Snack Factor Diet

I'm big time disagreeing with you here.

More working out doesn't mean more energy. Especially if your diet is crud. I think the abosulte pinnacle and basis of weight loss, muscle gain and health is diet, not the workout.

Rt

i just can't eat 3 full sized meals with 2 nibbles in between- its so much food it makes my stomach turn just thinking of it.

"if you want to be more energetic, feel younger, and lose weight, you have to workout more."

I'd amend that to "you have to workout more and base your diet around eating the nutrients to sustain that."

Personally, I am pro-snacking, but I have to be careful about it. I find that I get really hungry between meals, but it's even worse if I cut my meals down and try to eat 5-6 300 calorie meals (not to mention terribly inconvenient and even harder to eat well-prepared homemade meals).

But, gah! I am so tired of seeing people try to make money off of people's bad habits and insecurity. Not that they don't have a right to do it, but it's seriously annoying.

I like snacking. It doesn't turn my stomach. But I eat too many calories when I snack regularly. My experience shows that I'm better off eating three good, filling meals and getting a little hungry in between.

I think snacking is kind of an American problem, actually. I think it's a way of selling us more food and getting us to eat more, buy more, spend more money. The fact that this woman is selling snack bars to go with her book seems to fit right in. As if we need more things to snack on? Part of the reason I am drawn to snacking is there are so many wonderful foods out there I want to eat -- why do I need a snack substitute?

I understand that some people really feel the need to snack. I sometimes can't get through to dinner myself without a healthy snack around 4 pm, otherwise I might lose it and eat everything in sight. But I am skeptical of the idea of pushing snacks. It's just feeding our consumerist mentality, and that consumerist mentality is part of why we're such a fat nation, IMO.

I read some research a few months ago that said people who snack throughout the day consume more calories, not fewer, than those who just eat three meals.
Not saying there's anything wrong with snacks - but I think the "5-6 small meals" idea is overrated, when most Americans don't really know proper portion sizes.

RT the fitness guy said:
I'm big time disagreeing with you here.[...]

Hey RT,

I don't think Jim is discounting healthy eating as important - just pointing out that it isn't a cure-all. Regarding snacking - I think it is wise, but HEALTHY and TIMELY snacking is the key. I don't believe that universal recommendations should be made with regards to snacking, given that individual needs/tolerances/eating habits vary. For example, even though I know eating 4-5 times/day is generally more desirable, I wouldn't recommend it for someone who only eats twice per day - at least not until they build a habit of eating 3 times per day...then add a snack, etc.

I think WHAT and HOW MUCH people are eating are the most important factors, with timing being secondary. Of course frequency can have a modulatory effect on the HOW MUCH part.

Claire S. said:
I read some research a few months ago that said people who snack throughout the day consume more calories, not fewer, than those who just eat three meals.
Not saying there's anything wrong with snacks - but I think the "5-6 small meals" idea is overrated, when most Americans don't really know proper portion sizes. [...]

This is interesting Claire. The research isn't crystal clear, but many studies have shown a decrease in total calories, body fat and insulin resistance with more frequent meals. I'm not sure how many studies adjust for physical activity or other confounding factors, but it makes sense that it would be effective. Higher meal frequency means a higher thermic affect of eating (increased caloric use). It also stands to reason that eating frequently would keep one's blood sugar from dipping too low and hence would give a good mental boost. Of course this all depends on WHAT we are snacking on.

Here are some studies favouring higher meal frequency;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12835290&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/8/1059

I don't snack on "snack bars" or any of that crap. Usually, I plan my meals and if I do get hungry in between, I eat fresh veggies or a piece of fruit. I think it's ridiculous that people are being brainwashed into thinking they need to be eating 24 hours a day. It's not all that bad to feel hunger every so often. More snacking=more calories. Nothing against snacking, but you have to account for those calories by not eating as much at a later meal.

I completely agree that in order to lose weight you need to eat, and eat more....However (and that's a big however!), this means eating whole, healthy, non-processed food, and in certain portion sizes....I started eating like this in 2004 and lost 43.5 pounds of fat (not muscle as I also include strength training and cardio), and even though I'm eating so often, I'm always hungry for the next meal, or "snack".

I haven't read the book you've reviewed so I don't know what kind of food is being recommended to snack on, and whether or not it's stressed that it's not healthy to be snacking when you aren't even hungry...in fact, even if you only eat healthy, whole foods, you still need to be hungry when you eat or snack, and watch your portion sizes. ;)

OK, I'm going to weigh in on this topic.

If you want to lose weight, eat less, not more. Instead of eating 5/6 times a day, eat 2 meals a day. If you want to boost your metabolism, be active, don't eat. There's nothing wrong with feeling hungry.

Dr.J said:
OK, I'm going to weigh in on this topic. [...]

Hi Dr. J

I agree that we need to ingest less calories, however I think that for most people under most circumstances eating more frequently (provided you are eating healthfully and not too much) will help lead to redcued overall caloric intake. (See the studies I posted a few posts back)

I personally don't think most people could adequately exercise/function on 2 meals a day - too much time between eating.

I think your argument speaks to Jim's original sentiments that shifting too much focus on snacking can divert the more important factors (ie. exercise, overall healthy diet)

Mike H. said:
Hi Dr. J[...]

I rest my case :-)

OK Mike, seriously, however someone eats a healthy diet over 24 hours is fine with me.

Dr.J said:
I rest my case :-) OK Mike, seriously, however someone eats a healthy diet over 24 hours is fine with me.

lol... I agree - this is the most important factor.

It's easy to eat five times a day if you split up your normal meals. For breakfast, I eat cereal with milk. Mid-day, eat a piece of fruit. Lunch, eat a bowl of soup. Mid-day, eat a small salad.

You can get the idea.

It's better to eat this way to keep my blood sugar regulated. Eating too far apart can cause fluctuations and cause me to eat too much at the next meal because I'm too hungry.

Too many people think of this as eating way more than you should. I'm just eating around 1300 calories a day.

I have read this book and found that it really puts into focus what I was eating through out the day. Generally, I would eat two large meals, lunch and dinner with only coffee for breakfast. This book has showed me a life change, not just a diet. It does strongly recommend working out. It has changed the way I look at food and helped me find a way to better eat. Read it to see how much sense this book makes! It is not saying to just eat anything all day long. It shows you how to balance protein, fats and carbs...and teaches you to listen to our bodies hunger qeues aka your hunger quotient.