Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
STRANGER70127 Posts: 406
6/3/14 10:20 A

I know that in the Holy Bible that farmers would leave handfuls
for the poor to glean at harvest time. emoticon


Leviticus 19:10
"And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God. "

Also, in America emoticon
the restaurant
was meant to be a restorative for travelers... emoticon emoticon


... which eventually turned into a bed and breakfast idea. emoticon

This is a farm I know that offers people to come and pick berries.

RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
2/9/14 8:11 P

I have to agree that carbs are not a requirement for strenuous exercise. The man who won the Western States 100 ultra marathon the past 2 years considers himself to be a low carb dieter, and set the course record in 2012. So while some people do well on high carb, others do well on high fat. In the end, I don't think healthy carbs are a problem though, as long as you burn through them, so it isn't that carbs are bad, OR that they are necessary. What matter is that you have fuel to make the body run at a high level, and you don't run out. Whether that is carbs, or fat isn't important, as long as you use what you eat. Excess of either will cause weight gain.

That is why snacking is such a problem. We didn't cut down the size of our meals by 300 calories, and add two 150 calorie snacks, we just added 300 calories to our diet. Snacks themselves are not a problem, if eaten as part of an adequate diet. Some people even benefit from more frequent meals, since it keeps from consuming too many carbs at one time, more than they can use, as well as keeps their blood sugar from spiking, and releasing lots of Insulin.

VALCRAFTS Posts: 294
2/9/14 7:50 P

I have wondered about this for awhile. Also wondered where the 3 meals a day started. As for snacks, I grew up in the 60' s and we didn't have snacks at home except for the occasional treat of popcorn. Mom didn't buy pop, candy, cookies or chips hardly at all. If we had pizza it came from a box mix lol! Cookies were homemade and you had to take the time to mix and bake them from scratch. You would get Kool-aid and 1 cookie at vacation Bible school, elementary school we had snacks at Valentines Day and sometimes on someone's birthday.
Today though this stuff is readily available. As my brother Bob always says "There's more at the store." The Sunday class we were in for awhile always had snacks, usually donuts, so I would bring my apple or orange to eat. Now we go to a different class and may have cookies around Christmas but not weekly.

2/9/14 1:01 P

Lol :)

BUNNYKICKS Posts: 2,410
2/9/14 12:32 P

"That said if I'm playing a game of soccer I'll eat a banana or a couple dates before the game to help fuel those sprints."

Right, now, that's more how a "snack" ought to be defined. A banana. Perfect infusion of energy "between scheduled meals" on an as-needed basis.

However, over the years this concept has evolved into "snack" meaning "McDonalds Chicken Snack Wrap" ("two, please"). Sigh.

FTSOLK Posts: 1,364
2/9/14 10:55 A

Bunny's comment got me thinking about something interesting.

After kindergarten, I stopped having snacktime at school. In fact, LUNCH was optional after fifth grade. There were years I had lunch before 11am, and didn't get to eat again until close to 4- sometimes, later.

Nowadays, I know that kids have snacktime in school. Parents pack lunches AND a snack for their 1st through 5th graders.

Generally, I'm not a huge snacker. The one exception is when I know that my meals are going to be spread out a bit further. Wednesdays, for example, I have youth group. Since I usually don't eat dinner until after youth (so around 10pm), I bring a snack with me to youth. I may grab a small snack here and there if I need one, but I usually try to stick with more full meals without snacking in between. The one exception is my bedtime snack/dessert.

2/9/14 10:21 A

I've seen the feed zone book at my local co-op. It's a great book to get you away from eating crappy energy "foods" for sure.

As far as fuel, to each their own really. Everybody's different. I also compete in 24 hour endurance events and long distance events and have done very, very well eating the opposite of you :)

Last year I did a 50km MTB race and I didn't eat a single thing the entire race. I not only came in first overall for women but I beat my super fast male friend who cramped and bonked during the race and I almost caught my husband who always beats me by a lot. I would have caught him too had the race been a little longer! They were both spent after and I felt great.

