News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Snacking Hierarchy by jperras on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @02:50PM (#3591480)
The problem with this approach is that you're not really getting much valuable nutrition from what you're eating.

1. Water: Drinking water is, of course, necessary, and quite a few people don't actually hydrate enough during the course of a day. +1 on this from me.

2. Fruits/vegetables: Now, fruits and vegetables are an essential part of any well-balanced diet, but if you're using them to satisfy an intermittent craving, I'm guessing you're probably going to reach for fruits. The problem with this is that if you're reaching for that apple a few times a day, you're still ingesting ~25g of carbohydrates (~9% daily recommended intake), and ~100 kcal. Eat four apples (or similar fruits), and you've suddenly consumed 1/5th of your caloric requirements and almost 40% of your carbs. In terms of macronutrients, an apple has about the same nutritional value as an 8oz bottle of coke.

Now don't get me wrong. Reaching for an apple instead of a muffin or a cupcake is unarguably better.

If you're reaching for vegetables instead of fruits, then most of what I stated above doesn't really apply. However, when those food cravings come around it's usually in response to a drop in blood glucose levels, which makes you reach for carb-laden foods first.

3. Nuts. Sigh. I don't know why people think nuts are actually something that's supposed to exist in a well-balanced diet. Perhaps it's the recent popularity of paleo. Anyways. Yes, nuts do contain a high percentage of poly- and monounsaturated fats, and fat is good for you. No one is going to argue that. But for the same caloric cost (~150 kcal for a serving of almonds, and that's a pretty tiny serving), you can eat a whole lot of more interesting and nutritious foods. Again, I'm not saying that nuts are inherently bad.

Re:Snacking Hierarchy by jkaunisv on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @03:09PM (#3591576)
Thanks for the more detailed approach. I'm pretty handwavy about my nutrition because I'm overall happy with where I'm at.

I do actually go for carrots and broccoli before apples and bananas quite often. I like them a lot. Often I end up eating just a few raisins before it's time for my next actual meal (which is balanced and full of veggies).

What are the more interesting and nutritious foods you're talking about? I would like to try them!

Re:Snacking Hierarchy by jperras on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @03:45PM (#3591735)
A few of my usuals (links are for quick nutritional info):

- low-fat/non-fat greek yogurt: http://www.presidentschoice.ca/LCLOnline/products.jsp?type=d...

- 1%-2% cottage cheese: http://www.presidentschoice.ca/LCLOnline/products.jsp?type=d...

- Smoked salmon

- Flaked tuna: http://www.presidentschoice.ca/LCLOnline/products.jsp?type=d... (great in salads)

Edit: Oh, and a good mix of vegetables is always good. Just watch that your fiber intake doesn't get out of control, since that can cause some digestive... issues.

Re:Snacking Hierarchy by eru on Thursday February 16, 2012 @03:16PM (#3600455)
If you live in central Europe, I suggest going for quark instead (or in addition to) cottage cheese.
Re:Snacking Hierarchy by ciniglio on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @03:15PM (#3591610)
Can you expand on the 'more interesting and nutritious foods'? I'm trying to improve my eating habits as well.
Re:Snacking Hierarchy by lukifer on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @04:28PM (#3591865)
I don't see anything wrong with nuts at all (surprise: I'm on Paleo). It's not just the calories, but how long the calories last. Some days I'll end up having a handful of nuts instead of lunch.
Re:Snacking Hierarchy by jperras on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @05:46PM (#3592151)
What do you mean by 'how long the calories last'? A Calorie is a Calorie. Doesn't matter where you get it from, it's the exact same amount of energy. Fats do have a higher energy density than other macronutrients (9kcal/g vs 4kcal/g for carbs and protein), meaning that you get more calories from 1g of fat than 1g of carbohydrates. So 10g of fats will, obviously, give you more energy than 10g of carbohydrates.

If you're talking about satiety, then there is ample evidence that protein is much more effective than fats or carbohydrates in that regard: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18469287.

Re:Snacking Hierarchy by leoedin on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @06:12PM (#3592238)
The person you're replying to could have meant that different foods have different glycemic indexes [1]. Essentially, while foods may contain the same calories as measured by a bomb calorimeter or similar, the rate at which those calories are broken down by your body into simple sugars for absorption by your blood varies. A "slow" calorie in that sense would be something with a low glycemic index, like nuts, which would cause a much more gentle rise in blood sugar.

There's evidence that a low GI diet can reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index

Re:Snacking Hierarchy by lukifer on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @06:42PM (#3592314)
Glycemic index was primarily what I was referring to, thank you.
Re:Snacking Hierarchy by lukifer on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @06:50PM (#3592339)
> A Calorie is a Calorie.

This is technically true, but useless. A calorie, as you surely know, is a measure of increasing the temperature of water. Imagine cooking one pot on high, increasing the temperature as fast as possible, and another gradually over the course of hours, applying the same total increase in heat energy to both. Do you really think the contents would cook identically in both pots?

As leoedin eloquently described, glycemic index was what I meant; do the calories hit you gradually, or all at once? But biology is freakin' complex, so at some level these concepts are all just leaky abstractions.

Re:Snacking Hierarchy by jperras on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @11:15PM (#3593000)
Okay, from the GI point of view I see what you're saying. I thought you were referring to the satiating effect of fats vs other macronutrients from the phasing of you're initial response; please forgive my knee jerk reaction.

It depends on your dietary goals and expected physical activity, bur personally, I'd reach for for some quinoa or make a lentil-based dish as a pre-run meal instead of nuts.

Re:Snacking Hierarchy by eru on Thursday February 16, 2012 @03:20PM (#3600479)
Actually, fat is quite a long-term satiating macronutrient, at least compared to, say, sugar dissolved in water.
Re:Snacking Hierarchy by justinlau on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @09:58PM (#3592790)
Complex carbohydrates and fiber rich foods won't spike your blood sugar (and subsequently your insulin levels), so you can last for longer without eating more food.
Re:Snacking Hierarchy by derleth on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:58PM (#3592535)
> quite a few people don't actually hydrate enough during the course of a day

Do you have some cites for this? I've heard some of the dumbest damn things about water (like the 'eight glasses a day' myth) and it's hard to keep them all straight.

Re:Snacking Hierarchy by jperras on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @10:53PM (#3592941)
You should be consuming about 3 liters of liquids (not necessarily water) per day for an average male: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/water/NU00283

This is highly variable, of course. If you go out an run a 45 minute 10k, then you're going to need a lot more water than someone who has done minimal physical activity all day.

Re:Snacking Hierarchy by eru on Thursday February 16, 2012 @03:18PM (#3600469)
The Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_water#Requirements) is also worth a look.