CURRENT TOPICS IN NUTRACEUTICAL RESEARCH Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 53-59, 2011
ISSN 1540 -7535 print, Copyright © 2011 by New Century Health P ublishers, LLC
w ww .n e w c e nt ur y h e al t h p u bl i s h e rs . c o m
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
DEFINITIONS AND PERCEPTIONS OF SNACKING
Katherine Chapli n and Andre w P. Smith
Centre for Occupationa l and Health Ps ychology, Schoo l of Psychology, Cardif f University,
P O Box 901, Cardiff, CF10 3AS, UK.
[Receive d Apri l 4, 2011; Accepte d May 9, 2011]
ABSTRA CT: The purpos e o f this study was to investigate
definitions of snacking, perceptions of snack foods and snacking
behavior. One hundred and thirty six participants (96 females,
40 males , mean age 37 years), wh o we re either students or
member s of the genera l public took part in the study. The
participants c o m p l e t ed a snacking questionnaire which
measured their snacking behavior and beliefs. The majority of
participants believed that snacking was best defined as food or
drink eaten between main meals. The majority of participants
consumed at least one snack per day (80%) and had on average
4.5 eating episodes per day. Participants were able to group
snack foods depending on their differing qualities with sub groups of the sample consuming snacks from these groups. This
study supports previous evidence that snacks are best defined
relative t o meal s howeve r it highlight s a nee d fo r further research
to be done examinin g the relationship between mea ls and
snacks. The findings identify that not all snack foods provide
extra calorie s and therefore snackin g is not necessaril y a
predisposition to obesity.
KEY WORDS : S nacking beliefs, Snacking Fr equenc y, Snacks
Cor r esponding Autho r: Pro f. And rew P. Smith, Centre for
Occupational and Health Ps y cholog y, School of Ps y cholog y,
Cardiff U n i versit y, P.O. Bo x. 901, Cardiff CF11 3YG, UK;
Fa x: +44 29 20874758; E- mail: S mithAP@Cardiff .ac.uk
INT RODUCTION
N o wadays eating habits are moving away fro m eating three
substantial meals a day to eating smaller amounts of food more
frequently (snacking). This pattern of eating has been observed
in both childre n ( L i v i n g s t o n e , 1991 ) and adult s (British
Nutritio n Foundation, 1984) . Frequency of eatin g episodes
ranges fro m 6 per day in children (Livingstone, 1991) to 6.5
in adult s ( Britis h Nutritio n Foundation, 1984). Expected
decreases in frequency of eating episodes in an elderly (6.02)
and a very elderly (5.60 ) populatio n hav e been o b s e r v e d
(G ate n b y, 1997). Ho we v er, it is cur rently difficult to accurately
measure consumptio n of snacks due to a lack of an agreed
definition o f snackin g a nd relativel y little quantitative
information being provided.
“Having a snack ” can referto either eating food between
meals or eating a light meal. Consistent differences in the usage
of the terms snac k, snackin g and snac k food s hav e been
identified , although thes e differences were marginal
(Chamontin et al., 2003). Snac ks have been define d with
respect to caloric consumptio n (Bernstein et al., 1981), in
relation to social interaction (Rotenberg, 1981) and based o n
time of day of consumption (Summbell et al., 1995). These
definitions fail to consider the influence of social patterns and/
or cultura l nor ms on timing and size of eatin g occasions
( Gatenby, 1997). A distinction has also been made with respect
to motivation for eating (Marmonier et al, 2002) with snacks
being defined as eatin g episodes not trigge red by hunge r.
Snacks are frequently referred to relative to meals as smalle r,
les s structu red eatin g episodes ( Gatenby, 1997). Although
there is no clear definition, the majority of papers define a
snack relati ve to a mea l as “food or drin k consume d other
than during main meal times”.
Regardles s of h o w snackin g is defined it contributes
significantly to total food intake (Gregory et al, 1990; 1995).
It is believe d tha t snac ks contribute 15- 20% o f our daily
energy intake (Summerbell et al., 1995), 15-20% of our daily
mineral intake and 13- 17% o f our daily vitamin intake.
