Getting real about snacking

I am a "one-unit" eater, consuming ONE of whatever I eat. Should that "one unit" be an appropriate size, such as one apple or one individually wrapped treat, I will be content. Conversely, should the "one unit" be abundantly excessive; i.e. a "family size" bag of tortilla chips or a wheelbarrow-dimensioned bucket of peanut butter, alas, when will falters, I will still consume one (rather enlarged) unit and waddle from the table. Therefore, I surround myself with pre-measured small portions.

I am not unique. As empirical evidence, I do not notice as many Olestra products on store shelves anymore. Why? Because, IMHO, their marketing department missed the boat. OK, to be honest, I cannot deny that some of the less pleasant repercussions of consuming Olestra might have come to play also. (Should you not remember, Olestra is a substitute for fat that doesn't dissolve completely upon consumption, causing one to absorb fewer calories without sacrificing taste. Yet, these nutrients must go "somewhere," requiring one to be, hmmm, how shall we delicately put this... "extremely aware of the nearest restroom." Capish?)

So, regarding marketing: when these products hit the stores, I sought snack-size units. However, only finding them in full size bags, I understood my limits. "If one unit is one ounce, I'll be content. Yet, if it's 14 ounces, I might - in a moment of weakness - still eat one very large unit." Because I prefer avoiding unexpected, urgent, immediate dashes to the bathroom - and since snack-size servings were hard to come by - I bought nothing. Other diet-conscious consumers apparently exercised the same option. Voila, poor market penetration!

Marketers, savvy as they are, adjusted. Currently, grocery shelves are now brimming with 100-calorie snack packs hawking everything from jellybeans to cream-filled cookies. Such diminutive, dainty, dieting delicacies are aiding us "one-unit" folk to approach a level of intake normalcy one pouch at a time. It will not happen overnight, yet progress marches on.

With such advancements come naysayers. In a recent tirade, an (obviously skinny) writer said snacks are not healthy meal substitutes and should be avoided, urging dieters to opt always for healthy alternatives. Ever ready to lend a hand, she provided several healthy alternatives.

Knock-knock. Anyone home? They're labeled 100-calorie "snack packs," not 100-calorie "meals." Repeat after me, "SNACKS!" I know; 'tis better to eat healthy; but when rubbing my forefinger around the inside of a 100-calorie pouch of cheese puffs to get every last morsel, I'm not craving celery sticks. If not a regular occurrence (there lies the key), it's OK. Really. Thanks for the concern; now go eat some lettuce.

We must understand human nature. If I were the sort who was willing to vigilantly count out 20 baby carrots with one tablespoon of onion dip, I would not have a weight problem to begin with! We are here because we took easier, quicker, tastier approaches to what we eat. Change occurs not by sharp-angle; but via a curve.

I understand that I do not always opt for the healthiest path and, yet, I continue to improve - slowly. "Progress, not perfection" remains my mantra and 100 calories is better than a thousand.