Premium
“Nibbling here and there”: The what, when, and why of snacking
Author(s) -
Kinney Rachel Ann,
Springer Cary,
Raynor Hollie,
Spence Marsha,
Jahns Lisa
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.22.1_supplement.868.6
Subject(s) - snacking , meal , snack food , portion size , psychology , food intake , medicine , environmental health , food science , obesity , pathology , chemistry
Objective: A consistent definition for snacks has not been developed in dietary research despite snacking's significant contribution to overall dietary intake. The purpose of this research was to examine self‐reported definitions of a snack. Methods: 663 18–19yo entering freshman responded to the question, “How would you define the word “snack”?” Qualitative Analysis was completed using SPSS Text Analysis for Surveys software and manually categorizing responses into themes. Results: The three largest snack categories were Not a Meal (72%), Small Portion (39%), and Hungry (26%). Twenty‐eight percent of respondents’ snack definitions were counted in two of the three categories and 12% were counted in all three. Additional categories include Types of Food (16%), Not Hungry at Intake (4%), Quick and Easy (3%), and Caloric Amount (1.5%). Not a Meal was less likely to be reported by African Americans than Whites (55% vs. 74%, p<0.01). Small Portion and Hungry were less likely to be reported by males than females (34% vs. 43%, p= 0.02) and (22% vs.30%, p=0.03), respectively. Reported weight status was not related to snack definitions. Conclusion: Defining a snack appears to have multiple criteria that may be influenced by the participant's gender and race. Providing a clear, universal definition of a snack may be difficult in dietary research.