Snacks have been found to differ from meals in terms of
size, nutritional content and hunger and thirs t s e n s ati on s
before and after the event (Bellisl e et al., 2003) . Different
foods are reported when referring to meals or snacks with
sweets, cereal bars, biscuits and fizzy drinks being more likely
to be reported as snacks. Differences have also been observed
between males and females with males consuming more fruit,
soft drinks and sandwiches and females eating more chocolate,
biscuit, cakes and crisps as snacks (Drummond et al. cited in
Gaten by, 1995). More research is needed to further examine
individual s’ definitions of snacks, specificall y looking at the
timing of the intakes and the types of foods eaten.
2
Definition and perception o f Snacking
It is a popular belief that people who snack frequently have
a bad die t and they a re either ove r we ight or will become
overweight. Some researchers believe that snacking may play
an etiologic role in obesity (Basdevant et al., 1993; Takahashi
et al. , 1999; Booth, 1988a,b). Snackin g is viewed as being
food that is eaten in addition to 3 standard meals and therefore
it is perceived as providing extra calories. Booth (1980) states
that a small amount of food eaten approximatel y an hour
before a meal is unlikely to decrease intake at the next meal. It
is hypothesised that it is fattening to consume even a small
amount of energy (from food or drinks) between main meals
(Booth, 1988).
However there is little evidence that frequent snackers are
nutritionally disadvantaged or have a higher percentag e of
body fat (Drummond, Kirk and de Looy, 1995). Snacks are
pe rceived as being unhealthy foods, for example confectionery,
which is believed to provid e “empty” calori es and therefore
provide no other nutrients. It is also argued that these snacks
are replacing foods with a greater nutritional content, which
furt h er d i s a d v a n t a g es t he snacker. Ruxton et al. (1994)
examined snackin g habit s o f 136 s ch o ol child re n . N o
significant differences were found between frequent and nonfrequent snackers with respect to micro - and macronutrient
intake. In addition Anderson (cited in Drummond et al, 1995)
foun d no differenc e in energ y intake betwee n frequent and
infrequent snackers. Drummond et al conclude that there is
little evidence to suggest that increased consumption of snacks
leads to an ex cess of “e m p t y” calories.
Metzne r et al. (1977 ) compare d participants wh o ate 6
meals per day wit h those wh o ate 2 meals . No significant
difference s were foun d with respect to Body Mas s Index
(BMI). This contradicts the belief that increased snacking leads
to an increas e in weight (Booth,1988). It is argued that
i n c r e a s ed snackin g can be beneficial as long as an energy
balance is maintained.
The aims of the current study are to examine p a rticipant s’
definitions of snacking, their perceptions o f snacking and their
snackin g habits . A n established definitio n of snacking is
important in order for comparisons to be made across studies.
This would also allow for other measuring instruments to be
used . This is apparent when previous breakfas t research is
conside red. B reakfast is defined as “that with which a person
brea ks his fas t in the morning; the firs t mea l of the day”
(Oxford Englis h Dictionary, 2nd Ed). Once a definition is
derived it is possible to examine the length of the eating
occasion, timing s betwee n tha t even t and othe r eating
occasions and size of the occasion for example. If a definition
of snackin g cou ld be agree d upo n this would allo w more
specific measures of snacking to be taken. Any influence of
snac k siz e a nd conten t on future mea ls cou ld b e easily
examined including length of time between consumption and
s ize of consumption. Th is would be pa rticularly beneficial
when considering the effects of snacking on obesit y.
It is of particular interestwhich foods participants perceive
and eat as snacks. Factor analysis will be used to identify any
s u b -scales of perceive d snac k foods and actual snack foods
consumed by participants.
METHODS
Participants
A sample of students was either contacted via a student
participant database, and was sent the material in the post, or
they were rec ruited fro m Cardiff Universit y through poster
advertisements. A sa m ple of members fromthe general public
was recruited fro m the genera l public participan t database.
They were sent the materia l to complete throug h the post.
Ta b le 1 d isp la ys demographic informatio n abou t the
pa rticipants. Pa rticipants w ere paid for taking part in the study.
TABLE 1. Demographic informatio n of student and general
public samples.
