CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 180Nutrition, Health and Food BehaviorNutritional Studies and DietDietary Effects on Health

Eating frequency: methodological and dietary aspects

Open access
Gatenby, Susan J.·1997·British Journal of Nutrition
DOI 10.1079/bjn19970100
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

It is commonly stated that ‘snack’ foods provide ‘empty calories’ and, therefore elevate energy intake whist providing insignificant quantities of other nutrients. The data presented in the present review suggest that foods which contribute to the pattern of ‘snacking’ contribute significantly to the nutrient quality of the diet. Those who ‘snack’ frequently tend to eat more food in general. Part of the difficulty in identifying the nutritional implications of ‘snacking’ is related to the definitions of ‘meals’ and ‘snacks’ and subsequent categorization of individual patterns. The physiological definitions typically relating to energy content or the time of eating do not necessarily coincide with colloquial, cultural or individual perceptions of what constitutes a ‘meal’ or ‘snack’. Clearly, a more consistent approach would facilitate interpretation of the literature and enable more effective health education messages about ‘snacking’ to be delivered.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1079/bjn19970100

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A time-of-day definition is subject to researcher bias because the time intervals to define a meal or snack are often based on their understanding of eating patterns, potentially influenced by local or cultural factors.

    “It is also subject to bias of the researcher, as the time intervals to define a meal or snack are often based on their understanding of eating patterns, potentially influenced by local or cultural factors( 44 )”

    From Understanding meal patterns: definitions, methodology and impact on nutrient intake and diet quality (2015) · cites this paper as [44]

  • The participant-identified definition is not standardised due to subjectivity in participants' allocation of an eating event as a meal or snack.

    “it is not standardised due to subjectivity in participants' allocation of an eating event as a meal or snack( 44 , 48 ).”

    From Understanding meal patterns: definitions, methodology and impact on nutrient intake and diet quality (2015) · cites this paper as [44]

  • Although it is widely acknowledged that different definitions used to define meals and snacks are likely to hamper interpretation of findings across studies, research explicitly examining the impact of these different definitions is rare.

    “Although it is widely acknowledged that different definitions used to define meals/snacks are likely to hamper interpretation of findings across studies( 8 , 44 ), research explicitly examining the impact of these different definitions is rare( 55 ).”

    From Understanding meal patterns: definitions, methodology and impact on nutrient intake and diet quality (2015) · cites this paper as [44]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Bolton-Smith, C. & McCluskey, M. K. (1997). The relationship between confectionery consumption, physical activity and BMI in a Scottish population. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 56, 158A.
  2. Cross, A. T., Babicz, D. & Cushman, L. F. (1994). Snacking patterns among 1800 adults and children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 94, 1398-1403.
  3. Food and Nutrition Board, National Research Council (1986). What is America Eating? Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  4. Gibson, S. A. (1996). Consumption of cakes, biscuits and confectionery in British schoolchildren: association with nutrient intakes. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 55, 121A.
  5. Gregory, J., Collins, D. L., Davies, P. S. W., Hughes, J. M. & Clarke, P. C. (1995). Nationul Diet and Nutrition Survey: Children Aged I% to 4% Years. vol. 1, Report of the Diet and Nutrition Survey. London: H. M. Stationery Office.
  6. Hansen, R. G. & Wyse, B. W. (1980). Expression of nutrient allowances per 1OOOkcal. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 25, 223-230.
  7. Mela, D. J. & Aaron, J. I. (1997). Honest but invalid: consumer views on recording their food intake. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 56, 53A.
  8. New, S. A. & Grubb, D. A. (1996). Relationship between biscuit, cake and confectionery consumption to body mass index and energy intake in Scottish females. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 55, 122A.
  9. New, S. A. & Grubb, D. A. (1997). Frequency of consumption of biscuits, cakes and confectionery: relationship with nutrient intake. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 56, 157A.
  10. Poppitt, S. D., Swan, D., Black, A. E. & Prentice, A. M. (1995). Is under-reporting of energy intake in obese women macronutrient specific? Covert measurements in a metabolic facility. International Journal of Obesity 19, Suppl. 2, 29.
  11. Robson, P. J., Strain, J. J., Cran, G. W., Savage, J. M., Primrose, E. D. & Boreham, C. A. P. (1991). Snack energy and nutrient intakes of Northern Ireland adolescents. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 50, 180A.
  12. Ruxton, C. H. S., Kirk, T. R., Belton, N. R. & Holmes, M. A. M. (1994). Few differences in mean daily intake associated with a high intake of snacks in schoolchildren. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 53, 253A.
  13. Schlettwein-Gsell, D. & Barclay, D. (1996). Euronut SENECA Investigators. Longitudinal changes in dietary habits and attitudes of elderly Europeans. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50, 556-566.
  14. Schlettwein-Gsell, D., Barclay, D., Osler, M. & Trichopoulou, A. (1991). Euronut SENECA investigators. Dietary habits and attitudes. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 45, Suppl. 3, 83-95.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gatenby, S. J.
Corresponding author
Gatenby, Susan J.
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1997-04
Volume
77
Issue
S1
Pages
S7-S20
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
DOI
10.1079/bjn19970100
OpenAlex
W2036961767
Cited by
180
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 3629 d)
Locations
  • British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Dietary Effects on Health
Keywords
meal frequency, snacking, meal patterns, snacks, empty calories, energy intake, nutrient intake, dietary assessment, health education
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Feeding Behavior, Female, Food, Food Preferences, Humans, Male, Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Nutritive Value, Periodicity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review