Movement Inc. Official Home Page
Even if our snacking went back to the 70s, it would still be too carb-heavy, protein-poor, low on omega-3, and a poor way to buy fibre on a tight calorie budget.
We get awfully nostalgic about food. But our food habits change as drastically as our jobs, sensibilities, attitudes and everything else we consume.
Food choices need to be contextualised for availability, convenience, lifestyle and activity levels.
We live in a country with no footpaths, poor public transport and a life designed to minimise inconveniences like visiting shops or walking places. This is urban India. If you want your steps, you design your life to get them. If you want muscle on your under-muscled Indian frame, you work for it at a gym. Unless you’re hauling rice bags or cement. Even then, some load would do you good.
Food works the same way. Most of our activity levels don't support more than 2200–2500 calories. Women, even less. Ideally, 400–600 of those come from protein. Want to eat 2500–3000 calories to get your 100–120 grams of protein from grains and lentils? You'll have to move more to justify it.
Snacking itself is outdated. There are meals, and there are foods you need to eat. Two large meals work for you? Do it. Four or five small ones? Fine too. Grains get only 10–15% of their calories from protein. Keep them under a third of your day. The rest comes from protein, fibre and healthy fat.
Simply put, we're on a tighter budget than our parents because we don't have to move as much for sustenance. We understand better than they did why muscle is so damn critical. We have the privilege and time to build it. And we know which foods give us the nutrients to gain and keep it. Our plates have to look different because our lives, store shelves and environment look different.