Studen t s a m p l e Genera l public sample
mean ( S E M )
mean ( S E M )
Sample size
M ale/F emal e ratio
Age
White/Non white ratio
55
81
14/41
26/55
21.62 (0.35)
47.16 (1.52)
43/12
75/6
Procedure
Par ticipant s from t he databases wer e sent a letter and
informatio n sheet detailin g the stud y and a consent form.
Participants w ere requested to complete the consent form and
the snacking questionnaire and return them in the freepost
envelope p rovided. Participants recruited through the poster
campaig n came to the laboratory and were give n the same
informatio n sheet detailin g the study and consent form.
Pa rticipants completed the questionnaire in the laborato ry.
Materials and measurement
Data were collected from 3 sources: a recruitment booklet,
snacking frequency items and a snacking questionnaire.
Each of these measures is described belo w.
Recruitment booklet
Information was collected regardin g the age, gende r and
ethnicit y of participants. In addition participant s were also
asked about the past and present health status. This included
whethe r p ar ticipants suffer fro m asthma/hay fev er, viral
conditions, musculo -s k e l e t al conditions, digestive problems
and chronic illnesses. Participants were also asked to record
any medication they were currently taking.
Snack food consumption
This was measured for 20 different items using a 7 point
like r t scale whe re 0 = never and 6 = 3 to 4 times a day.
Consumption of each item was categorised into three groups:
(1) The non-consumer – neverconsumed the snack.
Definition and perception of Snacking 3
(2) The weekly consumer – c o n s u m e d the snack between
once to four times a week.
(3) The daily consumer – consumed the snack between
once to four times per day.
Snacking questionnaire
The s n ac ki n g questionnai re w a s d e v e l o p e d to investigate
pa r tic i pa n t s’ belie fs abou t snacking , their definitio n of
snackin g a nd their snacking habits . T he firs t question
provide d participants wit h 7 possibl e definition s of
snacking . Pa r t i ci p a n ts w e re aske d t o selec t t he on e
definitio n the y believe d bes t matche d the ir o wn opinion.
A numbe r o f questions w e re u s ed to measure snacking
habits. Information was c o l l e c t ed about how many times
participants h ad eate n t h e d ay b ef o re an d h o w many
meals and snacks it c o n s i s t e d o f. In addition participants
were specificall y as ked t o indicat e how ofte n the y ate
b r e a k f a st . A lis t of timings was provided a nd participants
were requested to identify when they normally ate their
snacks. The questionnaire included a list o f 14 food and
drin k items and required participant s to c h o o se those they
pe r cei v ed w er e snac k i tem s . The p r oces s wa s re p e a t ed with
a different lis t of 11 items except the participants had to
decid e whic h items w e r e h ealt hy snacks . To measu r e
pa r t i c i p a n t s ’ beliefs about snac ki n g a number of statements
we re included. Par ticipants used a 5 poin t like r t scale to
indicat e how much they agreed or disagreed with eac h of
the statement s (where 1 = strongl y a g r ee and 5 = strongly
disagr ee). Pa r ticipants we re als o presented with a lis t of
snack proper ties . P ar ticipants used a 5-poin t liker t scale
to indicat e ho w importan t the y believe d each property
wa s (wher e 1 = e xt r em e l y important and 5 = not important
at all ). Furthe r d e t a i l s of the sta t e m e nts used can be found
in the results section.
Statistical analysis
The data was analysed usin g SPS S for W i n d o w s v.11.
Principle c o mp o n en ts facto r a n a l y s es o f correlatio n
matrices were conducted in order to classify empirically
deriv ed sets of subscales . The factor str uctu re was rotated
usin g the direct oblimin method and was set to converge
in 25 iterations. Factor loadings g reater than or equal to
.4 0 w e r e c o n s i d e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t f o r i n c l u s i o n in t h e
subscales.
RESULTS
Demogr aphics and definition s of snacking
The majority of participants (71% ) agreed tha t the best
definitio n of snackin g was , “food or drin k eate n betw een
main meals.” Whe n the sample was considered based on
ethnicit y (whit e compared to non -white) the patte rn was
found to be very different. With in the whit e sub -group
the vas t majorit y o f p articipants (77%) agreed that “food
or drin k eate n bet w een ma in meals ” was the superlative
definition. Howev er, in the non - whit e sub- gr oup there
was an equa l split between thre e of the definitions (each
wit h 25%). Table 2 sh o ws the pe r centag e of pa rticipants
wh o agree d with the 9 different definitions of snacking.
