|Putting calories and sodium information on restaurant menus may backfire||04/25/18|
|The next step in the fight against heart disease: teaching medical students how to cook||04/18/18|
|Omega-3 supplements may not guard against heart attack||04/11/18|
|Pasta still won't make you gain weight||04/04/18|
|Testing resveratrol and curcumin as anti-inflammatories||03/28/18|
|Should you consume additional protein to help maintain muscle mass?||03/21/18|
|It's the quality of the carbohydrates that counts||03/14/18|
|B vitamin supplements linked to lung cancer||03/07/18|
|Genetically-based weight loss plans||02/28/18|
|Eating more highly processed foods linked to greater risk of cancer||02/21/18|
|Can you be fit and fat?||02/14/18|
|'Burning hot' tea linked to esophageal cancer||02/07/18|
|All Health and Nutrition Bites|
Is It a Meal, or Is It a Snack?
I get questions about snacking all the time: "What should I have for snacks?" or "Is this a healthy snack?" While I've written essays about what to snack on, people do seem to have trouble with their snacking. What is the difference between a meal and a snack?
Do Snack Food Commercials Make You Eat More?
A few years ago I reported on two studies that indicated that children eat more when they're watching TV while they're eating and that adults who watched less television ate less and burned more calories than their peers who watched all the TV they wanted. Clearly television has an effect on your eating. But what about the content of what you're watching - or more specifically, what about the food commercials?
More reason to switch your snacks to nuts
A team of researchers in New Zealand have shown that although the number of calories you eat in snacks are mostly offset by a reduction in the amount you at regular meals, choosing nuts instead of chocolate or potato chips means your diet improves overall.
Get the latest health and diet news - along with what you can do about it - sent to your Inbox once a week. Get Dr. Gourmet's Health and Nutrition Bites sent to you via email. Sign up now!
Conventional wisdom says that if you're working on your weight, you should avoid mindless eating: consume your meals sitting down at the table, not while watching tv or with other distractions. Snacking, however, is almost by definition something you do while distracted in some way: you almost certainly don't snack by taking the time to get out the silverware and place the snack on a plate.
Lately I've seen the lines blurring between "snacks" and "meals." Amy's, for example, markets their 270-calorie pocket sandwiches under "snacks" on their website alongside candy bars, salsa, and finger foods such as their Burrito Bean & Cheese Snacks, which are 200 calories per serving - with two servings in a package. If you read our Friday Dr. Gourmet's Food Reviews Newsletter, you know that I think the likelihood of someone eating just half the box of any frozen food is slim at best - and 400 calories is a meal, not a snack, whether it's finger food or not.
Practically speaking, though, does it matter whether you call it a "snack" or a "meal" if either way you're eating the same number of calories? What about how you eat it sitting down at the table (a meal) opposed to eating on the run (a snack)?
Researchers in the United Kingdom designed a study to explore the interaction between calling something a "meal" or a "snack" and whether that food was consumed as a "snack" (standing up, eating from a plastic dish with plastic utensils) or as a "meal" (sitting down at a table using a china plate and metal utensils) (Appetite 2018;120:666-672).
Eighty men and women of clinically normal weight participated in their feeding study. Each participant visited the lab and were served a preload amount of food (more on that below) then participated in a taste test of four different snack foods: two sweet (M&M's and chocolate animal cookies) and two savory (potato chips and cheese crackers).
That preload amount of food was a specific serving of a pasta dish which contained about 500 calories. It was presented to each participant in one of four different ways, assigned randomly:
The question, of course, was how much of the "taste test" foods the participants ate after being presented with the same initial amount of food under each of the four conditions. Which mattered most: what it was called ("snack" versus "meal") or how it was presented (like a snack - eating standing up with plastic, or like a meal - eating sitting down)?
Even though the participants were served about the same volume of food and the same number of calories, those whose preload meal was called a "snack" and presented as a "snack" ate the most of the taste test foods - about 50% more in volume and total calories (and twice as many M&M's) than all other conditions. The participants were asked to rate their feelings of hunger and desire to eat both before and after the preload food, and regardless of how the food was labeled and presented, the participants felt about the same - yet they still ate more of the "taste test" foods when the preload was labeled and presented as a snack.
Be mindful of what you're calling a "snack" as opposed to a "meal." If you're watching your weight, remember that all food has calories, even if you eat them standing up over the sink directly from the plastic tub (and no, broken potato chips have not lost all their calories because they're broken, either). It's easy to fool yourself into eating more than you really should.
First posted: November 22, 2017