REVIEW

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/7/3/466/4558044 by UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA user on 18 April 2021

What Is a Snack, Why Do We Snack, and How Can
We Choose Better Snacks? A Review of the
Definitions of Snacking, Motivations to Snack,
Contributions to Dietary Intake, and
Recommendations for Improvement1,2
Julie M Hess,3 Satya S Jonnalagadda,4 and Joanne L Slavin3*
3
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN; and 4KERRY, Inc., Beloit, WI

ABSTRACT

Around the world, adults consume energy outside of traditional meals such as breakfast, lunch, and dinner. However, because there is no
consistent definition of a “snack,” it is unclear whether those extra eating occasions represent additional meals or snacks. The manner in which an
eating occasion is labeled (e.g., as a meal or a snack) may influence other food choices an individual makes on the same day and satiety after
consumption. Therefore, a clear distinction between “meals” and “snacks” is important. This review aims to assess the definition of extra eating
occasions, to understand why eating is initiated at these occasions, and to determine what food choices are common at these eating occasions
in order to identify areas for dietary intervention and improvement. Part I of this review discusses how snacking is defined and the social,
environmental, and individual influences on the desire to snack and choice of snack. The section concludes with a brief discussion of the
associations of snacking with cardiometabolic health markers, especially lipid profiles and weight. Part II addresses popular snack choices, overall
snacking frequencies, and the demographic characteristics of frequent snackers in several different countries. This review concludes with a
recommendation for nutrition policymakers to encourage specific health-promoting snacks that address nutrient insufficiencies and excesses.
Adv Nutr 2016;7:466–75.

Keywords: appetite regulation, childhood obesity, eating behavior, food intake and appetite regulation, nutritional assessment

Introduction of snack. This section concludes with a brief discussion of

Because of the difficulty involved in defining “snacks” and the associations of snacking with cardiometabolic health
“snacking,” there is discrepancy in the literature about markers, including plasma lipid concentrations and BMI.
whether snacking prevalence has increased or remained On the basis of information from part I as well as cross-
static and whether snacking contributes to energy imbalance sectional data and government dietary guidelines, part II of
and weight gain (1, 2) or facilitates weight maintenance and this review evaluates popular snack choices in several different
a lower BMI (3–5). Yet, we know that individuals are con- countries and how the nutrition science community can
suming energy outside of meals (2, 6–21), regardless of promote nutrient-dense snack options and choices. Given
the overall prevalence of snacking or its impact on health. that snacking is still an eating occasion during which people
This review discusses the definitions and presentation of consume energy and nutrients (2, 6–21), even if the impact
snacking in the current literature and snacking patterns in of frequent eating on health remains largely unknown,
several areas of the world. Part I of this review discusses choosing healthful snacks could help mitigate the potential
how snacking is defined and the social, environmental, negative effects of snacking and contribute to promoting
and individual influences on the desire to snack and choice and facilitating nutrient-dense and health-promoting diets
(22).
1
Although several different definitions have been pro-
The authors reported no funding received for this study.
2
Author disclosures: JM Hess, SS Jonnalagadda, and JL Slavin, no conflicts of interest. posed in the literature, in this review “snacks” will refer to
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]. eating foods or consuming caloric beverages between regular

466 ã2016 American Society for Nutrition. Adv Nutr 2016;7:466–75; doi:10.3945/an.115.009571.
meals (7, 11, 14, 17, 21, 23, 24). “Snack foods” will designate (36, 37). Undergraduate students associated snacks with the
energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods high in sodium, sugar, following cues: eating alone, short eating periods (10 min),
and/or fat such as cookies, cakes, sugar-sweetened beverages, disposable utensils, lower food and nutrition quality, and
and chips (12, 13, 19, 21, 25, 26). “Snacking” refers to the act most importantly, standing while eating (36). Generally, re-
of eating a snack, regardless of whether healthful choices or spondents perceived snacks to be small portions of pack-
“snack foods” are consumed (2, 9, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 26–28). aged, inexpensive, and nutrient-poor foods and defined
“snacks” as a specific set of foods (36). The second survey
Part I: Definitions of Snacks, Influences on of college students found that the time of day and location
Snacking, and the Effect of Snacking on Meta- of consumption also factored into whether an eating occa-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/7/3/466/4558044 by UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA user on 18 April 2021

bolic and Cardiovascular Health sion was considered a meal or a snack (37). A third survey
What is a “snack”? conducted in England found that respondents (n = 121) de-
How an eating occasion is labeled influences other food fined snacks, snacking, and snack foods differently (38).
choices an individual makes on the same day and may University students and staff were mailed surveys and asked
even affect satiety after eating (19, 29–33). In addition, the to define 1 term (snack, snacking, or snack foods) and de-
delineation of different eating occasions affects data collec- scribe (including food, location, company, and time of
tion on eating patterns and their interpretation and is im- day) the last time they had eaten a snack, snacked, or eaten
portant for the research community to consider in order snack foods (38). All of the questions were open-ended. This
to collect accurate information (33). Despite its potential survey was followed with a second survey (n = 86) on the
to influence daily eating patterns of an individual as well other 2 terms. Although the differences between the defini-
as how data are collected and interpreted, the term “snack” tions of “snacks,” “snacking,” and “snack foods” were not
does not have a static definition (33). Several publications in significant, the data did suggest “conceptually consistent dif-
the literature even commented on the definitional variation ferences in usage” among the terms on the basis of location
and difficulty of distinguishing meals from snacks (23, 26, of food consumption, food choice, and time of day (38). For
33). Some current definitions of “snack” in the literature instance, “snack food” was more likely to be eaten later in
are based on the time of day of an eating occasion (5, 11, the day (after 1800 h), whereas a “snack” was more likely
13, 14, 16, 17, 20), type of food consumed (12), amount to be consumed early in the day (38). However, in the con-
of food consumed, location of food consumption, or a com- clusion of this study, the authors expressed hesitance about
bination of several of these factors (17, 21, 23, 34). Further- defining any of these terms and suggested that due to the
more, some studies relied on study participants to label their considerable variation among participant responses, the
eating occasions, sometimes with (1, 2, 5–10, 14, 15, 17–19, root word “snack” should be avoided in research question-
24, 27, 32, 35) and sometimes without (12) providing them naires (38). The participants in all 3 of these surveys were
with a list of examples or controlled, defined labels. Pro- part of very specific populations and therefore the results
vided labels, however, still varied by study. Several studies al- cannot be widely extrapolated. Nonetheless, the variation
lowed participants to categorize eating occasions as either in the definition of “snack” from this very limited audience
meals or snacks (1, 5, 6, 15, 19), whereas others separated alone suggests the possibility of even greater disparity in
specific meals (i.e., breakfast, brunch/lunch, dinner, small “snack” definitions in populations of greater age, ethnic,
meal, main meal) from snacks (2, 8, 10, 17, 18, 32). Some and cultural diversity.
studies further differentiated between snacks on the basis As an example, secondary analyses of data from the
of time of day (i.e., morning, afternoon, and evening snacks) NHANES in the United States, which relies on participant
(7, 14, 24, 27). definitions of eating occasions, are intended to represent
In other studies, research teams or interviewers classified the entire American population (39). NHANES data do
eating occasions for participants after reporting of food in- show some differences in snack definition, most notably
take (5, 13, 16, 20, 21, 23, 34). Some studies that used that some respondents “defined foods eaten at the same
cross-sectional data, especially from multiple studies, even time as both a snack and a meal” (2, 9, 18). These respon-
reclassified participant-defined eating occasions (1, 2, 5, 9, dents may define snacks by type of food consumed (i.e.,
11, 18, 24, 35). To reclassify, some research teams collapsed snack foods) rather than by the time of day they are con-
2 eating occasions, such as breakfast and brunch, into a sin- sumed. Although researchers can recode eating episodes
gle occasion (32) or combined all eating occasions within 15 by time of consumption, the presence of these single eating
(1, 2, 5, 9, 18, 35) or 30 (20) min of each other into 1 eating occasions with multiple codes suggests that participants of
occasion. However, some studies did not specify how food NHANES define snacks differently. Researchers cannot fea-
intake data were separated by eating occasion (11). sibly account for all of the variations.
Having participants define eating occasions without any Although the semantics of eating occasion labels may
designated parameters could introduce considerable variety seem trivial, an individual’s definition of an eating occasion
into snacking data. Although this phenomenon has not been as a snack or as a meal may influence their food selection
studied extensively, a few surveys specifically assessed inter- (28, 30, 32, 33, 36). An analysis of NHANES data from
individual variations in the definition of “snacks” (36–38). 1988 to 1994 found that individuals who reported skipping
Two surveys were conducted on American college campuses a meal but eating several snacks had less healthful overall

