5 ms·

"subjects ... consumed roughly 10 percent fewer calories when they ate at a slow pace" this intuitively feels like a negligible optimization. don't eat your ic

"subjects ... consumed roughly 10 percent fewer calories when they ate at a slow pace" this intuitively feels like a negligible optimization. don't eat your ice cream slower; stop eating the ice cream!

Semiapies 17y ago
A 10% decrease in calories in the average diet is equivalent to dropping a serving of ice cream or a candy bar.
- dustingetz 17y ago
  the average american needs to drop fully half, or more, of their calorie intake to lose weight (make cal_intake < cal_burned). http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2006/12/27/do_americans_eat_3790_calories_per_day.php http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2006/12/27/do_americans_ea...
  - WarDekar 17y ago
    The study quoted in that post is completely flawed, as people mention in the comments. It isn't a study of how much is actually consumed by Americans, it's a study of how much food is produced in America, factoring in imports/exports, and then assuming that the leftovers all get eaten which just isn't true at all. The US certainly has an obesity problem, but there's no way the average American consumes almost 3800 calories a day.
    - electromagnetic 17y ago
      3500 calories ~ 1lb of body fat. So eating almost 1800 calories over the recommended would mean gaining 1lb of weight every 2 days, or roughly 14-15lbs a month. 182lbs per year. Basically in the 45 years when your calorific consumption should be the maximum between ~18 and ~60+, you would gain around 8 tons of body weight. I'm sorry, I love taking a shot at America for the obesity problem, but an 8 ton man? Really? Did the people who wrote that study even think that figure through? They factored in imports/exports, but they didn't bother to even guesstimate a percentage for food actually consumed in a household.
      - smokey_the_bear 17y ago
        3800 is surely high, but your caloric needs go up as you gain weight, so there would be an equilibrium point before 8 tons.
      - lena 17y ago
        I totally agree that the numbers are off, but your calculation is incorrect as well, because most obese people burn much more than 2000 calories a day. Someone who is about 240 pounds could eat about 3000 calories a day simply to stay at that weight, even more if they exercise a lot. Of course this is not really this simple, people vary, hormones, metabolism etc. all affect weight loss/gain, but the general principle stands.
      - machrider 17y ago
        As smokey_the_bear said, your basal metabolic rate will go up as you gain weight, meaning you will eventually need 3800 calories a day to maintain your current weight. I'm guessing this point is somewhere around 400lb, roughly. You'd have to add calories above and beyond to keep gaining weight. Also you have to look at the level of activity. An athlete or construction worker can probably eat 3800 calories every day and not gain weight.
        electromagnetic 17y ago
        I know, I was doing it more to point out how sensationally stupid claiming the average American consumes 3800 calories is. The average American male weighs 190+lbs (IIRC) up 30lbs on 50 years. My problem with calorific calculations, and even bodyweight averages in themselves is that they're so bogus. Post-war diets are vastly different than our current diets. The factors that effect body weight are also vastly different, I'm sorry but we've got thousands of medicines that weren't available 50 years ago, and one of the major contributing factors to weight loss is disease. Americas weight problem isn't going to be resolved by figures and statistics, and it's certainly going to be hurt by poor statistics like those provided in the study in question. How can a 190lb average American Joe consume 3800 calories working an Average sedentary job not be gaining a pound of body fat per week? The figures are ludicrously disjointed. I understand that everybody is different, believe me I work in construction, I likely eat a thousand calories more than I'm recommended and I'm presently losing weight. My BMI says I'm going to drop dead, my vitals tell a different story. My heart is a near-perfect metronome when at rest (literally ~60 bpm), my body fat on my limbs is exceptionally low (especially my legs due to lots of moving heavy weights). When I'm told I'm obese because of some voodoo astrology bodyweight index by a doctor who's showing all the signs of high blood pressure and could stand to lose a good 10 index points himself, I don't listen and in 20 years down the line I still won't be listening to the new doctor who's taken over the dead guys office because he'll be well on his way to rosy red cheeks and shortness of breath from picking up a tongue depressor. Governments are paying for these studies that are providing sheer utter crap and they're trying to resolve weight issues by indirect action and instructing their overweight medical professionals to tell their patients to lose weight. Here's my very simple solution: Vehicle free down towns nationwide. Not only will it be phenomenal for the environment (air quality, noise pollution, etc.) and provide a boon for public transit infrastructures, but it will also mean everyone is forced to get at least some exercise in during a work day.
    - starkfist 17y ago
      there's no way the average American consumes almost 3800 calories a day. Here's an "average" american diet: breakfast: bagel with creamcheese = 430 calories mid-morning latte = 225 calories lunch:6" subway cold cut sandwich = 410 calories lunch: small bag chips = 400 calories mid afternoon kit-kat = 500 calories dinner: spaghetti and meatballs = 970 calories 12 oz bottle of budweiser = 110 calories total: 3045 calories Considering that many americans are going to get the 12" sub, drink more than 1 beer and a bunch of soda, have seconds for dinner, and eat "dessert" every night, it doesn't seem that far-fetched that the average american consumes 3800 calories per day.
