One onerous cross-county trip, somewhere around mile Nebraska, my husband invented a fun little car game. Turning to me with a straight face he said, “Plastic: pro or con?”
“Excuse me?” I said and threw some rice cakes behind me, hoping they’d land somewhere in the vicinity of the kids.
“Plastic. Are you for it or against it?” replied the high school debate geek.
“You mean like credit cards?” One of the rice cakes came flying back at my head. Note to self: baby does not like rice cakes.
“Whatever. Just plastic.”
“How can anyone be against plastic?” I said, exasperated. “It’s omnipresent.”
“Ah, then you’re pro plastic. I never knew that about you before.” He said it so seriously that I was sure this was going to come up in a marriage counseling session some years down the road.
He was silent for a couple of miles as I threw goldfish crackers at the baby (missing more than I hit – my aim is not great) and then, “Michael Jackson: Pro or con?”
Before I could even answer, from the back seat a tiny voice yelled out, “Pwo!” And thus it began.
Sometimes I feel like health and fitness research is a lot like my husband’s car game. Researchers take something random and obvious and then throw a lot of money at it trying to decide if it’s good or bad. The most current example is one of the latest fitness fads to hit the market: snacky snacks.
You know what I hate more than adults who use the phrase “snacky snack”? People who would take away my snacky snack. So I can’t say I’m completely impartial on this subject. Back in the day, our grandmothers used to admonish “No snacks, you’ll ruin your dinner!” to their kids and even used it themselves as a diet technique. Eating between meals was not popular. And then over the last 10-20 years, research has swung the opposite direction with every major diet proclaiming “three meals and two snacks” or “don’t go more than three hours without eating” or the even more ubiquitous five (or six! or seven!) mini meals a day instead of three squares as the secret to stoking our sluggish metabolisms and torching fat. In fact, I dare you to open up any lady mag these days and not find an article on the benefits of snacking.
So it’s about time for the pendelum to swing the other way, wouldn’t you say? Enter The Leptin Diet by Byron J. Richards. This “new” diet claims to help control your hunger hormones, specifically leptin and gherlin, by timing your meals to take advantage of your natural hormonal fluctuations thereby avoiding insatiable hunger. This diet espouses several tricks including:
- Never eat after dinner. Allow 11 to 12 hours between dinner and breakfast, and finish eating dinner at least three hours before bed.
- Eat three meals a day. Allow five to six hours between meals and do not snack. Snacking causes leptin to malfunction.
- Do not eat large meals. Eat slowly and stop eating a meal when you are slightly less than full. Consistently eating large meals is the easiest way there is to poison your body with food.
- Eat a breakfast containing protein. Your metabolism can increase by 30 percent after a high-protein meal. A high carb meal such as cereal or a bagel will increase your metabolism only by four percent.
- Reduce the amount of carbohydrates eaten. Definitely eat some carbs, but don’t overdo it. In each meal, half should be a protein source, and half should be a healthy carb.
Don’t overeat, eat a bunch of protein, reduce carbs – all standard weight loss mumbo jumbo. Until you get to the snacking part. What – no snacks?!?!? What kind of diet is this? And how does he ever expect to sell his (I’m sure forthcoming) line of snack bars, shakes, yogurts and after-dinner mints with such advice??
But Does It Work?
I know people – very healthy people, even – who swear by three meals a day with no snacks. When I was in Europe I discovered that snacking is not very common there – at least in the sense that you don’t see Spaniards or Germans pulling out little plastic baggies of trail mix on the metro. They did, however, have two-hour lunches and a siesta (well, the Spaniards anyhow) that probably helped nip that urge to snack in the bud. And the Germans just seemed really anal about having food outside of a designated food area. For the most part, all of our European friends were quite svelte.
Europeans, blah, blah, blah; we all know that Americans have a fat inferiority complex. So what about this leptin business? Back in the day – yes, the same day in which our grandmothers forbade snacking (i.e. the ’50’s) – scientists discovered the effects of a hormone that seemed to control obesity in mice. It sat on the backburner for a few years but as Americans got fatter, interest in the mysterious hormone grew until finding it became the Holy Grail of nutrition research. Finally, to much fanfare, in 1994 leptin was identified by Jeffrey M. Friedman.