Snacking definitions and motivations 467

nutrient intakes than did individuals who ate 3 meals, with discussed in this review include hunger (26, 28, 47), location
or without snacks (32). Diet quality was assessed by macro- (37, 48–50), social/food culture and environment (26, 51–
and micronutrient intake, including cholesterol, vitamins B-6 57), cognitive factors (58–62), and hedonic eating (63–66).
and C, folic acid, calcium, magnesium, iron, sodium, potas-
sium, and fiber (32). Individuals who ate all 3 meals as well Hunger. Although snacking when hungry tends to be asso-
as snacks had the “highest intakes of all micronutrients ex- ciated with the consumption of health-promoting foods,
amined, except cholesterol, vitamin B-6, and sodium” (32). snacking in the absence of hunger leads to the consumption
Persons who skipped breakfast but ate 2 snacks had the of fat, sugar, and sodium-rich foods (26). Unnecessary
“lowest intake of all micronutrients except sodium” (32). snacking promotes “weight gain and poor nutrition” (26),

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/7/3/466/4558044 by UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA user on 18 April 2021

In this study, individuals who classified their eating occa- and the results of studies by Chapelot et al. (28, 47) support
sions as meals therefore seemed to choose more nutrient- this hypothesis. In one study, habitual nonsnackers were of-
dense foods. fered a snack between lunch and dinner (47). Although all
In addition to affecting micronutrient intake, defining of the participants consumed $1 food item offered as a snack,
eating occasions as meals instead of snacks influences food the researchers found no evidence of a biological cue (hun-
choices later in the same day (30). An intervention study ger score change, decrease in insulin or glucose concentrations)
in 138 undergraduate students showed that individuals re- prompting a desire to eat (28). Chapelot et al. concluded that
port feeling less satiated by a “snack” than a “meal,” even these participants ate because food was available even in the
when the 2 eating occasions are isocaloric (30). Individuals absence of biological cues, an example of unnecessary
also tend to consume more calories at an eating occasion af- snacking. However, the control group of regular snackers
ter a “snack” than after a “meal.” (30) Previous food diary did adjust the timing and size of their next meal after con-
(19) and intervention (28, 31, 40) studies also indicated suming a snack (28). According to these studies, nonhabi-
that eating between meals does not affect the amount of cal- tual snackers lack a biological motivation to eat snacks
ories eaten at the next meal. The results of these studies (19, and, for these “nonsnackers,” snacking without hunger leads
30–32) suggest that simply the way in which an eating occa- to increased energy consumption, which can cause eventual
sion is labeled may influence choice of food, satiety, and weight gain.
daily caloric intake.
To clarify data in the literature, especially data from large Location. Location may affect food selection for snacks (37,
epidemiologic studies, it may be prudent to avoid the word 49, 50) as well as portion size (48). Although eating at home
“snack” on forms and interview questions to minimize con- or at work is associated with more healthful food choices for
fusion about what it means to eat a “snack” (38). Instead, snacks, eating at other locations is associated with larger
participants could be asked to simply record meals and snack sizes (48) and higher fat and lower fiber content
food or caloric beverage items consumed between meals. (49, 50). One survey asked British and Australian college
students to “construct a ‘typical’ lunch, dinner, or snack
Defining snacks: nutrition policy for 11 specific locations” using a list of 51 foods (37). Loca-
Government-issued dietary guidelines could also benefit tions ranged from eating while watching television (TV) at
from the use of a clear and consistent definition of snack home to eating in an airplane or on a camping trip (37).
and snack food or the elimination of these terms altogether. This study used cluster analysis to group foods by location
On the basis of the literature discussed in this section, con- and eating occasion and found that, although participants
sumers seem to define “snacks” and “snack foods” differ- grouped some foods by eating occasion, the foods selected
ently (36–38). Yet, neither of these terms have a clear as appropriate for each eating occasion more often de-
definition in some government-issued dietary guidelines pended on the location of food consumption (37).
(41–46). The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans The results of 3 cross-sectional studies also showed an
(DGA), for instance, encourages decreasing the consump- impact of eating location on food choice. A recent cross-
tion of “snack foods” but also provides few suggestions for sectional study of snacking habits of Norwegian adults (n =
“snacks.” Although their intended meaning may not seem 1787) found that snacks eaten in the workplace had the
difficult to discern, the plethora of “snack” definitions most favorable nutrient profile and generally consisted of
among the American public may complicate the interpreta- less energy and added sugars but more protein than snacks
tion of these guidelines by some sectors of the general pub- consumed at home, at restaurants, or while traveling (49).
lic, the intended audience for these guidelines (42). To Another cross-sectional study in Irish adults (n = 958) as-
clarify recommendations, dietary guidelines need to provide sessed the nutrient contributions of foods in their daily diets
definitions of “snack” and “snack foods,” especially because by location of consumption (50). This study did not distin-
the label applied to an eating occasion can influence nutrient guish between eating occasions, but the results showed that
intake, satiety, and food quality (19, 28–33, 36). foods eaten outside the home generally had more fat, less fi-
ber, and fewer micronutrients than foods eaten at home
Motivations to snack (50). Finally, a study in 115 Northern Irish children ages
Similar to the definitions of snacking, the desire to snack de- 5–8 y found that the snacks children ate outside the home
pends on several different factors. The motivations to snack tended to be larger than snacks eaten in the home (48).

