To think.. there is a weird obsession with snacking?

[helpmeplease2045]

I have two DC age 6 and 3.

My 6yo has a pretty big breakfast (bowl of porridge with fruit and often second bowl of muesli or cereal for e.g.), we then provide them with a morning snack (maybe piece of fruit) for school, then two hours later they have school lunch then after school parents are handing over more snacks (ranging from fruit to biscuits, cakes, crisps, sandwiches etc), then a snack at home / at a playdate / children's party. There are snacks after activities / on the way to activities.. all this before dinner.

Sometimes I feel like it's a constant battle to stop kids from constantly eating all day! When I was younger we had bkfast, morning snack maybe on a school day and school dinners then we waited till the evening meal. I don't think little children need a constant supply of (often sugary) treats throughout the day.

AIBU to not want my small children to be eating something every two hours!?

[DevelopingDetritus]

The food industry invented bananas and apples? Invented toast, and cheese too? Righ ho. Not as much of a mark up on those though is there.

Bollocks back atcha

[madein1995]

I hate the supermarket aisles that are labelled 'snacks' though. There's a section on the Tesco websites for snacks, and features things such as popcorn, crisps and pork scratchings I think snacks should be fruit, veg or chunks of cheese etc. Maybe a plain rich tea biscuit now and then. Not big bags of crisps, bars of chocolate, or haribo. By making myself eat 'boring' snacks - an apple or satsuma not so exciting as a bar of choc - I'm not snacking mindlessly, because I only eat them when I'm hungry, unlike the chocolate which I'd probably eat when not hungry but when I fancied it.

[Scotinoz]

My children (almost 2 and 3) have morning and afternoon tea in addition to breakfast, lunch and dinner. I seriously doubt they'd get through the day with out it (well, they would but it would involve several hours of hell with them screaming).

But I think snacks like fruit, plain crackers, cheese, egg etc and the occasional scone isn't going to ruin them.

[Squills]

A lot of extremely's in there... sorry!

[MrsHathaway]

Food as a leisure activity is a fairly modern thing.

[OopsDearyMe]

Its actually better for the digestive system to eat little and often, our bodies are not designed to have three big meals, this is a social convention.

[GieryFas]

I found that the need to snack gradually reduced over the preschool years - so from feeding on demand as a baby became three meals and two snacks in between (mid morning and mid afternoon) by the time they were in nursery. Now they're both at school they don't expect a mid morning snack (and are directed the fruit bowl if they ask for one).

They do sometimes have a mid-afternoon / after school snack if they're going to do an activity that's very energetic and tea will be late, because I find a small school meal at 11.45 just doesn't last an active child through until 6.00, especially if you add on an hour of solid dancing / swimming / football in to the mix.

[DevelopingDetritus]

Its actually better for the digestive system to eat little and often, our bodies are not designed to have three big meals, this is a social convention.* That's fair enough. Little and small portions often. People are having both, that's the trouble.

[Onawheel]

I agree. Snacking continuously is not good. Read some of the research on fasting going on at the moment and it almost proves that being hungry is good for you.

Constant snacking is bad and as humans we aren't supposed to have a never ending supply of food. We are supposed to hunt and then feast. Then Be hungry for a bit. That's when our body switches to repair mode rather than digesting stuff.

Not saying children should be fasting but they shouldn't be snacking all day. They shouldn't fear feeling hungry. It's part of life.

Little and often is a true myth - invented by big food companies and I say that as someone who has always worked for big food companies

[bigbuttons]

Its actually better for the digestive system to eat little and often, our bodies are not designed to have three big meals, this is a social convention.

This is the complete opposite of course to the science say on the 5:2 diet which indicates that it is much better for the body not to snack, but to have longer period of not eating/fasting.

I started increasing the hours spent without food in January. At first it was really hard. I was so used to snacking and thought that missing breakfast would cause major health issues. Now I after my evening glass of wine at 9pm I don't eat again until about 1pm the next day, or longer. I am much less hungry now. I don't feel the need to eat all the time. I have also given up wheat for lent and this has made a substantial difference to the amount of carbs I crave.
I think we are far too focused on immediate availability of food . We are not meant to be eating constantly. The rising obesity levels surely point to something going wrong?

[bigbuttons]

I am also coming to the conclusion that the more we eat the more food we want.

I also agree that it's completely fine and natural to be hungry at times. There isn't a famine situation in this country. We are not going to starve because we haven't eaten for a few hours.

[EpoxyResin]

Constant snacking is bad and as humans we aren't supposed to have a never ending supply of food. We are supposed to hunt and then feast. Then Be hungry for a bit. That's when our body switches to repair mode rather than digesting stuff.

