Snacking is OK, calories are bad???

Over43 · Post by **Over43** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:12 am

Yes, I came across the statement on the AARP webite today which stated:

Snacking is OK, calories are bad.

Apparently the diet "expert" who wrote that article for them didn't realize there are calories in snacking?

When I read it the first time I did one of thoe Scooby Doo "Zionks!"

I was trying to find links to see what the average daily caloric intake, due to snacking, Americans consume. Didn't find that.

But I did find a treasure trove of articles about why we should be snacking.

Peter Voss, who hosts a website on CRON (Calorie Restriction Optimal Nutrition), writes that we are poisoning ourselves with calories. He might be right.

NoelFigart · Post by **NoelFigart** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:00 pm

That calorie restriction is pretty extreme and I wouldn't consider it very sustainable.

I think the message of the article was that eating overall too much food for one's needs is bad. True.

Snacking isn't EVIL. It's just that it makes it far too easy to fudge excess. The point of eschewing snacking and sticking to single plate meals is simply to make excess quite obvious in an unobtrusive way.

Over43 · Post by **Over43** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:19 pm

Calorie Restriction is quite Spartan and I tried it for a day, once. Ate the paint off the walls the following day.

Although snacking isn't "EVIL" I believe the continued stressing of snacks by some dieticians, diet "experts, and nutritionists, give many people a false sense of security. When does one 100 calorie snack become two 100 calorie snacks, etc.?

I think if more dieticians would be honest with themselves, and the public, and just say, "You can thrive on three meals a day, without snacks..." the light might go on for some people.

I believe we become unconcious about the amount of snack food we, in my case, inhale.

oolala53 · Post by **oolala53** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:35 pm

I'll probably say something about this book on other threads, too, but I've been reading Matering Leptin. It's amazing how much the scientific study of this hormone supports the concepts of No S. Richards has five rules, but one of them is to eat three meals a day, with 5-6 hours between them. He recommends no calories between meals. His reason has to do with what he has discovered about the balance between leptin, insulin, and adrenaline, but it amounts to the same thing. Snacking not only increases calorie consumption, it increases the desire to snack! Even when the person isn't stomach hungry.

finallyfull · Post by **finallyfull** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 9:44 pm

Over43 writes "When does one 100 calorie snack become two 100 calorie snacks, etc.?" -- for me, the answer is "immediately." -- Without No S, 100 calories is very, very rarely the end of my snack. It would almost without fail sneak up to at the very least 200, if not 3 or 4. Easily. And I'm not a binge eater at all. If I tried to eat a 100 calorie snack on any regular basis, instead of "tiding me over" it just makes me feel punished and less satisfied than before I had it. Nothing brings on more food anxiety (and overeating) for me than a teeny snack. Three nice meals a day, on the other hand, are convincing me that big food is always just around the corner, which is a fantastic antidote to pre-dinner anxiety (formerly known as getting hungry).