Are they for real with these "100 calorie packs"? I need like five of them to satisfy me. What about you?

They are not meant to be meal replacements, they are snacks. Any snack should be about 200 cals or lessl, if you listen to nutritionists. If you’re still not satisfied after your snack bag, have a banana.
As for me, I love the 100 cal packs. I think they’re fabulous. Try the Quaker snack packs (I think they are little rice cakes). They are super delicious, especially the cinnamon bun one (and you get a lot more in one package).

An average individual’s diet should include an intake of roughyly 2000 calories. So a “100 calorie pack” meets only 5% of the “average person’s” caloric needs for the day.

I would agree that a worthwhile “snack” for me is a little bigger than that.

They are kind of a joke. I’d need to drink like 2 gallons of water with one of those to feel satisfied!

Yeah, i find that I’m better off not even having them.

Once I eat them, then I am more hungry than when i started. Water usually does the trick if I am at that low of a level of hunger. Otherwise, i need something more substantial.

YO i agree totally, i have the little brownie ones and they’re just so…little. it’s such a joke, i eat like two and i feel absolutely no different. for me they’re a waste of money because i can go through a box in a day just to satisfy my hunger at which point i would rather just eat something more substantial.

I think it is silly that people actually pay for those things. It is so much cheaper to buy the larger bags of whatever snack you want and then package servings individually yourself. I think it is a symbol of how lazy we’ve become. But to each his own! :-/

If your food intake is 2000 calories a day this works out at
400 calories for breakfast
600 cals for lunch
600 cals for dinner
Leaving 400 for snacks and drinks. 100 calories a snack is quite reasonable unless you want to end up massively obese and seeking gastric banding surgery.

They’ve found that the 100 calorie packs actually increase the amount you tend to eat when you snack rather than decrease it. People just eat more of them and tend to excuse it as “but it is only 100 calories!”

Lightlyseared, maybe that’s the way it works out for you, but that’s not the way it works out for me.

I have never followed the plan you outlined, and I have not ended up massively obese, moderately obese, vaguely obese, or even overweight, nor am I seeking gastric banding surgery. Thanks.

For more information about these ideas and different points of view, you might also check out this question: http://www.fluther.com/disc/18052/is-there-really-an-advantage-to-eating-small-meals-every-3–4/ posed by tinyfairy, about eating smaller meals vs. larger ones.

@la chica you brought up the concept of a 2000 calorie day. The accepted pattern for meals on a 2000 calorie day is as I described. Therefore 100 cals for a snack is a reasnoable size. Quite fankly I don’t care how much you eat, when you eat it or what your body size is.

If you are eating more for a snack then you must reduce how much you eat at the main main meals. If you are eating double your calofic needs everymeal everyday you will end up overweight.

we all have our own opinions, lightly. It may be a “reasonable size” for you but it’s not for me.

Everyone eats differently. You have your opinions and habits. I have mine.

The question was, “the portions are too small for me. what about YOU?” not “what about EVERYONE, all lumped in together?”