468 Hess et al.

However, for this group, the foods selected for snacks were In food-insecure populations, however, snacking may be
similar both in and outside the home, which may be due to adopted as a strategy to skip meals (56). Food-insecure indi-
parents bringing snacks from the home for their children to viduals have limited or uncertain “access at all times to
eat outside the home (48). Although not all of these studies enough food for an active, healthful life” (56, 57). NHANES
looked specifically at snacks, where individuals eat may in- collects food security data on individuals through a Food Se-
fluence the nutrient profile and portion size of the foods curity Survey Module (56, 57, 70). Recently published stud-
they choose at different eating occasions, including snacks ies on snacking and food security (56, 57) used information
(44–46). from the 1999–2002 Food Security Survey Module, which
divides individuals into 4 groups: food secure, marginally

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/7/3/466/4558044 by UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA user on 18 April 2021

Social and food culture and environment. Snacking can food secure, food secure without hunger, and food secure
also be influenced by social culture, food culture, and socio- with hunger (57). These studies found that individuals
economic status (26). Although a comprehensive discussion who are food insecure without hunger snack more often,
on the plethora of environmental factors that influence eat- eat larger meals, and may consume more calories from
ing is beyond the scope of this review, some factors relevant snacks than food-secure individuals (56). Food-insecure
to snacking, including social modeling and food insecurity, women without hunger consumed more energy at snacks,
will be addressed. and food-insecure men without hunger consumed more en-
Several studies have shown that the amount of food con- ergy at meals than their food-secure counterparts (56).
sumed by eating companions affects portion size, an effect Because the major energy source for snacks among food-
referred to as “social modeling” (51, 52). According to a re- insecure adults was “sugar, sweets, and beverages,” this trend
cent review (67), this effect has primarily been studied in the toward increased snacking indicates that snacks may serve
context of snack food consumption. If eating companions different roles in the diet and have different health effects
consume a large portion of food, the person eating with based on socioeconomic status (56, 57).
them also tends to eat more. The converse is true with small
amounts of food. Even if an eating companion is not pre- Distracted eating. Other motivations to consume snacks
sent, environmental cues about earlier individuals’ food in- include distracted eating and the association of eating with
take and choices, such as empty food wrappers, can certain activities. Several articles have been published on
influence intake (51, 68). The enhanced influence of eating how eating while distracted affects the amount of food indi-
companions during snack times may be due to the lack of an viduals choose to consume later in the day (58–60). For in-
“eating routine” or “script” for snacking as an eating occa- stance, eating lunch while watching TV or playing video
sion (52, 53), whereas meals tend to be more constrained games tends to increase the amount of snacks people eat
by certain behaviors or places. later (58–60). However, as stated in a recent meta-analysis
Snack consumption may also be initiated because of cel- and systematic review, this finding has been replicated pri-
ebratory social occasions as well as the availability of or de- marily in relatively homogenous populations with healthy
sire for tempting food. One research team developed a BMIs and an age range of 20–47 y (58).
“Reasons to Snack” inventory with 35 different options In addition to affecting later memory of food consumed,
and used this inventory in a study in 1544 adults (54). watching TV has also been associated with the number of
This inventory was specifically developed to assess individ- snacks consumed per day (61). In Canadian college students
uals’ reasons to consume unhealthy snacks that contain large (n = 613), “medium” to “high” viewers of TV (where “high”
amounts of fat or sugar and found that the most common was $4 h of TV viewing daily and “medium” was between
reasons for consuming unhealthy snacks included celebrat- 1 and 4 h of TV viewing) snacked more frequently than
ing at a party or special occasion or craving a tasty food did “low” TV viewers (61). Snacking frequency was assessed
(54). Another study asked 55 adults to keep a diet diary by using a 5-point Likert scale that asked participants to
for 5 d and rate their reasons for eating with the use of a sim- rate how often they snacked while watching TV (“never”
ilar scale with only 13 items (55). In this study, the most to “every day”) (61). The results of this study suggest that
common reason for consuming unhealthy snacks was that individuals who watch TV frequently perceive themselves
“they looked or smelled so tempting” (55% of snacking oc- as snacking more frequently while watching TV.
casions), followed by “hunger” (49%) and “needing energy” The reasons for greater snack consumption while watching
(23%) (55). TV have not been fully explained in the literature, but 1 re-
However, in some countries, including France (19, 28), search team assessed the impact of different types of TV
the Philippines (24), and Mexico (14, 24, 69), a fourth programs (“boring” or “engaging”) on food intake in normal-
“meal” or snack is part of a traditional meal pattern. The weight college-aged female participants (n = 18) (62). After
French have an eating occasion called goûter between lunch a 4-h fast, participants had free access to both chocolate
and dinner (26). A small meal between lunch and dinner, candies and grapes while either watching TV or reading for
merienda, is customary in the Philippines (24). In Mexico, 30 min. A “nonengaging” text for reading was used as a con-
a midmorning meal (almuerzo) is relatively common (14, trol. Participants consumed significantly more snacks (by
69). In these countries, therefore, tradition may motivate mass) during both the boring TV condition (P = 0.009) and
snacking. the text condition (P = 0.05) relative to the engaging TV

Snacking definitions and motivations 469

condition. However, participants ate significantly more be predicative of its effect on weight (5, 26, 28, 47, 63). The
grapes than chocolate candies in all of the conditions (P = health impact of eating frequency may depend on how an
0.006). Although the study population was limited to young individual defines an eating occasion (a snack compared
women and most of the snacks eaten were fruit, boredom with a meal) as well as their motivation to eat, food choice,
did seem to contribute to the decision to snack. age, sex, and socioeconomic group (11, 14, 18, 20, 21, 28).
These studies suggest that eating while distracted may
contribute to reduced satiety and increase consumption at Heart health. The only consistent link between snacking
the next eating occasion. “Boring” distractions may increase and a health outcome appears to be its association with im-
snack intake even more. If individuals are “multitasking” proved cardiovascular health markers, including lipid profile

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/7/3/466/4558044 by UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA user on 18 April 2021

