Healthy snacks is always a way to start any diet! :D

Desire1

New member
Hey guys!!!! My name is Desire, and I hope we have a very grand friendship!

If there is one thing we can all agree on it's that we love snacks! I bet you think you can't have any snacks while dieting, well that is totally wrong. Everyone knows eating small healthy meals, or healthy snack is always great for keeping your metabolism up. My favorite snack is a waffle with grape jelly on it. >.< It's just so yummy. Almonds are another great example of snacks.

<spam removed>

Have a wonderfully healthy life!
-Desire
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Desire said:
Everyone knows eating small healthy meals, or healthy snack is always great for keeping your metabolism up

You would be surprised at the number of people that disagrees with that statement.

Desire said:
My favorite snack is a waffle with grape jelly on it.

Judging by the look of it, a waffle doesn't look "healthy" to me.

According to a dictionary, healthy can be defined as:
1. Possessing good health.
2. Conducive to good health; healthful.
3. Indicative of sound, rational thinking or frame of mind.
4. Sizable; considerable.

But the question here is: How can we define healthy to our purposes? For example, losing fat (Fat, not weight, distinction must be made, weight includes: muscle, bone, blood, water and the amount of food that is still on your system).
We could say "Everything that is good for you is healthy", but that's a pretty vague statement.
What is the set criteria to define healthy? Does it has to be low on calories? Have a lot of vitamins or minerals? Have a beneficial effect for your body? Low on fats or carbohydrates? Have a low Glycemic index?, the list goes on and on.

Could something be considered healthy because it won't do anything detrimental to your system?, Or because It doesn't contain components A, B, and C?

If I'm dehydrated, then water can be considered healthy, but let's assume that the water I'm about to drink has a lot of fluoride, bacteria and some parasites. SHOULD that water be considered healthy? I need to hydrate myself, But I certainly don't need the other stuff on my body.

Let's say I make a soup; I add meat, rice, salt and lots of vegetables.
Some people may look at it and believe it's healthy because of the vegetables it contains. What if I added too much salt? Would it still be healthy?
If I add too much rice and meat, now you have a fair amount of calories, is it still healthy? What is the breakdown point?

It all boils down to the person's criteria for "healthy" and what he wants to accomplish by eating in that "healthy" way.

One food can have a beneficial effect on the body, this is often considered healthy, but it can also contain a lot of calories. If you consume too much food without counting the calories because "The food is healthy", you can be crippling your fat loss efforts. If you eat 500 calories worth of "healthy" food, 6 times a day, you won't be losing fat anytime soon, unless you are a big person and you need more calories than that to maintain your current weight.

Personally, a food is "healthy" to me if:
a) I enjoy eating that food. (again, would it be "healthy" to force myself to eat something I don't want? It's debatable).
b) It's has the appropriate amount of calories depending on my goal for the day.
c) It has little to none dubious additives or preservatives that may damage may health.
d) It doesn't have a negative effect on my weight loss or health in general.

Having said that, in order to lose fat, which is what most people want to accomplish while trying to "boost metabolism", you don't need to force yourself to only eat what you consider is healthy.
Can you lose fat by only eating "healthy" food in the right amount? Yes. Do you have to? The answer is no.
 
Last edited:
Well said, AthalaRanger, and also - no, I do not love snacks, and usually don't snack at all. The only time I eat something apart from main means is when I am very low on calories and know I need to add some. Also, the 'several small meals a day to keep your metabolism going' myth has been debunked a long time ago.

I do suspect that the post was only made was to leave the spam link that was removed though, so I don't think we need to pay too much attention to it.
 
I was lead to believe that the "several small meals a day" - grazing in other words is good for you. It keeps your sugar levels normal especially if your diabetic. If i have a snack mid-morning and mid-afternoon i don't get that hungry feeling which then leads me to binge on rubbish.
 
It is total calories that counts.

There used to be a diet myth that said that lots of small meals improves your metabolism - but it has been proven that this is not case.

Some people find that lots of small meals satisfies them so that they do not over-eat - so the pattern is good for them and they can do it...

Some other people find that they are more likely to add a few calories to each meal to have what they want and so the total calories for the day creeps up - and they are better off having fewer larger meals...

The only real thing that counts is the total calories for the day...

If someone felt that they would keep to their calorie allowance best if they had one big meal of 1500 calories they would be no worse off than if someone painstakingly had 10 meals of exactly 150 calories each spread over the full 24 hours...

Obviously diabetics have other things to consider than their weight control or metabolism.
 
Omega said:
It is total calories that counts.

There used to be a diet myth that said that lots of small meals improves your metabolism - but it has been proven that this is not case.

Some people find that lots of small meals satisfies them so that they do not over-eat - so the pattern is good for them and they can do it...

Some other people find that they are more likely to add a few calories to each meal to have what they want and so the total calories for the day creeps up - and they are better off having fewer larger meals...

The only real thing that counts is the total calories for the day...

