Nothing wrong with snacking, but it reminded me of part of a poem from the 1200's in favor of doing without:
There's hidden sweetness in the stomach's emptiness.
We are lutes, no more, no less. If the soundbox
is stuffed full of anything, no music.
If the brain and belly are burning clean
with fasting, every moment a new song comes out of the fire.
The fog clears, and new energy makes you
run up the steps in front of you.
Be emptier and cry like reed instruments cry.
Emptier, write secrets with the reed pen.
Thanks everyone. I guess it's a last remnant of SAD that I wanted to make sure I was clear on - my metabolism doesn't NEED snacks to stay revved up! But yes, if I need one one day - go for it! Thanks!
JudyCR- good call on the Rumi poem! I use that for motivation on fasting days.
28, female, 5'2"
Went primal 7/28/10: 154 lbs.
1/12/12: 135 lbs.
Goal: 120 lbs.
I feel you -- I was determined not to snack and absolutely ended up having to. Until I figured out this fat-adapted thing. Sometimes I'll still have a few macadamia nuts between meals because I like them. But otherwise, I can wait.
If you are truly hungry, there's nothing wrong with a balanced primal snack. I'd suggest waiting a bit and having some water to make sure it's real hunger, but if it is consider having some jerky or some macadamia nuts and fruit! People tend to villainize snacks, but I think they have their place, especially if you use them strategically to fill nutritional gaps.
I wouldn't call it "hate" for snacking, but maintaining a snack habit is a bad plan precisely because "just make sure it's primal" can be a significant challenge in the modern world. Available snacks are a thousand times more likely than the choices at mealtimes to have nothing primal about them.
If you're not prepared and well-stocked wherever you happen to be, snacks will absolutely be a pitfall. So IMO for anyone it's best not to have the habit.
Everybody is different but my experience is that, after the first seven months or so I had learned to eat meals that meant the idea of a snack wouldn't enter my mind. My approach was and generally is, when I'm hungry I eat a meal. If I'm not hungry enough for a meal, I wait until I am. A primal meal means I won't be hungry again for seven to 16 hours (and can go longer if circumstances make that more practical). If I know I need to eat sooner than six or seven hours (e.g. to participate in a social/family event) I have to remember not to eat a real meal.
YMMV, but I think anyone can build similar no-muss no-fuss habits following this way of life.
"If man made it, don't eat it." ..Jack LaLanne
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are.
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." ..Richard Feynman
beachrat's new primal journal
You certainly won't change your metabolism within a few hours, so I would put it purely down to if you are happy with your weight and happy with what you are eating.
Snacking isn't bad, but it can become a bad habit, if what you choose isn't doing your body any favors.
Personally, since consistenly skipping breakfast, I have come to accept feeling hungry now and then as a perfectly natural state of being.