Unsnacking Your Way to a Healthier Weight

Depending how you do it, snacking can be beneficial or disastrous.

The role of snacks in a healthy diet is hotly debated. Some people argue that between-meal snacks are essential to managing blood sugar levels and “keeping the metabolism going.” Others note that empty-calorie snacks contribute significantly to the rising tide of obesity since the 1970s, with the average American snacking one additional time per day and the average caloric load up at least 100 calories per snack (in some age brackets, much more). However you interpret these trends in snacking, one fact is pretty clear: snacking is universal among American adults.

In my experience, snacking can be incredibly beneficial when used “defensively” – that is, to prevent arriving at a meal feeling “starving,” such that you overeat to a caloric degree that far surpasses the level a snack would have provided. When gaps between meals are more than, say, five hours, this type of snack is often prudent. Of course, I’ve also seen plenty of situations where the snacking itself is the problem, crowding out satiating, nutrient-dense meals with junky, low-quality calories from “snack foods” more likely to be high in sugar and processed grains than “meal foods.” When patients report snacking more than twice daily, I start to suspect that something may be amiss with their overall meal pattern – and that snacks may actually be their undoing. After all, each time we open our mouths for a snack, it typically represents slightly north of 200 calories. More than two such occasions daily, therefore, essentially adds up to a fourth meal.

Some of the most common pitfalls that lead to oversnacking include:

Breakfast too early? Many of my patients are under the false impression that it’s essential to consume breakfast within 30 minutes of waking in order to “boost the metabolism.” So even though they don’t necessarily rise with a raging appetite, they’re still sitting down for breakfast by 7 a.m. before they leave the house for work. Understandably – and appropriately – they’re hungry again by 10 or 10:30 a.m., and require a mid-morning snack in order to make it through to lunch, which is often consumed early in response to excessive hunger. One solution that works well for those of my patients with office jobs is to have a coffee at home while getting ready for work to perk up their mind and get their bowels moving – but then to defer eating breakfast until arriving at work, closer to 9 a.m. A slightly later breakfast means that hunger will most likely kick in right at lunch time – between noon and 1 p.m. – and eliminate the need for a mid-morning snack. It also helps keep lunchtime from drifting too early, which results in excessive early afternoon hunger as well.

[Read: High-Protein Breakfast Ideas.] 

Meals too small? Often, when patients come to me following a prescribed commercial diet plan – one in which they’re counting calories or “points” – they have a tendency to be stingy with meal calories, particularly at breakfast. I commonly see waist-watching women consuming meager 100- to 150-calorie breakfasts: a slice of 40-calorie bread with 1/4 cup cottage cheese and one piece of fruit; an egg-white omelet with spinach and no carb (not even fruit!); a solo banana or lone 80-calorie light yogurt. It’s no wonder they’re typically hungry within an hour and a half and find themselves consuming a snack by 9 or 10 a.m. – only to be white-knuckling the hunger with coffee thereafter until lunchtime arrives. The vicious cycle repeats with a low-cal, low-carb lunch – such as salad or brothy chicken soup – that satisfies until about 3 p.m., when voracious hunger visits with a vengeance and the carb cravings ensue. And this is where the empty calorie grazing begins – candy, 90-calorie “fiber bars,” 180-calorie “energy bars,” 100-calorie packs of cookies. As these snack calories add up, the question becomes: Wouldn’t you have just been better off eating a larger, more satiating breakfast and lunch?

The answer is usually yes. Breakfast less than 250 to 300 calories isn’t breakfast, and an overtly low-carb breakfast may not help stabilize blood sugar satisfactorily to help maintain satiety until the next meal. Remember: By the time you eat breakfast, your body has been fasted for a solid eight to 12 hours. It’s used up the energy from the last meal you fed it, and is now dipping into its stores to help keep blood sugar levels afloat. If ever there was an appropriate occasion to feed your body a good carb, breakfast would have to be it.

For more of this story click here.