As he discovered that leptin signals satiety, this led scientists to crow loudly that they had found the cure to obesity… only to make them eat crow a few years later when it was discovered that save for a select few humans missing a gene, leptin did not seem to have the same effect on humans as it does in mice. Moreover, scientists were discovering that leptin was only a tiny part of a complicated pathway that tells the body when it is hungry and when it is full. (Ignoring of course, that many people eat when they are decidedly not hungry.)
While leptin didn’t turn out to be the miraculous discovery that people – namely the drug companies – were hoping it would be, it has still taught us a lot about how our bodies regulate our desire for food. But has the science evolved enough to make dietary recommendations based on that research? Researchers are skeptical, but that didn’t stop Richards from writing his book.
At this point, I think it all comes back to deciding what works for you and your body. If you snack all the time and are overweight, then try cutting out the snacks to see if it helps. For some people, no snacks just make them eat more at meal time and feel deprived the rest of the time. For others, if they tell themselves they don’t eat between meals then that’s the end of it and they don’t think about food except for the 3 appointed times of day. What research does agree on is that we can train our bodies to anticipate hunger so perhaps it’s just a matter of deciding a schedule and sticking to it?
So, snacks: pro or con? Go!
I think it all boils down to calories in vs. calories out if you want to lose weight. Period. If snacking or no snacking helps, then you have to do what works for you.
I personally like to snack because I like to eat! But I try to only snack when I am hungry, not because it’s a certain time and I “should”.
I’ve decided that snacking ONLY works for me when I’m super busy and only have a limited supply of healthy options to snack on (as in: a few almonds, an apple, an orange… and that’s all) but If I’m home and I decide to go to the kitchen for a snack… it’s over… so yeah, that’s my experience.
I agree with Sara and you – you have to do what works for you. I am a snacker; my husband is a 2-3 meal man. His meals equal 3-4 of my snacks. There is no way I could go without eating between meals. I may not look like a super model, but I am fitter than I have ever been; I eat 5 smaller meals a day.
In a couple of months “they’ll” be saying just the opposite again.
I have to clarify b/c that probably didn’t make sense: one of his meals equals 2-3 of my snacks.
I hate to admit it, but I think I’ve turned into an anti-snacker. I do breakfast (1030am), lunch (4pm), dinner (730pm), and usually a dessert type thing (11pm). It works better than when I used to snack a lot.
The only time I “snack” is when I’m bored after dinner. But when I do that I’m not eating out of hunger, I’m eating cuz I want to.
I think one of the reasons Americans have gone off the cliff in terms of healthy weight, is that there’s a blatant disregard for listening to your body’s signals. I’m of the personally uneducated and unresearched opinion that your body is a goldmine of wisdom as to what’s good for it or not. And the surest way to get too fat or too thin, is to ignore that and go with “scientific” research (that seems to be changing its mind every few years anyway).
Personally, for me, I only snack. I rarely do meals. It’s sometimes embarrassing when I’m in a restaurant and leave 3/4 of a plate. Or that I always have to bring 5 different snacks with me in my backpack. But it works for me. And my body seems to be best nourished this way.
Pro! But I agree that it really depends on the person as to what works for people. I get cranky and tired without my snacks. Actually, I don’t know if I can even call it snacking… it’s like I just have one enormous meal that stretches out over the course of the entire day, I eat so often. Little nibbles of fruit or cheese etc throughout the day to keep me satisfied. And, of course, the type of food we’re snacking on makes a world of difference!
I agree with Sara. That being said, I say “con” for our family. Not only do snacks send our grocery bill through the roof, everyone’s grandmother was right about my kids. If they have a snack, it usually spoils their appetite for the meal, until an hour later when they want a snack again. I do make an exception when we are having a late lunch or dinner that creates a 7+ hour span between meals. But usually, if my kids ask for a snack, it’s because they are bored, not really hungry.
Im propropro and tend to ‘get into it’ with the THREE MEALS AND NO SNACKS IF YOU WANNA LOSE WEIGHT. PERIOD. group.
IMO they tend to be more black and white than those of us who graze in that I think (shocker :)) we realize that different things work for different people.
snacking onward,
Miz.