The sample is c onside r ed as a whole as wel l as split based
on ethnicit y.
T ABLE 2. Definitions of snacking based on demographic information
in percentages.
Definitions
Whole
White Non- white
sample su b - g r o u p sub -group
Food/drink eaten on the move
7
4
25
Food or drink eaten bet w een meals
71
77
25
Small amounts of food
Food eaten more than once a day
3
3
4
3
0
0
Food that is quick to eat
9
7
25
Food that is easy to eat
4
3
13
Food that does n’t fillyou up
3
3
6
Food/drink eaten after evenin g meal
0
0
0
Food accompanying hot drink
0
0
0
No difference s in definitio n w er e foun d betwee n
students and the genera l populatio n or based on gender
or based on age group s (17- 25 year olds , 26-40 yea r olds,
41-55 year olds and 56years and over).
Snacking perceptions and habits
Par t i c i pa n t s gen eral l y b e li e v ed that snac k foods are less
h ea lt h y f o o d s a n d t h a t i n c r e a s ed sn ack in g b y th e
population , in general, is a majo r contributo r t o the
c u r r e n t i n c r eas e in obesit y. Snackin g fre q u e n cy was
si g ni fi ca n tl y associate d wit h t he belie f tha t a grazing
(snac king) patte rn of eating is les s healthy (r = .203, p =
.017). The positive r elationship bet ween thes e v a r i a bl e s
implie s that those people wh o snac k mo re frequently d o
not agre e wit h the statement tha t a snackin g pattern of
eatin g is les s healthy. The s a me pattern was found when
lookin g at whether snack foods a re less healthy (r = .237,
p = .005). Participants di sag r e ed that t h ey depen d a lot
on snack food because they ha v e a busy lifestyl e and don ’t
have time to eat m e a l s . “B e i ng tasty” wa s rated as bein g a
ver y important propert y of a snac k. “Being good for me,”
“fills me up,” “eas y to e at on the go” and “eas y to carry”
we re a ll c o n si d e r e d to be quit e i m p o rtant. Bein g “eas y t o
shar e” a nd bein g “a recognised bra nd name” we re n o t
considered to be important properties of snac k food.
In total 80% of participants reported eating at leas t one
snac k per day. O n av e r a ge par ticipant s ate 3 meals and
1.5 s n a c ks pe r day re sultin g in 4.5 eatin g e pi s ode s . Snacks
we re reportedly eaten in the mid - afternoon (61%), mid mornin g (59%) and durin g the evening (52%).
4
Definition and perception o f Snacking
Facto r analysis of snackin g questionnaire
Facto r analysi s o f the 14 items measurin g pa rt i c i p a n t s ’
perception s of snacks revealed a 3 factor solution, based
on Eigen v a l u es > 1. The factor l o a d i ng indicated a simple
solutio n wit h n o items do ubl e loadin g an d t h e item
loadin g h ad theo re t i c al co her en ce . F our items w e r e
excluded fro m the analysis as they were not consistently
loadin g on factors acros s the subscal e a nal y si s . They we re
not included in the 3 s u b s c al es generated: convenience
s n a cks ( 6 items), f ru it a n d nu t s n acks ( 2 items ) a n d
carbohydrate snac ks (2 items). F igu re 1 sho ws the items
and their loadings fo r each of the factors. In contrast to
the firs t two fac tors the r e l a tio n s h i p betwee n the items in
the carbohydrate snac ks subscal e was negative.
the items in the sweet snacks subscal e was found to be
negative.
FIGURE 2. Snacks actually eaten by participants.
FIGURE 1. Factor structure of perceived snacks.
A facto r analysi s of the 20 ite ms measuring the food
a nd drin k participants actuall y consumed reveale d a 6
facto r solution , base d on Eigen v alues > 1. T he factor
loadin g indicated a simp le solutio n with no items double
loadin g and the item loadin g had theoretica l coherence.