      - icey 17y ago
        Your numbers seem off: Starbucks latte with nonfat milk = 168 calories http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-starbucks-coffee-caffe-latte-i57042 http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-starbucks-coffee-caff... 6" Subway Cheesesteak (It was the worst one I could find on browsing) = 360 calories http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-subway-sandwiches-6-cheese-steak-i56054 http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-subway-sandwiches-6-c... Small bag of Lays potato chips = 150 calories http://www.dietfacts.com/html/nutrition-facts/frito-lay-lays-potato-chips-classic-flavored-small-bag-27740.htm http://www.dietfacts.com/html/nutrition-facts/frito-lay-lays... Kit-kat bar = 210 calories http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-hersheys-kit-kat-milk-chocolate-i126665 http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-hersheys-kit-kat-milk... Fazoli's spaghetti and meatballs (Again, the worst I could find) = 720 calories http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-fazolis-spaghetti-meatballs-i53370 http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-fazolis-spaghetti-mea... If you were to add in an extra large vanilla shake from McDonald's you'd add a quick 1100 calories to your day.
        starkfist 17y ago
        I used the bruegger's bagel and medium latte from their website: http://www.brueggers.com/documents/nutrition.pdf http://www.brueggers.com/documents/nutrition.pdf Subway value was from the "Cold Cut Combo": http://www.subway.com/subwayroot/menunutrition/nutrition/pdf/nutritionvalues.pdf http://www.subway.com/subwayroot/menunutrition/nutrition/pdf... (Note that Subway's page says the cheesesteak sub you mention is 520 calories, not 360.) spaghetti and meatballs value was from here http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-italian-spaghetti-meatballs-with-tomato-sauce-regular_f-Y2lkPTE3Mzc4JmJpZD0xJmZpZD02NjA0NCZlaWQ9NTI0Nzc5NjY1JnBvcz00JnBhcj0ma2V5PXNwYWdoZXR0aQ.html http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-italian-spaghet... I did inflate the potato chips, I thought the small bag was 3oz, not 1oz. Also I thought the kit kat was per bar. 3800 calories is still only a little bit of work. Most people I know drink 2 lattes, 2 or more beers, and would consider the 6" sub the "diet" option.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  But that's with a 500% increase in time spent eating. It seems much more efficient to wolf down food after working out, assuming all we're talking about is net calories.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    What the efficiency gained? You're still spending the same time, you're just exerting more effort to choke down your food quickly and go walking.
    - byrneseyeview 17y ago
      That's assuming that 1) choking plus walking is less fun than eating a meal over a long period, and 2) that it takes just as long. I would dispute #2; you're correct about #1, but there's no reason to expect that you can have weight loss independent of other factors, some of which you might not like.
ryandvm 17y ago
I also fail to see the logic in the proposition of asking someone that already has a demonstrated self-control problem to "just eat slower instead".
- nitrogen 17y ago
  Eating slower is a lot easier than not eating at all, so it can provide a starting point. After constantly being told to exercise, eat less, eat healthier, buy organic, etc., some people have reached the point where there willpower is so low, they can't choose a starting point from that huge list. They need something small that will give them a little nudge in the right direction, to start a positive feedback cycle.
gte910h 17y ago
Negligible? 10% of daily consumption? So a person consumes 2200 calories a day. He burns 1850 per day. Losing 220 off the top of daily consumption means you have only 130 calories to cut out to not gain week or a lot less to cut to lose weight. It's a free snack a day the person loses by eating slower. That's a HUGE difference when you look at the very small amount that they may be in excess of their burn rate (or increases the amount of the deficit they're managing to engender).
- rue 17y ago
  The problem is that people consume 3300, 4400 or 5500 kcal, not 2200 :)
  - gte910h 17y ago
    Then my argument is even stronger, and you're not consuming 330, 440, or 550 calories. Body mass of any type ups your daily burn rate. If you weigh 350 pounds, you may be burning quite a bit more than 2950 calories by just sitting there being fat. Here is one calculator: http://walking.about.com/cs/calories/l/blcalcalc.htm http://walking.about.com/cs/calories/l/blcalcalc.htm
    - rue 17y ago
      Baseline consumption does not raise linearly with body mass (otherwise no-one would gain weight.) While there is some truth to a larger gain, we are still talking about percentages in relation to existing mass and weight maintenance intake. I was merely making the point that at intakes sufficiently larger than the maintenance level, the 10% just means packing weight slower. Overall, I think eating slower is a good idea, preferably after cooking it yourself. Eating less is too. But, ultimately, increasing expenditure is probably the best of the options (unless you do something dramatic like combine the approaches;)
machrider 17y ago
10% fewer calories could mean reducing your intake by 250 calories a day. A pound of fat is about 3500 calories, so that's a difference of 1lb of fat every 2 weeks. If you were maintaining your weight at the previous level, you'd lose 1lb every 2 weeks at the 10% reduced level. When it comes to dietary health, it's all about small changes and long time horizons.

Semiapies 17y ago

A 10% decrease in calories in the average diet is equivalent to dropping a serving of ice cream or a candy bar.

dustingetz 17y ago
the average american needs to drop fully half, or more, of their calorie intake to lose weight (make cal_intake < cal_burned). http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2006/12/27/do_americans_eat_3790_calories_per_day.php http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2006/12/27/do_americans_ea...
- WarDekar 17y ago
  The study quoted in that post is completely flawed, as people mention in the comments. It isn't a study of how much is actually consumed by Americans, it's a study of how much food is produced in America, factoring in imports/exports, and then assuming that the leftovers all get eaten which just isn't true at all. The US certainly has an obesity problem, but there's no way the average American consumes almost 3800 calories a day.
  - electromagnetic 17y ago
    3500 calories ~ 1lb of body fat. So eating almost 1800 calories over the recommended would mean gaining 1lb of weight every 2 days, or roughly 14-15lbs a month. 182lbs per year. Basically in the 45 years when your calorific consumption should be the maximum between ~18 and ~60+, you would gain around 8 tons of body weight. I'm sorry, I love taking a shot at America for the obesity problem, but an 8 ton man? Really? Did the people who wrote that study even think that figure through? They factored in imports/exports, but they didn't bother to even guesstimate a percentage for food actually consumed in a household.
    - smokey_the_bear 17y ago
      3800 is surely high, but your caloric needs go up as you gain weight, so there would be an equilibrium point before 8 tons.
    - lena 17y ago
      I totally agree that the numbers are off, but your calculation is incorrect as well, because most obese people burn much more than 2000 calories a day. Someone who is about 240 pounds could eat about 3000 calories a day simply to stay at that weight, even more if they exercise a lot. Of course this is not really this simple, people vary, hormones, metabolism etc. all affect weight loss/gain, but the general principle stands.
    - machrider 17y ago
      As smokey_the_bear said, your basal metabolic rate will go up as you gain weight, meaning you will eventually need 3800 calories a day to maintain your current weight. I'm guessing this point is somewhere around 400lb, roughly. You'd have to add calories above and beyond to keep gaining weight. Also you have to look at the level of activity. An athlete or construction worker can probably eat 3800 calories every day and not gain weight.
      - electromagnetic 17y ago
        I know, I was doing it more to point out how sensationally stupid claiming the average American consumes 3800 calories is. The average American male weighs 190+lbs (IIRC) up 30lbs on 50 years. My problem with calorific calculations, and even bodyweight averages in themselves is that they're so bogus. Post-war diets are vastly different than our current diets. The factors that effect body weight are also vastly different, I'm sorry but we've got thousands of medicines that weren't available 50 years ago, and one of the major contributing factors to weight loss is disease. Americas weight problem isn't going to be resolved by figures and statistics, and it's certainly going to be hurt by poor statistics like those provided in the study in question. How can a 190lb average American Joe consume 3800 calories working an Average sedentary job not be gaining a pound of body fat per week? The figures are ludicrously disjointed. I understand that everybody is different, believe me I work in construction, I likely eat a thousand calories more than I'm recommended and I'm presently losing weight. My BMI says I'm going to drop dead, my vitals tell a different story. My heart is a near-perfect metronome when at rest (literally ~60 bpm), my body fat on my limbs is exceptionally low (especially my legs due to lots of moving heavy weights). When I'm told I'm obese because of some voodoo astrology bodyweight index by a doctor who's showing all the signs of high blood pressure and could stand to lose a good 10 index points himself, I don't listen and in 20 years down the line I still won't be listening to the new doctor who's taken over the dead guys office because he'll be well on his way to rosy red cheeks and shortness of breath from picking up a tongue depressor. Governments are paying for these studies that are providing sheer utter crap and they're trying to resolve weight issues by indirect action and instructing their overweight medical professionals to tell their patients to lose weight. Here's my very simple solution: Vehicle free down towns nationwide. Not only will it be phenomenal for the environment (air quality, noise pollution, etc.) and provide a boon for public transit infrastructures, but it will also mean everyone is forced to get at least some exercise in during a work day.
  - starkfist 17y ago
    there's no way the average American consumes almost 3800 calories a day. Here's an "average" american diet: breakfast: bagel with creamcheese = 430 calories mid-morning latte = 225 calories lunch:6" subway cold cut sandwich = 410 calories lunch: small bag chips = 400 calories mid afternoon kit-kat = 500 calories dinner: spaghetti and meatballs = 970 calories 12 oz bottle of budweiser = 110 calories total: 3045 calories Considering that many americans are going to get the 12" sub, drink more than 1 beer and a bunch of soda, have seconds for dinner, and eat "dessert" every night, it doesn't seem that far-fetched that the average american consumes 3800 calories per day.
    - icey 17y ago
      Your numbers seem off: Starbucks latte with nonfat milk = 168 calories http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-starbucks-coffee-caffe-latte-i57042 http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-starbucks-coffee-caff... 6" Subway Cheesesteak (It was the worst one I could find on browsing) = 360 calories http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-subway-sandwiches-6-cheese-steak-i56054 http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-subway-sandwiches-6-c... Small bag of Lays potato chips = 150 calories http://www.dietfacts.com/html/nutrition-facts/frito-lay-lays-potato-chips-classic-flavored-small-bag-27740.htm http://www.dietfacts.com/html/nutrition-facts/frito-lay-lays... Kit-kat bar = 210 calories http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-hersheys-kit-kat-milk-chocolate-i126665 http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-hersheys-kit-kat-milk... Fazoli's spaghetti and meatballs (Again, the worst I could find) = 720 calories http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-fazolis-spaghetti-meatballs-i53370 http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-fazolis-spaghetti-mea... If you were to add in an extra large vanilla shake from McDonald's you'd add a quick 1100 calories to your day.
      - starkfist 17y ago
        I used the bruegger's bagel and medium latte from their website: http://www.brueggers.com/documents/nutrition.pdf http://www.brueggers.com/documents/nutrition.pdf Subway value was from the "Cold Cut Combo": http://www.subway.com/subwayroot/menunutrition/nutrition/pdf/nutritionvalues.pdf http://www.subway.com/subwayroot/menunutrition/nutrition/pdf... (Note that Subway's page says the cheesesteak sub you mention is 520 calories, not 360.) spaghetti and meatballs value was from here http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-italian-spaghetti-meatballs-with-tomato-sauce-regular_f-Y2lkPTE3Mzc4JmJpZD0xJmZpZD02NjA0NCZlaWQ9NTI0Nzc5NjY1JnBvcz00JnBhcj0ma2V5PXNwYWdoZXR0aQ.html http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-italian-spaghet... I did inflate the potato chips, I thought the small bag was 3oz, not 1oz. Also I thought the kit kat was per bar. 3800 calories is still only a little bit of work. Most people I know drink 2 lattes, 2 or more beers, and would consider the 6" sub the "diet" option.
byrneseyeview 17y ago
But that's with a 500% increase in time spent eating. It seems much more efficient to wolf down food after working out, assuming all we're talking about is net calories.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  What the efficiency gained? You're still spending the same time, you're just exerting more effort to choke down your food quickly and go walking.
  - byrneseyeview 17y ago
    That's assuming that 1) choking plus walking is less fun than eating a meal over a long period, and 2) that it takes just as long. I would dispute #2; you're correct about #1, but there's no reason to expect that you can have weight loss independent of other factors, some of which you might not like.

ryandvm 17y ago

I also fail to see the logic in the proposition of asking someone that already has a demonstrated self-control problem to "just eat slower instead".

nitrogen 17y ago
Eating slower is a lot easier than not eating at all, so it can provide a starting point. After constantly being told to exercise, eat less, eat healthier, buy organic, etc., some people have reached the point where there willpower is so low, they can't choose a starting point from that huge list. They need something small that will give them a little nudge in the right direction, to start a positive feedback cycle.

gte910h 17y ago

Negligible? 10% of daily consumption? So a person consumes 2200 calories a day. He burns 1850 per day. Losing 220 off the top of daily consumption means you have only 130 calories to cut out to not gain week or a lot less to cut to lose weight. It's a free snack a day the person loses by eating slower. That's a HUGE difference when you look at the very small amount that they may be in excess of their burn rate (or increases the amount of the deficit they're managing to engender).

rue 17y ago
The problem is that people consume 3300, 4400 or 5500 kcal, not 2200 :)
- gte910h 17y ago
  Then my argument is even stronger, and you're not consuming 330, 440, or 550 calories. Body mass of any type ups your daily burn rate. If you weigh 350 pounds, you may be burning quite a bit more than 2950 calories by just sitting there being fat. Here is one calculator: http://walking.about.com/cs/calories/l/blcalcalc.htm http://walking.about.com/cs/calories/l/blcalcalc.htm
  - rue 17y ago
    Baseline consumption does not raise linearly with body mass (otherwise no-one would gain weight.) While there is some truth to a larger gain, we are still talking about percentages in relation to existing mass and weight maintenance intake. I was merely making the point that at intakes sufficiently larger than the maintenance level, the 10% just means packing weight slower. Overall, I think eating slower is a good idea, preferably after cooking it yourself. Eating less is too. But, ultimately, increasing expenditure is probably the best of the options (unless you do something dramatic like combine the approaches;)

machrider 17y ago

10% fewer calories could mean reducing your intake by 250 calories a day. A pound of fat is about 3500 calories, so that's a difference of 1lb of fat every 2 weeks. If you were maintaining your weight at the previous level, you'd lose 1lb every 2 weeks at the 10% reduced level. When it comes to dietary health, it's all about small changes and long time horizons.