I eat a high fat diet and because of this I am much better able to use my own body fat for energy than a sugar burner would. There is no big transition or wall to hit switching over to fat burning mode because I'm already burning fat.

That said if I'm playing a game of soccer I'll eat a banana or a couple dates before the game to help fuel those sprints.

But all that is different from just the average everyday snacking most people do.

Edited by: JUSTEATREALFOOD at: 2/9/2014 (13:04)
2/9/14 9:22 A

"I think what we snack on is as important as how often we snack............"

I couldn't agree more. But where I likely differ from you and Russell is what we should snack on, high carb is my typical. The reason being that you need to replace glycogen stores under endurance conditions and that is the most efficient way to do so. How much is quantified in the beginning of the book that I linked previous. And, what may sound even worse to you is that HGI can be used effectively and efficiently in some circumstances.

".........I think if we are eating full meals and then snacking between them as well then that's just too many calories isn't it.........."

It's really, really hard to pack in 3000-5000 Kcals in three meals and maintain activity. It can be even more of a challenge to do that with LGI foods.

"...........Has anyone found any articles online about it? If you care to search that is :)"

I have searched, and the Feed Zone books are what I have found to be the best resource for someone that is active.

2/9/14 8:53 A

I think what we snack on is as important as how often we snack. I think if we are eating full meals and then snacking between them as well then that's just too many calories isn't it.

I remember snacking at school recess during the week but we rarely ever snacked when we were home on weekends or summer holidays. My son has two breaks at school when he can snack. I pick him up to feed him a real lunch at the second break and often he hasn't eaten any of his morning snack because he wasn't hungry for it.

I really like big meals and can easily put away 600-700 calories at a meal and I don't usually snack between because I'm just too full.

Has anyone found any articles online about it? If you care to search that is :)

2/9/14 6:31 A

Graze, I thought, is an acceptable informal definition of picking and eating berries.

I worked a farm in my younger years, and snacks were consumed by the young and old. I was a pro endurance athlete in my late teens/early twenties and snacks were very beneficial to performance.

I now maintain a small farm, and regularly participate in recreational endurance activities. Hiking and biking being the most prevalent. A book that has helped me greatly, as of late, on the subject can be found here:

Snacks are/were a regular part of my routine, that is when I'm moving.

Got Glycogen?

Edited by: INTOTHENEW at: 2/9/2014 (06:32)
RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
2/9/14 6:01 A

I'm 40, and the idea of a snack in our house was a foreign concept. We ate breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and that was it. Having a snack when we came home would ruin our appetite. Plus, we were active, and didn't think about eating in between meals until we were teenagers. We would get up at 6 a.m., eat breakfast, and go out and play by 8 a.m., then come home for lunch around 1 p.m., and go back out and play till 6 p.m., when we would run home for supper. After that, we would go back out and play.

I think snacks are just a waste, and why we are a fat nation. I eat bigger meals, and since I am not hungry, why eat more between meals? I also think the cravings we experience due to our inferior diet tends to make us come up with ideas like needing extra calories because we worked out. As a child, who was growing, and probably needed more fuel than I do today, I would play basketball for 8 hours a day, without any extra calories. We weren't hungry, we grew, and were healthy, and all on the same amount of food, whether we biked 20 miles to the beach, and swam all day, or read a book, while listening to the radio.

We feel cravings, so we invented a bunch of extra meals, and excuses why we need them. instead of asking why we were hungry when it wasn't mealtime. Farmers used to eat 3 meals a day, while working all day in the fields. They didn't need a Hi-C, or a fiber bar to make it through the day. We are less active, but eat more often, and in greater quantities, and this is why we are an obese nation.

I don't think we ever All I can picture is a caveman slowly walking around all day, picking berries off the bushes, and eating them, then walking to the next group. Most likely, they could grasp the concept of hoarding all the berries, and stripped the bushes clean, as soon as they invented the basket, and when they had some meat or other food, they ate meals, including the berries. Some people eat 3 times a day, others 5 times a day, but once it was habit, they probably stuck to a schedule.

As a child, I can't ever remember thinking " I'm hungry! ", but now that we eat all the time, we are starving. On top of that, we are less active, so probably need less food, but like a hobbit, we wonder when we will stop for " second breakfast ".