Er, not all of the world's "tribes" of humanity have lived like this. People have lived for thousands of years in a variety of different climates with a variety of different available foodstuffs and cultural norms. That's why there are genetic differences between people with regards to their metabolisms as well as all other aspects of their being. I say it again, our all being human does not make us all the same!

[Frustrateduselesscounsellor]

A lot of the time I think that requirements for additional food in between meals is either desired through boredom and/or because its a pattern the parents set up to keep kids quiet /get peace. i.e. during those times the parents need them to be quiet. I wonder also if it starts during feeding as a baby when we accidently mistake a babies boredom for hunger and feed them more milk. I am sure I may have done this with my eldest child.

I think that coupled with bigger size portions of food that is now acceptable in general (take king size mars bars etc) and food in a restaurant plus the very small amount of curriculum PE serves to increase the risk of childhood obesity.

I think parents do face challenges from demanding children especially when peer group pressure is involved and there is a collective sweet /snack binging going on say - at a kids party/icecream van/packed lunches. For those parents who want to do the right thing but no one else around them does, I think they find it tough to resist and give in.

e.g. I notice at the icecream van which is outside of school every day in spring/summer months that some parents give a daily icecream. And often its not just a single cone but a double with all the trimmings/sauce. They give in to the moaning basically. I've seen good friends do it and when I look at their kids - all of them are tubby. I know this must sound judgey but really it has to be a judgement as its a child's health at stake and future eating patterns.

I don't ban snacks and sweets as I know it then makes a bigger issue out of it but I do constantly tell them to look for a healthier option and I don't give double portions of icecream etc if we do have a treat. My daughter is a sweet tooth and I have to run a careful balance as if I let her, she would stuff her face full of sweets. I try my best to educate her without mentioning the F word and making sure she is active every day. Her school is very good because being private they play about triple the amount than the ridiculous 2 hours a week that the state sector has in curriculum. As a result she along with most of the girls in her year are all very fit and athletic looking. When I look at the same year group in my son's local school, I'd say way more than half of his class are overweight or obese.

I know my son who is very lean and muscular is going through growth spurts at present so I am mindful of whether he is genuinely in need of more calories. I think kids have done a lot more activity then I appreciate they need some more carbs at times. I think I can tell when they are genuinely hungry versus bored.

so I guess what I am saying is that there are many challenges in this whole snack /food thing that parents face. It takes quite a bit of skill even when they are older to be mindful of when a child is just bored, or in genuine need of calories. Its also an education process. I think some people like me really care about it and want to get it right and have a balance and some just don't bother. Which is a shame for the child and the other parents who do care what goes in their child.

[EnthusiasmIsDisturbed]

I agree it's an extremely lucrative business and we have been led to believe children need to eat when they are hungry

They don't they are fine waiting but often whiny

I can't be the only parent that has given in to keep them quiet

I have never though rewarded with food or used food as a treat

[Cosmicglitterpug]

I've read the word snack too many times. It's sounding weird.

[kmc1111]

I find it really strange. I understand grazing or eating 4-6 small meals rather than 3 big meals, but this idea that you'll wither away or rage out if you go more than a few hours without food is so odd to me. So many people these days act like going 5+ waking hours without food will practically kill them. It makes me wonder just how many people have undiagnosed diabetes.

[AllWorkedOutOk]

Not read all the thread but have read the OPs posts


I generally didn't give my D.C. snacks. The two oldest were chubby babies and I didn't want them having endless snacks and I also think snacking is not great for teeth. It just seemed to work for us. I wasn't completely rigid about it but generally they had three or four meals a day. (Four when they were younger.....although I guess one was a sort of snack... 🤔)
I just didn't have things like biscuits, crackers or crisps in the house. I also didn't give them fruit or veg as snacks but gave them during meals.
I happily made exceptions but generally we stuck to the no snack rule even as toddlers. They certainly weren't banned from eating between meals it was more just something that we did. They used to eat hearty meals and I think that was because they were nice and hungry. I think a lot of snacking is just habit.

My DC are adults and still don't graze or snack very much.

[lazyleo]

