Snacking through the day

[mauvish]

I'm a bit baffled by the fact that so many people seem to feel that children need to be snacking between meals.

OK, I know you're all going to say that your kid gets really hungry/hangry/sleepy etc without, but hear me out first!

When I was a kid (in the 1960s) it was unheard of for children to snack between meals (at school at any rate - there was literally nothing available to snack on; or in my home; or in my friends' homes). We had breakfast, dinner, tea; maybe a small snack at bedtime, although there was school milk of course. It wasn't what you'd nowadays consider a healthy diet either -
1, Breakfast before school - a bowl of sugary processed cereal, full fat milk, toast with butter, maybe jam (or marmite, yum!)
2 Home for dinner (or lunch but no-one was that posh!) - usually something light, breadbased, a sandwich or baked beans/scrambled eggs/spaghetti hoops etc with toast. A piece of fruit and a biscuit (rich tea, malted milk, chocolate bourbon if my mum was feeling generous).
3 Tea - usually about 6-6.30. Stew, or a meat pie, maybe sausages, with potatoes and one overboiled veg; or maybe a macaroni bake. Pudding might be another pie, or crumble, with custard; or maybe stewed fruit (more custard) or a piece of home made cake.
A glass of milk at bedtime (which I always poured down the sink).
This was pretty much the eating pattern for everyone I knew.
It wasn't until I hit my teens that I started needing a snack on getting home from school.
If we ever had a packet of crisps, it was a small packet and shared between the 3 of us children! Sweets usually came loose in a paper bag bought once weekly and doled out occasionally as treats/rewards.
We walked to school twice a day usually not very far as you went to your catchment area school, there was no choice but I knew no-one who arrived by car.

And virtually no-one was obese, which is more than can be said for nowadays.

So I genuinely don't understand why the need for primary school children to snack all the time if they are having meals as well. Yes, I know they say they are hungry, but we all know that we can feel "hungry" without really needing food, we just want to nibble on something nice! (I've just had some easter egg to prove the point!!)

I am not asking this to challenge. I know all children are different and some will NEED (not want) to eat more than others. But I would like to try to understand why snacking is such a big thing now.

Times change. Look at the supermarket shelves. Bet they’re different too. There’s constant messaging about food everywhere.

I don’t know if kids needs snacks or not, but they’re available way more than then. There’s a whole ‘snack’ aisle for example. Tastes good, boredom eating, more screens meaning we’re not paying as much attention to what our bodies need? There’s probably many reasons why it’s such a big thing. Snacks don’t have to be unhealthy anyway.

Hey, supermarkets didn't really exist when I was a kid; we thought the bigtime had hit town when a shop wth more than 3 aisles, selling more than one type of goods, opened up!

Because people feel that the current system works better for their families.

And maybe they're right? It's not as if health and wellbeing peaked in the 70's is it? Maybe this generation of snackers will all live to be 150!

So it was unheard of for kids to snack except that you regularly had a snack before bedtime, had sweets outside of meal times occasionally, snacked every day time you were a teen, and were provided milk at school? So it was not unheard of - you smacked too.

Some people like to have smaller meals and include a snack. Some don’t. I always find it’s best to just eat what suits you. It always amazes me the things people ‘genuinely don’t understand’ on mumsnet. Why don’t you try to cast your mind back to your before bed snacks and after school snacks and imagine how you felt then. It will probably help you in your genuine confusion as to why a child now might have some apple slices in between meals.

Snacked, even! Not smacked.

Why are there so many threads on this as the moment?

Plus you were also having a daily pudding (whole extra meal basically) and biscuits and fruit with dinner every day. So you were eating all the same stuff, just having it all at the same time. I honestly don’t understand why people go on about this nonsense.

No need to be baffled.

Many things were unheard of in those days. It wasn't uncommon to not insist on seatbelts or to smoke etc, doesn't mean it was better.