If someone felt that they would keep to their calorie allowance best if they had one big meal of 1500 calories they would be no worse off than if someone painstakingly had 10 meals of exactly 150 calories each spread over the full 24 hours...

Obviously diabetics have other things to consider than their weight control or metabolism.

I agree. :)

I believe that anything that can help a person reach his goal (On this case fat loss), without causing a detrimental effect, should be considered as a viable or "healthy" approach.

I did made some emphasis on the multiple-meals-a-day aspect, but it was because the TO is basically saying (Or, at least, this is my interpretation of it), "This is the "best" way to go on a diet and to keep metabolism up".

When people talk about "Boosting metabolism", or in this case: "Keeping metabolism up", I believe their main objective is to lose weight. (I would say "lose fat", but I dislike the way it sounds, and I'm tired of repeating it)

If that's the case, most of us agree that creating a caloric deficit is the way to do it. (There are also other approaches, such as surgery, but for the purposes of this thread I'm not gonna take them into account).
TO claims this will "Keep your metabolism up", but as you and San already said, this is not true. But let's consider this proposition to be true, just for a second. It won't matter in the slightest if the person is still above his required calories to lose weight.

Eating several small meals can indeed be considered a viable approach, but I would only consider it "viable" if: It helps the person eat at the desired quantities, the person in comfortable with it, and it won't cause any other problem. Not because it "Boost metabolism".

P.S: I hope I didn't sound too repetitive here. :blush5:

San said:
I do suspect that the post was only made was to leave the spam link that was removed though, so I don't think we need to pay too much attention to it.

Indeed. I got a bit "Enthusiastic" while writing the reply :blush5:. However, I enjoyed writing it... And, if it can help somebody, I'm happy.
 
Indeed. I got a bit "Enthusiastic" while writing the reply :blush5:. However, I enjoyed writing it... And, if it can help somebody, I'm happy.

You actually wrote a very good and thoughtful response... There is every chance that it will help people.
 
Actually, 3 healthy meals and healthy snacks between breakfast/lunch and lunch/dinner does speed up your metabolism. For example, veggies and fruit would be a great snack. Nuts and yogurt as well. Sadly a waffle with jelly isn't really considered good for you. haha.
 
I am a big fan of fruit and 0% yoghurt.

Actually, 3 healthy meals and healthy snacks between breakfast/lunch and lunch/dinner does speed up your metabolism.

Unfortunately that was proved to be a diet myth a number of years ago.
 
zziko991 said:
Pointless spammy post.
What is wrong with this forum lately? The increase of spam, lists of "good" foods that were obviusly taken from a blog or something, and pointless, vague general advice WE ALL ALREADY KNOW is just disturbing...
 
Last edited:
Most spammers get the message that we are pretty observant round here sooner or later...

It is comparatively easy to edit or delete out things...

Sometimes people are innocently wanting to publicise a personal blog - but other times it is a much more organised attempt to advertise wares.
 
Good snack ideas : Low fat string cheese, fruit, raw veggies with dip, baked lays, nuts, healthy cereals, wheat thins, bean dip, granola bars, and even candy bars. Buy the snack size so you can tone down the fat/sugar factor and portion control.
 
How is cheese, nuts, granola bars, vegetables with dip or candy bars a "good" idea for a snack? And your proposition is to reduce the fat/sugar factor by buying the snack size?. Here is an idea; Don't eat them in the first place.

Also you don't need to buy snack size to portion control, just read the package of ANY food or weigh the damn thing.

I'm sorry, but do you even bother to read what you are writing?


On another thread, you wrote this; (http://weight-loss.fitness.com/thre...-weight-loss-diet-program?p=873718#post873718)

lemlih aimad said:
for my Diet on the first day I only snack on fruits and veggies. The second day I drink 1 slim fast thats it. The 3rd day I snack on fruits and veggies and eat only whole grain bagel with jelly. On the 4th day I cook fish and rice (fish is good for you but only once a week) on the 5th day I drink only one slim fast. on the 6th day is like a freebie day where I eat anything but only small portion of one meal. and on the 7th day I do the fruits and veggies thing again.

and then you wrote this; (http://weight-loss.fitness.com/thre...-weight-loss-diet-program?p=874194#post874194)

lemlih aimad said:
this is all kinds of wrong. You cannot lose weight fast by starving, which is what you are doing; it will all come straight back on with interest.

you are eating far too little, lots of junk (slim fast, jelly) and depriving your body of vital nutrients.

No one on that thread mentioned slim fast and jelly, but you. You have the nerve to talk about starvation and eating junk, WHEN ONLY YOU are the one having days of "only 1 slim fast".

I'm just speechless. Or either you are so enthusiastic that you post whatever you read on other sites here, or you are on such a hurry while writing that you can't post something coherent. I can't imagine other reason of why would you post things like that.

I try to answer your posts so people don't fall for that "advice". But I'm done. Time to put the ignore function of the forum to good use...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top