Four items wer e e xcluded fro m the analysis as they we re
n ot consistently loadin g on facto rs acros s th e s u b s c a l e
an al y si s . Thes e w er e n ot include d in t he 6 s u b s c a l e s
generated : crisps, chocolat e and canne d drin ks (3 items),
fruit and c e r e al s n ac k s (3 items ), s a v o u r y s n a c ks (4 items),
teatime sna c k s ( 2 items), nuts and yoghu rt (2 items ) and
sweet snacks (2 items). F igu re 2 sh o ws the items and their
l o a d i n g s for each of the factors . The rela ti o n s hi p bet ween
Factor analysi s was conducted with the 11 items used to
examin e which foods par ticipants believ ed we re healthy. A
forced 2-factor solution was accepted as examination of the
score plo t revealed the poin t of inflectio n was at 2 factors
although an additional factor with an Eigen v a l u e greater than
1 was present. The factor loading indicated a simple solution
wit h no items doub le loading and the ite m loading had
theoretica l cohe r ence. Three items we re exclude d from the
analysis as they were not consistently loading on factors across
the subscale analysis. These items w ere not included in the 2
subscales generated: traditionally healthy snacks (5 items) and
other snacks (3 items). Figu re 3 sh ows the items and their
Definition and perception of Snacking 5
loadings for each of the factors. The first factor contains the
traditiona l healthy food items whereas the second factor
contained those foods where particular types can be healthy.
FIGURE 3. Factor s tructu re of snacks seen as being healthy.
Age groups difference in snack consumption
The sample was split into thre e age groups; 17- 25 year
olds (group 1), 26- 40 yea r olds (grou p 2), 41- 55 year olds
(group 3) and 56 year s and over (group 4). Differences in
consumptio n wer e found between the ag e groups for 7 items
out of 20. Thes e items were fru it juice, canned drinks , hot
drinks , b iscu i ts , yoghurt , f ru it a n d c r i s p s. Grou p 1
consume d more fruit juic e (45% ) and canned drinks (37%)
on a weekly basi s than the othe r 3 groups (35% , 30% , 8%
an d 19% , 20% , 17% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . In contras t th ey
consume d les s hot drinks on a daily bas is (32%) compared
to the other age groups (58%) . Group 2 ate more yoghurt
on a weekly basi s (45% ) c o m p a r e d with the other ag e groups
(37% , 33% and 38%). They als o ate mo re fr u it on a daily
basi s (50% ) than the othe r groups. Group 3 were foun d to
eat more biscuit s on weekl y basi s (65% ) c o m p a r ed to groups
1 (49%) , 2 (42% ) and 4 (45%). Half of the eldes t ag e group
reported eatin g crisps on a weekly bas is and half reported
never eatin g crisps.
Gender differences in snack fo o d consumption
A similar proces s was used in orde r to e x a m i n e whether
there we re any differences between males and females in
terms of s n acki n g patterns. Only four items wer e foun d to
differ b e t w e en males and females . T h e s e result s s h o w ed that
f e m a l es ate mo re yoghurt and fruit and drank mo re fruit
juice than males . In contras t m a l es dran k more hot drinks
than females.
Health status and snacking
No significant results w ere found bet ween past health status
and snacking behavior and current health status and snacking
behavio r.
DISCUSSION
The results obtained demonstrate participants believe
snacks are “food or drink which is eaten between main meals.”
This support s the notio n tha t the majorit y of papers define
snacks relati v e to meals. This definition, h o w ev er, is dependent
on the definition individuals have of a main meal. This is also
problematic as meals are influenced by socia l pattern s and
cultural norms. It would appear that definitions o f snacks and
meals are circula r, snacks are defined as not being meals and
vic e vers a a nd no specifi c definition s c an be made
independently. Some d i s a g r e e m e nt relatin g to definitio n has
occurre d in the literature with respect to breakfas t research.
B reakfast is defined as “that with which a person breaks his
fast in the morning; the first meal of the da y” (Oxford English
D ictiona ry, 2n d Ed). H o we v e r, some studies include a condition
which provides participants with a mid - morning snack (having
missed breakfast) and therefore by definition the snack is also
their breakfast (Benton et al., 2001; Smith and Wilds, 2009).
This makes it difficult to differentiate breakfast effects from
snack effects. This suggests that previous eating episodes may
als o contribute to defining both snacks and meals . It is
important that more research is done to further examine
definitions of both snacks and meals in order for more detailed
research to be conducted.