while snacking, they may eat more of a snack or consume (cholesterol and TG concentrations) and blood pressure (10,
more food at their next meal. More research is needed in 71, 72). Frequent eating may improve lipid profiles and de-
this area with more diverse study populations over longer crease the risk of cardiovascular disease (10, 72). A review
time periods to determine how distracted eating affects in- article assessing the effects of feasting (1 large meal daily)
take and body weight. compared with “nibbling” (3, 6, 9, 12, or 17 small meals
daily) found that the “nibbling” pattern was associated
Hedonic eating. In addition to being motivated by distrac- with lower total- and LDL cholesterol concentrations and
tion, snacking may also be motivated by the rewarding prop- blood pressure (72). An additional study found that more
erties of food, or “hedonic eating.” One personality model, frequent meal consumption (>1–2 meals/d) resulted in
reinforcement sensitivity theory, asserts that the regulation lower total and LDL cholesterol (71). Although the results
of food intake may be driven by an individual’s sensitivity of this review and study assess a pattern of “frequent eating”
to reward (63). The initial study assessing connections be- rather than “snacking,” they both suggest that consuming
tween reward sensitivity and eating behaviors surveyed female food more often throughout the day, an eating pattern
college students (n = 99) with questionnaires about food crav- that could be due to snacking, improves lipid concentrations
ings and their sensitivity to punishment and reward (63). and blood pressure.
Women who were more sensitive to reward had higher
BMIs and higher food craving scores (P < 0.05) (63). Simi- Weight. As several current reviews indicate, the effects of
larly, a cross-sectional study in 1104 adolescents found that eating frequency on weight are not well understood (4, 26,
14- to 16-y-olds who were “sensitive to reward” consumed 28, 73, 74). “Snacking” specifically does not have any unam-
more energy-dense snacks and sugar-sweetened beverages biguous correlations with weight and has been associated
than did individuals who were less “sensitive to reward” (64). with healthy weight maintenance and weight gain as well
Yet, in another study, initiation of eating in the absence of as both high diet quality and low diet quality (27, 35). Re-
hunger was not significantly correlated with sensitivity to re- views on the associations between snacking and weight in
ward (65). This study provided 50 adults with a “snack taste both adults (73) and children (75) reported inverse correla-
test” of chocolate candies, which participants were in- tions between snacking and adiposity. However, one of these
structed to consume until satiation. Immediately after the reviews also noted that the correlation becomes positive
first test, participants were given a second, unanticipated, when adjusted for underreporting (73).
and voluntary opportunity to consume a different kind of A recent cross-sectional study in adults (n = 10,092) in
chocolate candy. Not all of the adults accepted the second England reported a helpful nuance to these different associ-
taste test. However, the only significant difference between ations between weight and eating frequency (25). In this
the adults who chose to participate in the second taste test study, snacking was inversely associated with body fat in
and those who did not was that the adults who participated normal-weight individuals [BMI (in kg/m2) <25] but was
had significantly higher inhibitory control scores than the positively associated with waist circumference and subcuta-
adults who declined (P = 0.03). There were no significant neous fat thickness in overweight and obese men and
differences in BMI, impulsivity, hunger, or food reward sen- women (25). Choice of snack also mitigated these associa-
sitivity between the 2 groups. tions. Overweight and obese participants tended to eat
Therefore, although 2 cross-sectional studies (63, 64) more snack foods such as “crisps, chocolates, ice cream,
showed significant associations between reward sensitivity, and sweets” and less “yogurt and nuts” than the normal-
BMI, food cravings, and snack food consumption, the results weight participants (25). On the basis of this study’s results,
of an intervention study did not support these findings. This pre-existing health status may influence snack choice and
difference may be due to the different populations assessed in the effect of snacking on weight.
each study. However, this area of study is relatively new, and
the connections between sensitivity to reward and eating Part II: Current Snack Choices, Snacker Demo-
habits, especially snacking habits, merit further investigation. graphics, and Recommendations for Change
The remainder of this review focuses on the foods and bev-
Snacking, heart health, and weight erages that people choose to consume for snacks, the demo-
Whether snacking is initiated because of hunger, regular eat- graphic profile of snackers, and suggestions for how the
ing patterns, or other psychological or physiologic cues may nutrition science community can recommend snack choices

470 Hess et al.

to better fulfill nutrient insufficiencies and avoid nutritional TABLE 1 Recommendations on snacks and snacking in the
excesses. Information from several countries will be ad- dietary guidelines of several countries and regions1
dressed, but due to the authors’ language proficiencies, data Country Snacking recommendation
for part II were limited to countries for which government- Australia The Australian Dietary Guidelines rely on a
definition of snacks as a category of discretionary
issued dietary guidelines were available in English or French
foods (“snack foods”) to be consumed in limited
and at least 1 study on snacking habits was available in amounts. The guidelines mention that “legumes,
English. Language presents an important limitation to nuts, and seeds can be eaten as snacks” (43).
this worldview of snacking, because it is not possible to Brazil Brazil’s Dietary Guidelines discourage snacking
know whether data on other countries are missing due between meals but suggest that individuals

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/7/3/466/4558044 by UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA user on 18 April 2021

with higher energy needs consume small meals
to language barriers or a lack of data. In addition, the
of fruit or “milk, yogurt, or nuts” (80).
data discussed in this section are limited by the study pop- Canada Canada’s Food Guide recommends limiting salty
ulations assessed. Nationwide survey data on snacking snacks and eating vegetables and fruit for snacks.
patterns were not available for all countries and therefore For women of childbearing age, their guide
some information used in this section relies on data from encourages fruit and yogurt for snacks (44).
England England’s National Health Service recommends
small, homogenous populations.
snacking on dried fruit in the evening as a way to
eat more fruit and also recommends nuts and
Foods for snacks. Food preferences for snacks are similar in fresh fruit as snacks. The National Health Service
several areas of the world. In the United States, “salty snacks, website has a page listing several low-calorie
desserts, candy, and sweetened beverages” are popular snack snack suggestions (81).
choices (21), and salty snacks have become especially popu- France Le Guide Alimentaire Pour Tous recommends
consuming a regular snack instead of eating
lar since 1977 (18). In 2006, salty snacks including chips and mindlessly or snacking continuously. For snack
nuts comprised 14.3% of total snacks consumed (18). Salty foods, this guide recommends yogurt, milk, fruit,
snacks, including crackers, popcorn, and pretzels, are also fruit juice, vegetables, or some bread with butter
popular among Canadian youth (16). From 1977 to 2006, or jam (82).
the preference for sweet snacks in the United States de- Greece This guide recommends a few foods (nuts, seeds,
and fruit) as snacks as long as energy intake does
creased overall, but in 2006 desserts still comprised 19.6% not exceed energy expenditure (83).
of snacks (18). Milk/dairy and fruit/juices have also become Greenland Greenland’s guide recommends limiting snack
less popular snacks in the United States as well (18). Yet, al- foods to 1/wk but does recommend eating small
though fruit and sweets have declined slightly as snack selec- healthful snacks such as “a piece of fruit or a
tions in the United States, they are very popular snacks in vegetable, crisp bread, or dried fish” between
meals (45).
Mexico, Brazil, China, Oman, and France (13, 14, 19, 21, Nordic countries The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations only
76). Fruit is the most common snack food in Mexico (14), discuss “snack foods” and recommend
and one of the most popular snack items in Brazil (13). limiting them due to their high salt, fat, and
Other popular snack items in Brazil are other sweets, des- sugar content (81).
serts, and “salgados (fried/baked dough with meat/cheese/ Oman The Omani Guide to Healthy Eating suggests
choosing snacks wisely and recommends
vegetable)” (13). Similarly, among Greek adults, 2 of the choosing low-calorie and nutrient-dense foods.
most popular snack items are desserts (chocolates, cakes, “Snack foods” are discussed as a major source
and ice cream) and savory pies (6). In China, both fruit of fats (41).
and grain-based foods are popular snacks (21). Snacks in Sweden The Swedish Nutrition Recommendations state that
France also tend to include sugary grain-based foods, in- 2–3 snacks may be included each day as part of
a healthful diet (84).
cluding “sweets, cereal bars, [and] biscuits” (19), and Cana- Switzerland Switzerland provides an entire page of healthy
dian children tend to also choose sweet grain-based snack ideas, which includes fruit, vegetables,
products (16). In Finland, however, the same foods are con- whole-grain breads, cheese, yogurt, milk, and
sumed at snacks and meals (20). With the exception of fruit, nuts but advises against sweets and fatty, salty
many of these snacks fit the profile of “snack foods” and are snacks (85).
United States The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
relatively nutrient-poor and energy-dense. Therefore, on the recommend “raw, cut-up vegetables” and fruit
basis of cross-sectional data, the choice of foods eaten for as snacks (42). The 2015 Scientific Report of
snacks is an area of concern for public health. the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
recommends decreasing snack food intake,
because snacks are a high contributor to energy,
Beverages as snacks. The increased consumption of caloric
sugar, and saturated fat intake, and expresses
beverages as snacks also merits concern, because sweetened concern over how snacks tend to be less nutrient
beverages provide energy and few, if any, other nutrients. In dense than actual meals. It also suggests
the United States, the energy density of beverages consumed choosing “smart” snacks (46).
as snacks has been increasing since 1977 (18). From 1977 to 1
Data for this table include countries with dietary guidelines in English that contain a
2006, the “percentage of snacks that consisted of beverages direct reference to snacking or best snacking choices.
only” increased by 4%, and beverages now comprise
;100 kcal/d in the diets of American adults (9, 18). Beverages

Snacking definitions and motivations 471

are also popular snacks among American children (77). In intake, and these adults ate snacks on 20 of the 28 d they
Mexico, beverages (milk, soda, coffee, and tea) were among were asked to keep a food diary (19).
the top 5 snacks for all age groups (14). Sweetened coffee In the countries for which snack data were available by
and tea and sugar-sweetened beverages were 2 of the top 5 sex and age, women tended to snack more often than
snacks in Brazil (13), and beverages overall are a popular men, but there were no discernable global trends by group.
snack category in China (21). Coffee is 1 of the top 3 favorite Small meals and snacks are common among women in Aus-
snacks in Greece (6), soda is a snack in France (19), and tea is tralia, China, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Arab Emir-
a popular snack among Omani girls (76). ates, and the United States (7, 9–11, 18, 21, 78, 79). More
men are “snackers” in Finland, however (20), and in Greece,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/7/3/466/4558044 by UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA user on 18 April 2021

Snacking demographic characteristics. “Snacker demo- the snacking habits of men and women are similar (6). In
graphics” were evaluated for the following countries: Aus- terms of age, Brazilian adults >60 y consume more energy
tralia, Brazil, Canada, China, England, Finland, France, from snacks than do younger adults (13), but Canadian
Greece, Mexico, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Arab adults over the age of 71 y consumed the lowest portion
Emirates, and the United States, and snacking occasions of their daily energy intake from snacks (16%) (17). Adult
were respondent-defined. Although a large proportion of snackers in the United States and Mexico, by contrast,
adults and children in several of these countries consume tend to be between the ages of 19 and 39 y (14, 18). In Can-
snacks, recommendations for snack choices could be further ada, adolescents aged 14–18 y consume the most energy
directed toward sectors of the population, such as women from snacks, with males in this range consuming ;30%
and young adults, who snack frequently in certain regions. of their daily calories from snacks and females consuming
In some countries, including Brazil, Mexico, Canada, the ;28% (17). Similarly, American children receive ;27% of
United States, Greece, and France, snacking contributes sig- their daily energy intake from snacks (77); and in both
nificantly to daily energy intake. In both Brazil and Mexico, China and Mexico, children snack more frequently than
national survey data show that approximately three-quarters adults (14, 21). In the United Arab Emirates, women snack
of the population (74% in Brazil, 73% in Mexico) consume more than children, but data on Emirati men’s snacking
an average of 1.6 snacks/d (13, 14). However, snacks con- habits were not available for comparison (11).
tribute a more substantial amount to daily energy intake
of Brazilians (21% of daily intake) than of Mexicans (12% Snack recommendations: nutrition policy and nutrient
of daily intake). (13, 14) “Heavy snackers” ($3 snacks/d) insufficiencies. Although the dietary guidelines of several
from Brazil receive ;35% of their daily energy intake countries mention snacks or snack foods (Table 1), some
from snacks (13). In both Canada and the United States, of them (41, 43, 44, 46, 80, 86) caution against consuming
snacks comprise almost one-quarter of the daily energy in- sweet, savory, or salty snacks but provide few, if any, sugges-
take for adults: 23% of energy intake for Canadians and 24% tions for health-promoting alternatives. For instance, the
for Americans (17, 18). In Greece, a small cross-sectional Nordic Nutrition Recommendations, the Omani Guide to
study (n = 200) showed that snacks comprise 33.5% of daily Healthy Eating, and the Australian Eat for Health Guide rec-
energy intake, or 628 kcal, for adults (6). Eighty-seven per- ommend limiting “snack foods” as well as sugary and “savory
cent of the adults surveyed for the Greek study consumed snacks” because of their high salt, fat, and sugar content (41,
snacks (6). In a dietary intake study in 54 French adults, 43, 86). However, the Nordic recommendations list no op-
snacks provided an average of 18.5% of their daily energy tions for healthy snacks (86), the Omani guide recommends

TABLE 2 Nutrients of public health concern around the world

Country Nutrients of public health concern Source
Australia Folic acid, iodine, iron, vitamin D Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (89)
Brazil Fiber, vitamin A FAO: Nutrition Country Profiles (90)
Canada Calcium, iron, potassium, vitamin D Health Canada (91)
China Energy, iodine, iron, vitamin A FAO: Nutrition Country Profiles (92)
France Calcium Agence Française de Securité Sanitaire des Aliments (82)
Greece Calcium, folic acid, iodine, iron Ministry of Health and Welfare, Supreme Scientific Health
Council (83)
Mexico Iodine, iron, vitamin A FAO: Nutrition Country Profiles (93)
Nordic countries Folic acid, iodine, iron, vitamin D Nordic Council of Ministers (86)
Oman Calcium, fiber, folic acid, iron, vitamin D, zinc Department of Nutrition, Ministry of Health of Oman (41)
Persian Gulf countries Calcium, iodine, iron, vitamin A, vitamin D Arab Center for Nutrition, Nutrition and Health Studies Unit
of Bahrain (94, 95)
Switzerland Folic acid, iron, vitamin D Federal Office of Public Health (96)
United Kingdom Folic acid, iron, magnesium, selenium, vitamin C, Proprietary Association of Great Britain (97)
vitamin D, zinc
United States Calcium, fiber, iron, potassium, vitamin D Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee (46)

472 Hess et al.

simply choosing snacks “wisely” (41), and the Australian vitamin B-12, and folic acid (88). This snack is primarily in-
guidelines suggest only “legumes, nuts, and seeds” for snacks tended to address the nutrient insufficiencies of adolescent
(43). The snack suggestions in the Brazilian dietary guidelines females at risk of developing anemia due to low dietary
similarly list few foods as appropriate “snacks”—milk, yogurt, iron intake (87), and full nutrient data on this snack were
and nuts (80). The 2015 Scientific Report of the DGA Advi- not readily available to assess its overall nutrient profile.
sory Committee recommends selecting “healthy” and “smart The development of health-promoting snacks could be an
snacks” (46) but does not list “healthy” snacks or define important area for collaboration between food companies
“smart” snacks. In addition to clarifying a definition of snacks and nutritionists, and this strategy of developing or recom-
and snack foods, these dietary guidelines should offer sugges- mending snacks that target specific insufficiencies and cer-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/7/3/466/4558044 by UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA user on 18 April 2021

tions of health-promoting snack options. tain populations could be adopted in other countries for
A few countries, Greenland, Sweden, France, and Swit- which similar data are available (Table 2).
zerland (45, 81–83, 85), already provide specific suggestions
for snacks that include more options than dairy or nuts. In Limitations. The lack of a consistent definition of “snack”
Greenland, snacks are recommended as an eating occasion, in the literature affected the collection and interpretation
and snacking specifically on “a piece of fruit or a vegetable, of information for this review. Research articles for this re-
crisp bread or dried fish” is recommended (45). The Swedish view were identified via database searches with the use of the
Nutrition Recommendations suggests sandwiches of bread term “snack” and from the bibliographies of relevant arti-
and margarine, fruit, milk, and occasional sweets as snacks cles. However, snacking can also be discussed in articles
(84), and Le Guide Alimentaire Pour Tous from France makes about eating frequency, eating occasions, dietary habits, di-
specific snack suggestions, including fruit, bread with butter etary patterns, frequent eating, and small meals. Evaluating
and jam, and raw vegetables, for individuals who prefer to information on all of these topics was beyond the scope of
eat frequently (82). With a 2-page document on healthy this review.
snack choices for morning and afternoon snacks that in- Furthermore, the information on snack preferences and
cludes fruit and vegetables listed by season as well as nuts demographic characteristics relies on limited amounts of
and grain and dairy products, Switzerland provides the data to draw conclusions about extremely large and diverse
most comprehensive list of snack suggestions (85). Although populations, and not all of these data are recent. Some of the
these guides also do not distinguish clearly between “snacks” data used for this review have not been updated for >10 y.
and “snack foods,” these guidelines could serve as models for Because other studies suggest that a shift in eating behaviors
other countries in developing snack recommendations. has occurred since that time (18), some of these data are
The nutrient insufficiencies and excesses of certain coun- likely no longer accurate.
tries could also be used to develop snack recommendations
and even formulate specific snack foods. Although few Conclusions. Snacks, snacking, and snack foods are difficult
countries recommend specific foods for snacks, countries to define and study. The definition of and motivation to
with official dietary guidelines do tend to have population- snack depend on external factors such as the time of day,
level recommendations regarding the inclusion of certain type of food, food availability, and location, among others.
nutrients or foods in the diet. Snack foods rich in important Yet, the impact of frequent eating occasions on health out-
nutrients that rely on the pre-existing snack preferences of comes, including weight gain, remains largely unknown.
different populations could contribute to facilitating nutrient- The literature suggests that the consumption of nutrient-
dense and health-promoting diets. poor snacks may be associated with high BMI, eating in
For example, the 2010 DGA identifies potassium, dietary the absence of hunger, eating away from home or work, so-
fiber, calcium, and vitamin D as “nutrients of concern” be- cial modeling, and food insecurity. Even though these fac-
cause their intake is low enough to be of concern for public tors may be associated with poor dietary choices in some
health (42). The DGA therefore recommends that Ameri- populations, the motivation to snack as well as the health
cans consume more vegetables, fruit, whole grains, milk impact of snacking are subject to considerable interindivid-
and milk products, and seafood to address these insuffi- ual variation, which merits further investigation. Because
ciencies (42). These recommendations, in conjunction heavily salted, sweetened, and high-fat foods such as chips,
with current snack food preferences, could be used to de- desserts, and sugar-sweetened beverages are still the most
velop recommendations for health-promoting snacks that popular snacks in several countries, dietary guidelines could
are rich in the nutrients of concern (22). reimage “snack foods” to prevent “snack time” from becom-
Nutrients of concern could also be used to guide the de- ing an occasion for overeating nutrient-poor foods.
velopment of new snack foods. This strategy has been imple-
mented in rural India, where one food company introduced Acknowledgments
beverages and snacks formulated to address specific nutrient All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
needs, including water, iron, and folic acid, in 2011 (87).
One of these snacks, made from extruded grains, contains References
25% of the daily iron needs of adolescent girls as well as 1. Duffey KJ, Popkin BM. Causes of increased energy intake among chil-
50% of their recommended dietary allowances of thiamin, dren in the U.S., 1977–2010. Am J Prev Med 2013;44:e1–8.

Snacking definitions and motivations 473

 2. Duffey KJ, Popkin BM. Energy density, portion size, and eating occa- 28. Chapelot D. The role of snacking in energy balance: a biobehavioral ap-
sions: contributions to increased energy intake in the United States, proach. J Nutr 2011;141:158–62.
1977–2006. PLoS Med 2011;8:e1001050. 29. Wadhera D, Capaldi ED. Categorization of foods as “snack” and “meal”
3. Ritchie LD. Less frequent eating predicts greater BMI and waist circum- by college students. Appetite 2012;58:882–8.
ference in female adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;95:290–6. 30. Capaldi ED, Owens JQ, Privitera GJ. Isocaloric meal and snack foods
4. Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM. Meal frequency and energy bal- differentially affect eating behavior. Appetite 2006;46:117–23.
ance. Br J Nutr 1997;77(S1):S57–70. 31. Marmonier C, Chapelot D, Louis-Sylvestre J. Metabolic and behavioral
5. Ma Y. Association between eating patterns and obesity in a free-living consequences of a snack consumed in a satiety state. Am J Clin Nutr
US adult population. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:85–92. 1999;70:854–66.
6. Elena F, Maria B. Snack patterns of Greek adults 20–50 years of age. 32. Kerver JM, Yang EJ, Obayashi S, Bianchi L, Song WO. Meal and snack
Journal of Foodservice 2006;17:197–204. patterns are associated with dietary intake of energy and nutrients in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/7/3/466/4558044 by UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA user on 18 April 2021

7. Hartmann C, Siegrist M, van der Horst K. Snack frequency: associa- US adults. J Am Diet Assoc 2006;106:46–53.
tions with healthy and unhealthy food choices. Public Health Nutr 33. Johnson GH, Anderson GH. Snacking definitions: impact on interpre-
2013;16:1487–96. tation of the literature and dietary recommendations. Crit Rev Food Sci
8. Bertéus Forslund H, Lindroos AK, Sjöström L, Lissner L. Meal patterns and Nutr 2010;50:848–71.
obesity in Swedish women—a simple instrument describing usual meal 34. Nicklas TA, Yang S-J, Baranowski T, Zakeri I, Berenson G. Eating pat-
types, frequency and temporal distribution. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002;56:740–7. terns and obesity in children. Am J Prev Med 2003;25:9–16.
9. Popkin BM, Duffey KJ. Does hunger and satiety drive eating anymore? 35. Zizza CA, Xu B. Snacking is associated with overall diet quality among
Increasing eating occasions and decreasing time between eating occa- adults. J Acad Nutr Diet 2012;112:291–6.
sions in the United States. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;91:1342–7. 36. Wansink B, Payne CR, Shimizu M. “Is this a meal or snack?” Situational
10. Smith KJ, Blizzard L, McNaughton SA, Gall SL, Dwyer T, Venn AJ. cues that drive perceptions. Appetite 2010;54:214–6.
Daily eating frequency and cardiometabolic risk factors in young Aus- 37. Marshall D, Bell R. Meal construction: exploring the relationship be-
tralian adults: cross-sectional analyses. Br J Nutr 2012;108:1086–94. tween eating occasion and location. Food Qual Prefer 2003;14:53–64.
11. Ng SW, Zaghloul S, Ali H, Harrison G, Yeatts K, El Sadig M, Popkin 38. Chamontin A, Pretzer G, Booth DA. Ambiguity of “snack” in British
BM. Nutrition transition in the United Arab Emirates. Eur J Clin usage. Appetite 2003;41:21–9.
Nutr 2011;65:1328–37. 39. NHANES. About the National Health and Nutrition Examination
12. Lipoeto NI, Geok Lin K, Angeles-Agdeppa I. Food consumption pat- Survey [cited 2015 Oct 13]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/
terns and nutrition transition in South-East Asia. Public Health Nutr nhanes/about_nhanes.htm.
2013;16:1637–43. 40. Marmonier C, Chapelot D, Louis-Sylvestre J. Effects of macronutrient
13. Duffey KJ, Pereira RA, Popkin BM. Prevalence and energy intake from content and energy density of snacks consumed in a satiety state on the
snacking in Brazil: analysis of the first nationwide individual survey. onset of the next meal. Appetite 2000;34:161–8.
Eur J Clin Nutr 2013;67:868–74. 41. Department of Nutrition, Ministry of Health. Omani Guide to Healthy
14. Duffey KJ, Rivera JA, Popkin BM. Snacking is prevalent in Mexico. J Eating. 2009 [cited 2015 Mar 20]. Available from: http://www.fao.
Nutr 2014;144:1843–9. org/3/a-as845e.pdf.
15. Adair LS, Popkin BM. Are child eating patterns being transformed 42. US Department of Agriculture; US Department of Health and Human
globally? Obes Res 2005;13:1281–99. Services. Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7th ed. Washington
16. Mercille G, Receveur O, Macaulay AC. Are snacking patterns associated (DC): US Government Printing Office; 2010.
with risk of overweight among Kahnawake schoolchildren? Public 43. Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Coun-
Health Nutr 2010;13:163–71. cil, Department of Health and Aging. Eat for Health: Australian Dietary
17. Garriguet D. Canadians’ eating habits. Health Rep 2007;18:17–32. Guidelines summary. 2013 [cited 2014 Mar 9]. Available from: https:
18. Piernas C, Popkin BM. Snacking increased among U.S. adults between //www.eatforhealth.gov.au/guidelines.
1977 and 2006. J Nutr 2010;140:325–32. 44. Health Canada. Canada’s Food Guide. 2011 [cited 2015 Mar 22]. Available
19. Bellisle F, Dalix AM, Mennen L, Galan P, Hercberg S, de Castro JM, from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/
Gausseres N. Contribution of snacks and meals in the diet of French food-guide-aliment/view_eatwell_vue_bienmang-eng.pdf.
adults: a diet-diary study. Physiol Behav 2003;79:183–9. 45. Jeppesen C, Bjerregaard P, Young K. Food-based dietary guidelines in cir-
20. Ovaskainen M-L, Tapanainen H, Pakkala H. Changes in the contribu- cumpolar regions. 2011 [cited 2015 Jan 21]. Available from: http://www.
tion of snacks to the daily energy intake of Finnish adults. Appetite circumpolarhealthjournal.net/public/journals/32/chs/CHS_2011_8.pdf.
2010;54:623–6. 46. US Department of Agriculture; US Department of Health and Health
21. Wang Z, Zhai F, Zhang B, Popkin BM. Trends in Chinese snacking be- Services. Scientific report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory
haviors and patterns and the social-demographic role between 1991 Committee. Washington (DC); 2015.
and 2009. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2012;21:253–62. 47. Chapelot D, Marmonier C, Aubert R, Gausseres N, Louis-Sylvestre J. A
22. Hess J, Slavin J. Snacking for a cause: nutritional insufficiencies and excesses role for glucose and insulin preprandial profiles to differentiate meals
of U.S. children, a critical review of food consumption patterns and macro- and snacks. Physiol Behav 2004;80:721–31.
nutrient and micronutrient intake of U.S. children. Nutrients 2014;6:4750–9. 48. Kerr MA, McCrorie TA, Rennie KL, Wallace JMW, Livingstone MBE.
23. Ovaskainen M-L, Reinivuo H, Tapanainen H, Hannila M-L, Korhonen Snacking patterns according to location among Northern Ireland chil-
T, Pakkala H. Snacks as an element of energy intake and food con- dren. Int J Pediatr Obes 2010;5:243–9.
sumption. Eur J Clin Nutr 2006;60:494–501. 49. Myhre JB, Løken EB, Wandel M, Andersen LF. The contribution of
24. Taillie LS, Afeiche MC, Eldridge AL, Popkin BM. Increased snacking snacks to dietary intake and their association with eating location
and eating occasions are associated with higher energy intake among among Norwegian adults—results from a cross-sectional dietary sur-
Mexican children aged 2–13 years. J Nutr 2015;145:2570–7. vey. BMC Public Health 2015;15:369.
25. O’Connor L, Brage S, Griffin SJ, Wareham NJ, Forouhi NG. The cross- 50. O’Dwyer NA, Gibney M, Burke S, McCarthy S. The influence of eating
sectional association between snacking behaviour and measures of ad- location on nutrient intakes in Irish adults: implications for developing
iposity: the Fenland Study, UK. Br J Nutr 2015;114:1286–93. food-based dietary guidelines. Public Health Nutr 2005;8:258–65.
26. Bellisle F. Meals and snacking, diet quality and energy balance. Physiol 51. Prinsen S, de Ridder DTD, de Vet E. Eating by example. Effects of en-
Behav 2014;134:38–43. vironmental cues on dietary decisions. Appetite 2013;70:1–5.
27. Hampl JS, Heaton CLB, Taylor CA. Snacking patterns influence energy 52. Hermans RCJ, Herman CP, Larsen JK, Engels RCME. Social modeling
and nutrient intakes but not body mass index. J Hum Nutr Diet 2003; effects on young women’s breakfast intake. J Am Diet Assoc 2010;110:
16:3–11. 1901–5.

474 Hess et al.

53. Preedy VR, Watson RR, Martin CR, editors. Handbook of behavior, 75. Larson N, Story M. A review of snacking patterns among children and
food and nutrition. New York: Springer; 2011. adolescents: what are the implications of snacking for weight status?
54. Verhoeven AAC, Adriaanse MA, de Vet E, Fennis BM, de Ridder DTD. Child Obes 2013;9:104–15.
It’s my party and I eat if I want to: reasons for unhealthy snacking. Ap- 76. Musaiger AO. Nutritional status and dietary habits of adolescent girls in
petite 2015;84:20–7. Oman. Ecol Food Nutr 1994;31:227–37.
55. Cleobury L, Tapper K. Reasons for eating “unhealthy” snacks in over- 77. Piernas C, Popkin BM. Trends in snacking among U.S. children. Health
weight and obese males and females. J Hum Nutr Diet 2014;27:333–41. Aff (Millwood) 2010;29:398–404.
56. Zizza CA, Duffy PA, Gerrior SA. Food insecurity is not associated with 78. Kant AK, Graubard BI. 40-Year trends in meal and snack eating behav-
lower energy intakes. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2008;16:1908–13. iors of American adults. J Acad Nutr Diet 2015;115:50–63.
57. Zizza CA. Healthy snacking recommendations: one size does not fit all. 79. Fjellström K. Mealtime and meal patterns from a cultural perspective.
Physiol Behav 2014;134:32–7. Food Nutr Res 2004;48:161–4.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/7/3/466/4558044 by UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA user on 18 April 2021