Edited by: RUSSELL_40 at: 2/9/2014 (06:03)
2/9/14 4:39 A

First, we grazed.

Then we snacked, carrying that apple/berry/tuber back to the cave.

The "meal" would come much later.

MANDIETERRIER1 Posts: 15,222
2/8/14 5:02 P

I don't know how long it has been around. I do remember having snacks in Kindergarten. And that was 30 years ago.

RENATARUNS SparkPoints: (4,367)
Fitness Minutes: (2,155)
Posts: 1,379
2/8/14 2:16 P

There's nothing wrong with snacking. The kind of food I eat, it's unrealistic to consume 600-700 calories at once for a standard 3 meals a day. I'd explode. (Consider: 200 calories of rice plus 200 calories of lentils and vegetables, plus the oil to hold it all together (100-something calories?) would be 3-4 cups worth of food and still not even hit the lower end of that range. Consider that my breakfasts by choice are even smaller than that and just ... how? I eat 200-ish calories between meals and rarely also in the evenings, and if distraction or mild illness or emotional upset means I forget to do that for a while, then I don't maintain anymore, I lose. It's a function of what I eat. "No snacking" makes perfect sense for someone who's eating a lot of energy dense foods and can put away a third of a day's calories in one shot without feeling like they've just gorged themselves, but not for me.

The problem is the content of the snacks, and the odd pressure that causes snacking to be promoted even in situations where calories otherwise are in fact sufficient. But mostly the content -- salty, sugary, often fatty stuff that lets you (and cons you) into putting down hundreds of calories of pretty much nothing; and also contributes to skewing taste buds and appetite receptors so that you want more and more of the same and less of what's good for you.

Like Bunnykicks said I think it's been coming on gradually in its current form since about the 80s. But snacking defined broadly has been around approximately forever.

BUNNYKICKS Posts: 2,410
2/8/14 1:51 P

Depends what you mean by "snacking" - snacking in the way we do it now, which is more like "grazing" or eating actual extra-meals between meals? That's probably pretty recent, and largely tied to the rise of convenience food and cheap-accessible fast food.

When I was a kid, we had snacks. A snack at recess (which - would be like, a 10-gram mini box of sunmaid raisins, or a small apple that you'd take a bite or two out of and throw away, or a couple saltine crackers sandwiched together with a smear of butter and/or honey, a stick of celery with cheese whiz - that kind of thing. 25, 50, maybe 100 calories, TOPS. Then we would go run around the schoolyard for 15 minutes. After school, maybe a snack to hush the whining while mom made dinner? But again, it would be something really really small, a half-cup glass of milk and a couple of graham crackers, say. Or some raw veg from the chopping board - i remember loving slices of raw potato (gag! lol).

If that's how snacks were done today - it wouldn't much matter. It would be a reasonable refuelling, given that it would usually be immediately followed by "going outside to play."

Now, of course, a "snack" is a bag of Doritos, or a "granola bar" (eyeroll - we all know they're just candy!), or a packet of cookies, or or or or.... all processed food/convenience-packed JUNK. What the HECK. That nonsense started up somewhere between "when I was a kid" (1970's) and "when my son was a kid" (1990's). I was very surprised to see what other kids were toddling off to kindergarten with. I felt quite the pressure to buy "scooby doo shaped 'fruit' snacks" and such. It's pretty hard to convince your kid that it is OK!! to go to school with an ants-on-a-log celery stick when everyone else is eating stuff in flashy heavily-marketed Fun Packs.

How to turn the tide back on this????? It really needs to change.

2/8/14 1:22 P

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Diet and Nutrition Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
turning grams into percentage 7/21/2015 8:40:30 PM
SALT, substitute, sea salt, grey salt, pink salt? 6/8/2015 6:27:25 AM
Back mostly just to plan. Pointers? 2/23/2015 10:14:18 AM
Best Protein Powder? 7/9/2015 10:53:44 PM
Multiple Medical issues requiring meal planning!!! 4/8/2015 7:57:31 PM