The result s sugges t that the tim e of consumptio n is an
important component in defining snacking. In relatio n to
timing, snac ks are commonly consume d durin g the mid morning, the mid -a f te r noon and the evening. This re-enforces
the finding that snacks are food or drink consumed between
main meals.
Frequency of eating episodes was found to be 4.5 a day on
average. This consisted of 3 meals and 1.5 snacks. The current
findings are lower than would be expected based on previous
resea r ch (Livingstone, 1991; Britis h Nutritio n Foundation,
1984). This average was the same regardless of age. This was
not expected based on p revious findings (Gatenb y, 1997). On e
important consideration when comparing the current results
wit h previous findings relates bac k to which definitio n of
snackin g was used . S pe c i f i c a l ly it re l a t es t o whether
consumption of drinks without food is included as snacks. In
the current study drinks were not included when reporting
what snacks had been eaten and this could explain why snack
consumption is lowerthan previous findings suggest.
The current study found that 80% of people ate at least
one snack per day. This supports the notion that w e are moving
away fro m a pattern of eatin g thre e traditiona l meals a day
and are following a more grazing pattern of eating. In contrast
the majority of people agreed that snack foods were generally
les s healthy and we re a majo r contributo r to the current
6
Definition and perception o f Snacking
increase in obes it y. It would appear that the individuals in the
curr ent study perceiv e snackin g as bein g unhealthy. This
would support the belief that snacks pr ovide “e m p t y” calories
and therefor e play a role in obesit y. H o w ever the results show
that the items consumed varied greatl y. Consumption of 20
snack items was best accounted for with 6 factors. These were
labelled crisps/chocolate and a can of drink, fruit and cereal
snacks , teatim e snacks, nuts and yoghurt snacks, savour y snacks
and s weet snacks. The results s how that both foods that are
traditionally seen as unhealthy snack foods, and are believed
to provide empty calories, and other foods and drinks which
offer nutritional value were consumed as snacks.
Differing opinions wer e identified with respect to perceived
snacks. These were best accounted for with 3 factors labelled
convenienc e snacks , fruit and nut snacks and carbohydrate
snacks . Foods such as fruit which are commonly v i ew ed as
being healthy were perceived to be snack foods. In addition
distinctions were made between traditionally healthy snacks
and those snacks which have different varieties with differing
nutritiona l content. So me participants were found to snack
on the traditionally healthy items , however in genera l they
stil l perceived snacks to be unhealthy and believed they
contribute to obesity. In contras t frequent snacker s do not
perceive snacking to be a cause for the current risein obesity
and they do not think snack foods are unhealthy. It would be
of interest to examine the perceptions individuals have of their
snacking behavior and the consequences o f this behavio r.
Althoug h some difference s were foun d between the four
different age groups in terms of snack food consumption the
majority of food items sh o we d a similar distribution of results.
It has bee n shown tha t average consumptio n o f snacks was
1.5 per day across all age groups. It would also appear that
the same types of snacks are generall y eaten acros s all age
groups . Thre e ex ception s we re found between the youngest
age group and the oldest group. These w ere the consumption
of canned drinks , hot drinks and f ruit juice. The youngest
group drank more fruit juice and canned drinks and the eldest
group consume d more hot drinks . This would be expected
based on social norms and previous experiences.
It is generally thought that females snack on more chocolate/
biscuits and males on sandwiches/fruit (Drummond et al. cited
in Gatenb y, 1995). The results of the current study suggest
that both males and females snack on very similar items with
no differences bein g found for consumption of chocolate,
biscuits or crisps.
It is apparent that considerabl y more researc h need s to be
u n der ta k en to further examin e perceptions of snack s along with
individual s’ healt h beliefs and attitudes to wa rd s snacking . Now
that the issu e o f definition has bee n examine d research i s needed
t o in v estigat e whethe r p a rt ic i pa n t s ’ snackin g habit s a re
correlated wit h an y othe r aspect s o f physica l or mental behavio r.
A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research was supported by
a BBSRC Ph D studentship and industrial sponsorship f rom
K ellogg ’s Company Ltd.
REFERENCES
Basdevant A, Craplet C and Guy- Grand B (1993) Snacking
patterns in obese French women. A ppetite, 21, 17-23.
