This Tuesday's Health section of the Washington Post had an article about snacks that they tested on kids that were only 100 calories. The results that came about were interesting, though there are a few other questions raised from these results.
The one thing it ultimately comes down to is that everyone has different tastes and they're going to like different things. Many of the kids didn't care for the hummus, but it's something that I would eat. Looking at some of the portions, they also aren't much for me, but at least these are good suggestions. Then again, is it really going to hurt if you have 150 calories instead of 100? As long as you're not snacking every hour, you will be fine.
I would also be curious to see how some of these items ranked nutritionally. Of course, maybe I'm over analyzing that because again, a few cookies aren't going to hurt you, but a few cookies every hour every day will.
At least it's a guide to things I can look for to eat. I notice that already because I am becoming more aware that I'm starting to avoid the things I really don't need to be eating. At work today they brought up a bunch of leftover donuts from a workshop that had finished, and my immediate thought proces was "I would like a donut, but I don't need a donut" which was true, considering it was just after lunch and who really needs to be eating pure sugar when they're going to be sitting most of the afternoon?
The cravings for some of the worst foods also seem to be going away as well, which is a good thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment