I have many bad habits.
One of them is that I eat very, very fast. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve burned
my mouth on a piece of hot food. There
have been numerous times when I’ve thought to myself, “I didn’t even taste that!”
I’ve been working on slowing down during meals. My father-in-law, in fact, once told me that
he tries to always be the last one finished with his meal. It allows him to enjoy every bite a bit more
and also be able to take part in conversation at the table. Excellent idea.
There are many theories on how, if at all, the pace at which
you eat can affect your weight.
Obviously, it’s much more important to think about what you’re eating than how fast you’re eating it, but let’s look
at some research in to the subject.
The results of scientific studies designed to measure the
effect eating speed (or eating pace) has on weight loss vary widely. Some find that eating slowly makes a
difference in the amount of calories taken in, and others find that it seems to
make no appreciable difference at all. For
example, there were at least three recent studies that found that eating slower
resulted in a lower intake of calories, but all studies were slightly flawed.
For example, one study had a sample size of only 6
participants, which does not make for a convincing conclusion. Another showed a significant increase in the
amount of water consumed during the slow meal, so it is unknown whether the
pace of the meal made the difference, or if it was the increase in water
consumption that made the participants eat less. A third study had a large sample size of over
3,000 participants. However, the pace of
eating was self-reported, so the participants may have had the impression that
they ate slowly, when in fact they were eating quickly in comparison with other
slow-eating participants.
A better-constructed Dutch study performed by researchers at
Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that eating more slowly did not
make much of a difference in calorie intake. The study participants were given
the exact same amount of the exact same foods and either had two hours to eat (with
breaks between courses) or 30 minutes in which to eat the meal.
Researchers measured the participants’ appetite hormones at
the end of the meal and found lower levels of the hunger hormones, in addition
to greater reported feelings of satiation in those who had eaten the drawn-out
meal. However, when offered snacks after
each meal, there was no difference in the caloric intake of snacks between the
slow eaters and the fast eaters. This suggests that snacking has little to do
with feelings of hunger and satisfaction, but is rather a result of social
cues. As I’ve mentioned in previous articles when it comes to snacking, a lot
of times it’s a mental thing—you’re not actually hungry! You’re just bored.
Another factor in this study is that the meal was heavily
weighted toward high-glycemic carbohydrates (54% carbohydrate, 14% protein and
32% fat). High-glycemic carbohydrates
tend to be refined grains and sugars, and these foods quickly spike blood sugar
for immediate energy, but leave you feeling hungry again in a short amount of
time.
However, there are at least two ways in which eating slowly has
clear advantages over quick eating. The
first has to do with increased feelings of fullness and satisfaction. It takes approximately 20 minutes for your
brain chemistry to register that you have food in your stomach, and you may
find that after you have been eating for at least 20 minutes you may feel
sufficiently full. So consider waiting
for 15-20 minutes after beginning a meal before taking a second helping. The second advantage of eating slowly is a
simple one—it allows you to truly taste and savor your food, which increases
feelings of satisfaction and makes you less inclined to need treats after the
meal. And, in my case, it sets a good
example for my kids on how one should look when eating!
No comments:
Post a Comment