For me a snack is simply a quick edible item you consume in between breakfast and lunch. It differentiates it from a meal. It's a word. What next we hate the word 'meal'?
Snacks can be healthy or otherwise, fruit, veg sticks, crisps, bar of chocolate, slice of toast, crackers, biscuit.
Seriously I have no problem with a "snack" in the morning - from kids who have a packet or crisps or an apple at playtime, when it was me I had a packet of crisps, to adults who have elevenses at their desk or other place of work. As a kid I had school lunches - usually a two course hot meal of dubious quality- and when I came home I had a sandwich at 4ish before dinner at 6.30pm. I think the angst around 'snacks' and the word is misplaced. The problem surely is around the what, when, how much, how often and to the detriment of what if anything in terms of other nutritional intake? My daughter is slim and and a grazer, her mod swings are incredible if she needs to eat. She cannot /will not eat a big meal and be full for hours, she needs to eat every few hours or everyone's life becomes hell as I try to keep her and myself sane. It can be an apple, or pepper, a packet of animals or the small packs of maryland cookies, even a snackajack. Or it can be a toasted roll, or a tuna sandwich. Deciding when to feed her and what is my job as a mum, figuring out what best suits her needs. I can put a box of maltesers in front of her and she'll eat four or five then stop. My son on the other hand will have two to three bowls of bran flakes or shreddies for breakfast and still eat consistently throughout the day. He'll also have that box of maltesers gone before I've made a cup of coffee. Kids are all different, have different metabolisms and different reactions to having food put in front of them. Surely we have to treat them all as individuals too?

[bigbuttons]

My son on the other hand will have two to three bowls of bran flakes or shreddies for breakfast and still eat consistently throughout the day. He'll also have that box of maltesers gone before I've made a cup of coffee.

But this isn't a good thing. That food is crap, full of sugar. If people eat shit food with next to no nutritional value their bodies are looking for more nutrition, so they want more food, which is often also lacking in nutritional value so they are still hungry and they just get unhealthier. and often fatter. It would be better for your son to make healthier food choices.

[Astoria7974]

My 8 year old dsd doesn't like to snack but she does like to eat enormous portions of food during her meals. To be honest I'd rather smaller portions more often. Not going to say anything unless it becomes a problem later - she's really sporty right so is burning everything right off. But that might not continue.

[Onawheel]

In fact reading some of these posts makes me realise what a great con the food industry has got away with. So many thinking they need to snack all day.

It's a con to make you eat more therefore buy more. Let's be honest, for all the people saying their kids only eat fruit/veg snacks there are probably another 10 who snack on crisps/chocolate etc.

Food industry hoodwinking the public again.

I currently work in a v healthy part of the food industry and I got out of the unhealthy snacks industry for this v reason. They just want to sell you more stuff.

[Sighsofthetimes]

When I was at school we had to learn this poem called The Vulture, by Hilaire Belloc. I also taught it to my DC when they started pestering for snacks, just because their friends always had loads. It's worked so far:


The Vulture eats between his meals
And that's the reason why
He very, very rarely feels
As well as you and I.

His eye is dull, his head is bald,
His neck is growing thinner.
Oh! what a lesson for us all
To only eat at dinner!

[treaclesoda]

It's a word. What next we hate the word 'meal'?

Loads of people on mumsnet do hate the word meal. It crops up all the time on those threads about 'words that people hate'.

I find mumsnet to be obsessed with snacking. Either obsessed with the content of it or obsessed with other people doing it and feeling that they shouldn't.

In my day to day life I find that people's kids come home from school tired and hungry and sometimes they get something to eat, to see them through to dinner time and that's that really.

[lazyleo]

LOL Treacle, I guess they do :)
Bigbuttons, I take your point on board, perhaps I should have stated that he will have the maltesers gone if I allowed him - I don't. My point was the comparisons with his sister who will not eat in large quantities yet he will. Two very very different children. He is much more energetic than she is as well and I imagine burns a lot more calorific energy than she does. He is 95th centile for height and weight while my daughter is 50th for weight and 75th for height - she is a bit taller and slimmer while he is solid and does rugby and gymnastics. I have no fears for his diet, and his dentist has no fears for his teeth either so I think I'm managing although it is a minefield at times. :D Today he had shredded wheat for breakfast, apples, strawberries and then shreddies were the snack at nursery, for lunch he had cucumber, sausages, cooked meat and grapes in a yumbox lunchbox, he's had half a scone when his sister came in from school and he'll have bacon pasta with sweetcorn and peas when we have dinner around 6pm.
Like I say I think the snack issue is more about the what and how often / when. Personally I think a top up between between the larger meals is fine. I.e. two things per day - something between breakfast and lunch and between lunch and dinner. Not a full size meal in between and not constant either. But all kids are different :D

[Strokethefurrywall]

I've learned that my kids are far more accepting of a meal that they've not eaten before when they're hungry.

So I basically run them ragged, let them get starving and then feed them meals - they get a far greater variety of food when they're not eating something small every hour.

DS1 is pretty good at eating a variety of food/veg and loves apples and oranges, but DS2 is a typical 3 year old and would happily exist on a diet of meat or belgian waffles. Doesn't like veg, doesn't like fruit so I rarely give anything extra during the school day and this way I know he'll eat whatever I put in his lunch kit.

I don't need to eat little or often, I fast alternate days so I'm quite happy going for long periods without food.