This stuff is so funny!
Because you’re right, over the past few years I’ve been hearing lots of online and magazine experts insisting that you need to eat a lot of small meals to “fuel your metabolism.” Yet I read a pretty persuasive research review that found no evidence to back it up. Seems like people were overgeneralizing from “don’t skip breakfast,” which does indeed seem to be true. There’s something specific about breakfast that most folks are better off not skipping it.
And now we’ve got a guy saying the opposite. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s based on a small study that hasn’t been replicated enough to be trustworthy yet.
Personally, I let my hunger be my guide. If I have lunch around noon, I’m probably gonna need something in the afternoon unless we eat a really early dinner. After 5 hours, I’m HUNGRY!
I think the combination of listening to our own hunger, eating healthy foods, and limiting portions to reasonable sizes is much more important than the timing of our meals and snacks.
Thanks for the info and the thoughtful analysis!
I am all about what works for you is what you should do. I know people that love the 3 meals & 2 snacks. I know the 3 big meal people.
Me, I love the mini meal plan & it works for me. I like knowing that I can eat a little something every 2-3 hours & I know how to control it & work it for me. Too many years of starving myself to get thin.. losing weight the wrong way has made me love the fact that I can eat mini stuff often.
What works for me may not work for you. Charlotte, as you said & I think many of us preach, to each their own & whatever floats your boat & works for you is the way to go!
If I don’t snack, I overeat, simple as that. I tend to split up my meals though, so my snack is really part of my meal…just eaten 2-3 hours later. I’m never really “full” unless you count my spaghetti dinners. 🙂
Dr. Joel Fuhrman also recommends no snacking and I have very effortlessly adapted to that. I think when you’re eating lots of fresh, raw, whole food you don’t need to snack, because your body works like it should. I have quite a late breakfast, lunch at about 2 pm and dinner no later than say 6:30 pm. Because my body has been weaned from addictive foods I don’t get hungry between meals.
Pro. The second I’m told I can’t eat for a few hours, I’m hungry.
Sara says it all for me. I try to eat a little less than 2000 calories a day. What time of day and what I call it doesn’t matter. If I take them in during “snack time” it’s just less to have a diner.
LOL!! I have a column coming out today or tomorrow that’s anti-snacking! Who’s hacking who 🙂
I guess I believe that if you are needing to lose weight, looking at your snacking habits may make the difference. If you are good to go, keep doing what you are doing!
Oh my god Charlotte! I had some serious contemplation going on while reading your post. My brow was creased in concentration, considering my position on the snack…Then I got to the photo at the bottom and had a fit of giggles.
What was the question again?
That picture is great!
I fear that sometimes I abuse liquids when I truly should be eating a snaack. The whole “make sure your hunger isn’t thirst” thing, like all seemingly sage tidbits to be sure, can be taken to the extreme, and I’m pretty sure I drink liquid chemicals (diet soda) just to put off eating.
I do think it depends on the person. My husband is a three meal a day guy. I just can’t make it from noon to 7pm without a snack (unless I have a huge, probably unhealthy lunch). However, I try to make my snack more like a meal in that I portion things out on a plate, eat my snack, and am done. Set an open bag of pretzels in front of me and it’s all over.
I was surprised that Jillian’s new book (that I bought when you mentioned it) does not advocate snacking – she is against the mini-meals and thinking back, I have had a tougher time managing my weight since I took up ‘healthy’ snacking. My snacks are bigger than I expect and then I still eat full meals. I think I will try to cut them out except for fruit if I am really hungry.
snacks: pro! I don’t know how I’d get through my day with just three meals. I snac constantly – yogurt, fruit, candy, PB, candy, Fiber One bars, almonds and dried cherries, more candy. (Truthfully, those were all snacks I had yesterday.) I would be a cranky, hungry beeyotch without them. Altho I’d prolly have fewer cavities. (Ha – I actually just typed “calories” instead of “cavities” – Freudian slip, much?!)
I’ve never been a big snacker. When I worked a union job with “mandated” 15 minute breaks (one in the morning before lunch and one in the afternoon after lunch) I never knew what to do on the break. I don’t smoke or snack, so I just sort of sat around and stared at the wall or read a book.