B ellisle F, Dali x AM , Mennen L, Gala n P, Hercbe rg S, de
Castro JM and Gausseres N (2003) Contribution of snacks
and meals in the die t of Frenc h adults : a diet-dia r y study.
Physiolog y and Behavior 79, 183 - 189.
Benton D, Slater O and Donohoe RT (2001) The influence
o f breakfas t an d a snac k o n psychological functioning.
Physiolog y and Behavior 74, 559- 571.
Bernstein IL, Zimmerman JC, C zeisler C A and Weitzman ED
(1981) M eal pattern s in “fre e- runnin g ” humans . P hysiolog y
and Behavior 27, 621- 623.
Booth DA (1980) Acquire d behaviou r controllin g energy
intake and output. In Obesit y, ed . A.J. Stunka rd , pp. 101143. Philadelphia,PA : W.B. Saunders.
Booth DA (1988a) A simulatio n model of psychobiosocia l
theory of human food-intake controls. Internationa l Journal
of Vitami n and Nutrition Research 58, 55-69.
Booth DA (1988b) Mechanisms from models – actual effects
fro m rea l life : the zero -calori e drink-break option . Appetite
11(Suppl.) , 94- 102.
Britis h Nutritio n Foundatio n (1984) . Eating in the earl y
1980s. Attitudes and Behaviour : Main Findings . London:
British Nutrition Foundation.
Chamontin A, Pretzer G and Booth DA (2003) Ambiguity
of “snac k” in British usage. Appetite, 41, 21- 29.
Dr ummond S, Kirk T a nd de Looy A (1995) S n a c k i n g :
Implications in body composition and energy balance. British
Food Journal 97, 12- 15.
Gatenby S (1997 ) Eating frequency : methodologica l and dietary
aspects. B ritis h Jo ur na l of Nutrition 77 (Suppl.1) , S7-S20.
G r ego ry J, Collins DL, Davies PSW, Hughes JM and Clar ke
PC (1995) National Diet and Nutrition Su r vey: Childr en Aged
1½ to 4½ Years. Vol 1, Repo rt of the Diet and Nutrition Sur v ey.
London: H. M. Stationery Office.
Gregory J , Foster K, Tyle r H and Wisema n M (1990) The
Dietar y and Nutritional Su r vey of British Adults. London: H.
M. Stationery Office.
Livingstone MBE (1995) Assessment of food intakes: are we
measurin g what peop le eat? British Journa l of Bi o me dic al
Sciences 52, 58-67.
Definition and perception of Snacking 7
Marmonier C, Chapelot D, Fantino M and Louis -S y l vestre J
(2002) Snacks consumed in a nonhungry state have poor
satiatin g efficiency : influence o f snac k compositio n on
substrate utilization and hunger. A merican Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 76, 518-528.
Metzne r H L, Lamphiear DE, Wheele r NC and La rkin FA
(1977) The relationship between the frequency of eating and
adiposit y in adul t men a nd wome n in t h e Tecumseh
Community Healt h S tudy. A m e ric a n Jou r n a l of Clinical
Nutrition 30, 712-715.
Rotenberg R (1981) The impact of industrialisation on meal
patterns in Vienna, Austria. E colog y of F ood and Nutrition 11,
25- 35.
Ruxton C, Kirk TR, Betton NR and Holmes MAM (1994)
Does snacking affect overall daily nutrient intake in children?
Pr oceedings of Nutrition Societ y 53, 253.A.
Smith AP and Wilds A (2009) The effects of cereal bars for
breakfas t and mid- mornin g snacks on mood and memo ry.
In t er nationa l Jo u r na l o f F o od Scienc e and Nutritio n, 60, s4,
63- 69.
Summerbell CD, Moody RC, Shanks J, Stock M J and Geissler
C (1995) Sources of energy from meals vs snacks in 220 people
in four age groups. E u r opea n Jo u r nal o f Clinical Nutrition
49, 33- 41.
Takahashi E, Yoshida K, S ugimori H, M iyakawa M, Izuno T,
Yama ga m i T and Kagamimori S (1999) Influence factors on
the development of obesity in 3 -year - old children based on
the Toyama study. Pr eventive Medicine 28, 109- 114.
8