58. Robinson E, Aveyard P, Daley A, Jolly K, Lewis A, Lycett D, Higgs S. 80. Ministry of Health of Brazil. Dietary guidelines for the Brazilian popula-
Eating attentively: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect tion 2014 [cited 2015 Jan 21]. Available from: http://189.28.128.100/dab/
of food intake memory and awareness on eating. Am J Clin Nutr docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf.
2013;97:728–42. 81. Department of Health. NHS Choices—your health, your choices [cited
59. Higgs S. Manipulations of attention during eating and their effects on 2015 Mar 22]. Available from: http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx.
later snack intake. Appetite 2015;92:287–94. 82. Ancellin R, Baelde D, Barthelemy L, Bellisle F, Berta J-L, Boute D,
60. Oldham-Cooper RE, Hardman CA, Nicoll CE, Rogers PJ, Brunstrom Castetbon K, Chauliac M, Duchene C, et al. Le guide alimentaire
JM. Playing a computer game during lunch affects fullness, memory pour tous. 2011. [cited 2015 Mar 16]. Available from: http://www.
for lunch, and later snack intake. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;93:308–13. inpes.sante.fr/CFESBases/catalogue/pdf/581.pdf.
61. Thomson M, Spence JC, Raine K, Laing L. The association of television 83. Ancellin R, Baelde D, Barthélémy L, Bellisle F, Berta J-L, Boute D,
viewing with snacking behavior and body weight of young adults. Am J Castetbon K, Chauliac M, Duchéne C, Dumas C, et al. Ministry of
Health Promot 2008;22:329–35. Health and Welfare. Dietary guidelines for adults in Greece. Arch
62. Chapman CD, Nilsson VC, Thune HÅ, Cedernaes J, Le Grevès M, Hell Med 1999;16:516–24.
Hogenkamp PS, Benedict C, Schiöth HB. Watching TV and food in- 84. Livsmedelsverket. Find your way to eat greener, not too much and be ac-
take: the role of content. PLoS One 2014;9:e100602.
tive. 2015 [cited 2015 Jan 8]. Available from: http://www.slv.se/upload/
63. Franken IHA, Muris P. Individual differences in reward sensitivity are
dokument/rapporter/mat_naring/report_20_2005_sno_eng.pdf.
related to food craving and relative body weight in healthy women. Ap-
85. Conseils pour des dix-heueres et des gouters sains [cited 2015 Mar 16].
petite 2005;45:198–201.
Available from: http://www.sge-ssn.ch/media/sb_znueniblatt_2012_en_
64. De Cock N, Van Lippevelde W, Vervoort L, Vangeel J, Maes L, Eggermont
web.pdf.
S, Braet C, Lachat C, Huybregts L, et al. Sensitivity to reward is associated
86. Nordic Council of Ministers. Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2012
with snack and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in adolescents.
[cited 2015 Mar 16]. Available from: http://norden.diva-portal.org/
Eur J Nutr 2015;1–10.
smash/get/diva2:704251/fulltext01.pdf.
65. De Cock N, Van Lippevelde W, Vervoot L, Vangeel J, Maes L, Eggermont
87. Banerjee R. Pepsi’s rural strategy: new healthy beverage with low price. The
S, Braet C, Lachat C, Huybregts L, Goossens L, et al. Psychological pre-
Economic Times 2011 [cited 2015 Oct 19]. Available from: http://articles.
dictors of opportunistic snacking in the absence of hunger. Eat Behav
economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011–07–20/news/29794731_1_consumers-
2015;18:156–9.
66. Hennegan JM, Loxton NJ, Mattar A. Great expectations: eating expec- beverage-education-programme/2.
88. PepsiCo India. Human sustainability 2015 [cited 2015 Oct 19].
tancies as mediators of reinforcement sensitivity and eating. Appetite
2013;71:81–8. Available from: http://www.pepsicoindia.co.in/purpose/human-
67. Cruwys T, Bevelander KE, Hermans RCJ. Social modeling of eating: a sustainability.html.
review of when and why social influence affects food intake and choice. 89. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s Food and Nutrition
Appetite 2015;86:3–18. 2012 [cited 2015 Mar 9]. Available from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/
68. Robinson E, Benwell H, Higgs S. Food intake norms increase and de- DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737422837.
crease snack food intake in a remote confederate study. Appetite 2013; 90. FAO. Nutrition country profiles: Brazil summary [cited 2015 Mar 20].
65:20–4. Available from: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGN/nutrition/bra_en.stm.
69. Caamaño MC, Gutierrez J, García OP, Ronquillo D, Martinez G, Rosado JL. 91. Health Canada. Do Canadian adults meet their nutrient requirements
Increased calorie intake at a specific mid-morning meal and increased in- through food intake alone? 2010 [cited 2015 Mar 21]. Available from:
take of soft drinks are strongly associated with obesity in Mexican rural http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/art-nutr-adult-
women. Ecol Food Nutr 2015;54:157–74. eng.php.
70. NHANES 2009–2010: food security data documentation, codebook, 92. FAO. Nutrition country profiles: China summary [cited 2015 Jan 20].
and frequencies [cited 2016 Jan 3]. Available from: http://wwwn.cdc. Available from: http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/chn_en.stm.
gov/nchs/nhanes/2009–2010/FSQ_F.htm. 93. FAO. Nutrition country profiles: Mexico summary [cited 2015 Jan 20].
71. Edelstein SL, Barrett-Connor E, Wingard D, Cohn B. Increased meal Available from: http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/mex_en.stm.
frequency associated with decreased cholesterol concentrations; Ran- 94. Musaiger AO. The food dome: dietary guidelines for Arab countries.
cho Bernardo, CA, 1984–1987. Am J Clin Nutr 1992;55:664–9. Nutrición Hospitalaria (Grupo Aula Médica S.L.); 2012;27:109–15.
72. Bhutani S, Varady KA. Nibbling versus feasting: which meal pattern is 95. Musaiger AO, Abuirmeileh NM. Food consumption patterns of adults
better for heart disease prevention? Nutr Rev 2009;67:591–8. in the United Arab Emirates. J R Soc Promot Health 1998;118:146–50.
73. McCrory MA, Howarth NC, Roberts SB, Huang TT-K. Eating fre- 96. Schmid A, Brombach C, Jacob S, Schmid I, Sieber R, Siegrist M. Swed-
quency and energy regulation in free-living adults consuming self- ish Nutrition Society. [The Nutritional Status of Switzerland.] 2012 (in
selected diets. J Nutr 2011;141:148–53. French).
74. McCrory MA, Campbell WW. Effects of eating frequency, snacking, 97. Ruxton C, Mason P. Towards a healthier Britain 2010 [cited 2015
and breakfast skipping on energy regulation: symposium overview. Mar 21]. Available from: http://www.pagb.co.uk/publications/pdfs/
J Nutr 2011;141:144–7. towardsahealthierbritain2010.pdf.

Snacking definitions and motivations 475