Now I’ll have a quick something to eat between lunch and dinner but that’s because there are typically 8 hours between my lunch and my dinner with a workout in between. I’ve tried going the whole time without a snack but it’s just bad news.
I’ve never been a big snacker. When I worked a union job with “mandated” 15 minute breaks (one in the morning before lunch and one in the afternoon after lunch) I never knew what to do on the break. I don’t smoke or snack, so I just sort of sat around and stared at the wall or read a book.
Now I’ll have a quick something to eat between lunch and dinner but that’s because there are typically 8 hours between my lunch and my dinner with a workout in between. I’ve tried going the whole time without a snack but it’s just bad news.
I’ve never been a big snacker. When I worked a union job with “mandated” 15 minute breaks (one in the morning before lunch and one in the afternoon after lunch) I never knew what to do on the break. I don’t smoke or snack, so I just sort of sat around and stared at the wall or read a book.
Now I’ll have a quick something to eat between lunch and dinner but that’s because there are typically 8 hours between my lunch and my dinner with a workout in between. I’ve tried going the whole time without a snack but it’s just bad news.
I’m all for full-flavoured MEALS. Snacks are wasted calories for me because I enjoy a variety of flavours (preferably served warm) in a meal. I only snack if I am uber hungry and I know I won’t get a chance to eat a proper meal in hours (travelling, busy work days, etc.). Almonds and celery sticks are never in reach (plus I loathe those kinds of healthy snacks) so I tend to reach for chips and chocolate. Snacks are an easy in to eat really bad stuff that usually dosen’t even taste that good.
I think it depends on what you think is a “snack”. For me a snack might be 15 almonds and some hummus. It’s not ever going to be anything out of a box or a bag.. so does it count as a snack? I do eat every 3 hours as part of my nutritionist’s plan to fix my system.
But then I’m trying to fix years of my thyroid and adrenal glands being messed up, so what I do is most likely going to be a lot different than somebody with a normal, healthy system.
And interestingly… I tried calories in vs. calories out for several years and never lost a pound. Just kept steadily gaining.(Even measured my food and logged it onto the computer every single day!) Frustrating, especially when I had a Dr. that looked at me like I was lying about what I ate and how much I worked out. But it also led to a change in doctors and new testing and now to fixing the problems, so that’s a plus!
But the one thing I learned from that is that our systems are complex and individual. Like several others have said… different things work better for different people. There is no one “right” way.
Of course snacking is bad for you and makes you fat, that’s why it is so damn fun to do.
Pro! After my gestational diabetes test with my first came up super low, the doctor decided to test me again after my pregnancy to determine if I was hypoglycemic. Yes I am, but never had any bad effects unless I went 4+ hours without a healthy snack or a meal. And seeing as I’ve been on the 3 meals + 2 snacks program for about 10 years now, that would explain why it never manifested itself as a problem! Of course, I am sooo set in my ways (eat 7am, 10am, 12pm, 3pm, 6pm) that I think it would be a major shock to my system to change now. I think the calories in/out is the most important thing. There was some diet thing I saw recently called “One Big Meal” where you just made like a crockpot meal, figured the calories for the whole thing, and ate only that meal all day, either all at once, or in small quantities, or whatever. No matter how you slice it, it’s the same calories.
I am very much pro-snack; it saves me from fainting and feeling sick. I have (doctor-documented and tested) severe hypoglycemia, along with other health problems. (None related to weight – I’m small and strong.) However, I do have the capability to stop eating before I feel completely full, even though I know that’s going to make me hungry again in 2-3 hours. Eating until I’m stuffed at meals makes me feel uncomfortably lethargic and tight-bellied and kind of sick, so I prefer to eat until I’m 80% full, and have a small non-sugary snack when I get hungry again later. It works quite well for me.
However, if NOT-snacking works better for other people, I’m not going to force my system on them. Everybody’s different.
*waving at Fitmama* – hello, fellow hypoglycemic! Funny that we were posting at almost the same time. 🙂
I don’t think there will ever be an hardfast rule about snacking.
Everyone’s different. I think telling people to eat every 5-6 hours with no snacking is problematic. People will only continue to tie their eating to the clock.