My child wants to eat little and often. Personally, I think this is better than eating 3 biggish meals a day. She is not obese and is a perfectly reasonable size. I have a teenager who despite eating 3 meals a day also has numerous snacks and is a womens size 4. The biggest mistake is to make issues about food. As long as they have enough to eat and it's relatively healthy I honestly can't get worked up about it.

I did specifically talk about primary school children,and say that I didn't start to need a the afterschool snack until I went to secondary school (and hit the growth spurt).

A couple of boiled sweets as a treat or reward a couple of times a wekk isn't anywhere near the scale of the regular daily snacking that seems prevalent now!

So is it the case that people don't have a pudding with a meal, and the kids basically have this extra spread throughout the day instead? (Not challenging you or arguing, but this seems feasible and isn't something that I'd thought of)

--- although I'm sorry that you think it's "nonsense" to ask questions about a major societal change. Do you not encourage learning in your household?

Oh, I see that. Can I join in with the ‘genuine confusion?’ I’m genuinely confused why any primary school child would need a stodgy pudding with their tea every single day plus snacks before bed, plus fruit and biscuits with lunch, plus snacks before bed. Why would they need all that extra food instead of eating only their three meals?

It’s bloody SnacksNet on here at the moment.

Tbh I think the main thing is that food companies realised they were on to something offering items to be consumed between meals. They have huge marketing budgets and suddenly lots of people first want and then need (or feel accustomed to) regular snacks on top of meals.

I’m sure there’s a minority of people who do physiologically need snacks (on threads like this there’s always someone’s DH who needs 7000 calories as a day because of their work as an acrobatic hedge trimmer-cum-postie) but for most it’s not the case. And our waistlines show it.

In my experience most people do not have stodgy puddings like custard and cake or crumble each day. It’s considered an occasional treat for most families I know.

But yes, I do think it’s nonsense. I don’t think you’re genuinely confused as to why people snack, and I think it obviously was not unheard of to snack when you were young because you admit that you did it! I think this is just another of those ‘in the good old days’ types of posts.

My mum and her siblings (born in the late 50s/early 60s) were never allowed snacks or even water between meals. All three are obese. They just stored up their hunger for meals and overate I think.

And I don’t think it has to do with ‘learning.’ I very much encourage learning in my home, but not from the vantage point of ‘oh why do all these fat kids nowadays snack? Nobody snacked when I was young, except for biscuits milk and fruit and before bed and daily puddings and when I was a teenager - that’s why we weren’t fat.’

Most people I know don't have puddings every day.

My grandparents ate snacks and puddings like it was running out and blamed rationing for their snacky behaviors..it was quite common with that age group.

There have been a number of 'why do people snack' here lately which is weird!

Lots of things were different back then. People were generally more active, heavily processed and accessible (ie grab of the shelf, cheaper than fresh food) snacks weren't about in the abundance they are today, and convenience often wasn't as high of a priority.

I do agree some take it to extremes, when DS was younger some would panic if they didn't have baby snacks for their weaning child when in reality they'd be fine. Meals tend to be less balanced which is another thing, it means you are typically hungrier between meals, people on the whole don't seem to be as aware of nutrition and are scared of fats etc even though children need them so end up on a cycle of hunger and filling the gap with sugar or salt laden quick hit foods.

Because there are certain smug topics that posters can start in wide eyed naivety to make themselves feel like better parents and this is one of them

Anyone think #snacks should be it’s own topic?

‘didn’t happen in my day and no one was fat therefore it’s snacks that did it’.

Same. Every. Day.

@mauvish you might fimd the book Why We Eat (Too Much) interesting.

That explains a lot about the shift in eating habits since the 60's and 70's and places the blame with the big food producers

Yes! 😂

May not have happened in their day but plenty of other shit things did. E.g smoking, Sunny Delight and blue smarties.....

I'd rather have a cracker to be honest 😂

*find

My dad grew up in the 60s and talks about going out all day with no suncream. Times change and parents are encouraged to do things differently based on up to date research.

I also think most kids do lots of clubs these days. In DDs class most of the kids do 2/3 clubs a week and they're all quite physical. My DD doesn't want a snack but I wouldn't begrudge her one.