome
Peace and Love,
DebThere is no Wisdom greater than Kindness
I think it's more of a passive default than an active choice. Cheap, convenient snack foods are abundant today -- this is something very new, historically. We've got no natural defenses against it. These snack foods give us the option to never be hungry, even for a moment, so why not take it? That's the logic, I guess. And once you are accustomed to permasnacking hunger seems like something awful, irresistible, and unnatural. Plus there are people who make a lot of money from snack foods, whether "healthy" or unhealthy. There isn't anyone who makes money from the absence of snack foods. So the messages are very one sided.
Why snack?
I think we snack because food tastes good.
Historically, food tasted good, too, but hard to get, hard to prepare, and not very caloric. Now it's abundant, very caloric, and *really* easy to prepare (grasp edges, open bag).
It's a losing battle if you don't impose some discipline.
Historically, food tasted good, too, but hard to get, hard to prepare, and not very caloric. Now it's abundant, very caloric, and *really* easy to prepare (grasp edges, open bag).
It's a losing battle if you don't impose some discipline.
Kevin
1/13/2011-189# :: 4/21/2011-177# :: Goal-165#
"Respecting the 4th S: sometimes."
1/13/2011-189# :: 4/21/2011-177# :: Goal-165#
"Respecting the 4th S: sometimes."
-
mjohnson121
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:50 pm
Interesting topic....my PERSONAL feeling from my reading on snacking vs. non-snacking is that we ARE designed to SNACK and we are also designed to be HUNGRY.
Here is what I mean: historically (and PRE-historically), if we came across a berry patch or whatever, we might "graze" on it all day long and CONVERSELY, we might go many hours (or all day) with only one "feeding" or maybe even a few days between finding/hunting food.
So both approaches would work. Snacking technically would work (I've come across studies that indicate snacking vs. non-snacking end up being equal as far as metabolism etc.), but notice it's TECHNICALLY. Like what was mentioned above, the problem is the prevalence of so many "snack" foods that there is simply too many easy calories available and it's better to not snack in the first place (in general).
Which brings me to the beauty of NoS. It incorporates BOTH approaches. Mostly non-snacking days with a couple of S days where a few snacks/treats are thrown in. You get periods of HUNGER with a short period of "GRAZING" if you want to call it that (or whatever you do on your S days).
-Mark
Here is what I mean: historically (and PRE-historically), if we came across a berry patch or whatever, we might "graze" on it all day long and CONVERSELY, we might go many hours (or all day) with only one "feeding" or maybe even a few days between finding/hunting food.
So both approaches would work. Snacking technically would work (I've come across studies that indicate snacking vs. non-snacking end up being equal as far as metabolism etc.), but notice it's TECHNICALLY. Like what was mentioned above, the problem is the prevalence of so many "snack" foods that there is simply too many easy calories available and it's better to not snack in the first place (in general).
Which brings me to the beauty of NoS. It incorporates BOTH approaches. Mostly non-snacking days with a couple of S days where a few snacks/treats are thrown in. You get periods of HUNGER with a short period of "GRAZING" if you want to call it that (or whatever you do on your S days).
-Mark