I think it’s important to listen to your hunger cues. If that calls for a snack, mini meals, or three squares so be it.
Personally, the only thing that has worked for me is calories in vs calories out. I don’t do well avoiding groups of foods and/or being told I can’t have something. I can deal with being told that I have an account I can withdraw out of each day. If I make good choices, I feel better and can usually eat more and feel great. If I’m feeling splurgy I can have a burger and fries and just balance the rest of my day and I don’t drive myself nuts with a craving I can’t satisfy.
That being said, I pretty much eat 2 big meals a day (lunch and dinner) and snack 3 times per day (breakfast time – usually a bar/oatmeal and fruit, pre-evening workout time fruit, and usually a small desert or munchie after dinner). I try to let my hunger guide me on when and how much to eat – but I seem to be hungry around the times I normally eat so it works!
Also, I think different things work for different people, and diets should really stop claiming that “doing this one thing makes you fat”.
I’ve tried the 5-6 mini-meals, the snacking, all of it. It just doesn’t work that well for me. If I’m hungry mid-afternoon I might have a snack, but otherwise I just try to avoid it.
I think different things work for different people, and anyone who says “This is IT!!!! THE ONLY way to maintain a healthy weight!” is delusional.
I have no friggin’ clue if I’m pro or con snacking. I tend to snack, but then also regularly wonder if I should just try to stick to three meals. Then, three minutes later, I think, I should listen to my body and eat when it’s hungry, even if that means snacking. And then I think I should go vegan. And then I think I should go raw. And then I think I should eat an entire cake smothered in peanut butter. And then I think I should give up reading blogs that have anything to do with food, dieting, exercise, or health. But that’s probably not going to happen.
I find that my weight is lower, and I enjoy my meals more when I don’t snack. That being said, I never refuse a delicious food item presented to me at a non-meal time. But it has to be worth it….think gourmet cheese or European chocolate, not a granola bar. So I guess I’m con snaking for weight management and pro snacking for loving good food 🙂
I don’t strictly avoid snacks, but generally, con. They provoke hunger, make me feel obsessed with food (eating all day, wondering about next snack time), don’t give enough time to digest the previous meal.
Goes against the IF principle too. I don’t do IF but some time without insulin flowing through me is healthier than constant eating.
I’m not a fan of snacking. It’s not a rule or anything–if I come across something tasty-looking between meals, sure, I’ll try it if I’m in the mood. It’s just that I like to eat nice, warm, full meals, and snacking or eating several mini-meals a day doesn’t allow me to do that…I need to be hungry for that. I end up getting annoyed that I’m already full after just a few bites of something delicious I took the time to prepare/spent the money to buy/someone was nice enough to cook for me. Snacking results in me feeling unsatisfied with my meals even though I’m not hungry.
Depends on the snack, it it’s healthy, like a fruit, veggie or a bit of protein, that’s fine. Otherwise, don’t bother.
I love Charlotte’s blogs, always food for thought 😉
I’ll always be weight obsessed, when the scale hits 130 it may as well be 300, yet I feel svelte at 125 (I’m 5’6) and middle aged, go figure.
I’ve tried everything. 3 meals plus 2 snacks, 5-6 small meals a day, etc., and I keep going back to the same thing: 3 meals a day with a snack in the afternoon if I get really hungry. This is what works for me. Oh, and I always eat a little something sweet after dinner, but I don’t really count it as a snack – more like dessert, since I eat it immediately after dinner. But to me, dessert is a bowl of oatmeal or roasted butternut squash. Yum.
I like eating 3 meals a day because I like feeling full. If I’m hungry, all I can think about it my next meal. When I tried eating smaller meals throughout the day, I never felt satisfied.
“poison your body with food”
Is this a quote from the book? I wouldn’t follow the advice of anyone who thinks food is a poison.
Calories in versus calories burned is the real issue. Americans keep getting told to eat more (eat more veggies, eat more eggs, eat more protein, eat more snacks, eat more nuts…) and our increasingly processed food is full of sodium, fat, and calories. Meanwhile we move less and less.
Issues like controlling blood sugar levels and other little diet tips only create minuscule differences in our metabolism.