12 ms·

I wish the control was waiting for the same interval between bites. As it is, the study measures the combined effect of more chewing and slower eating. Also, t

• coldtea 6y ago
  >As it is, the study measures the combined effect of more chewing and slower eating. Don't those two go together naturally?
  • dagw 6y ago
    I could chew a piece 2 times, swallow, and wait 30 seconds before eating the next piece. Or I can chew 15 times, swallow, and immediately eat the next piece. If it's the 30 second wait that is the key rather than the actual chewing then you can tell people to focus on that rather than counting chews.
    • ivanhoe 6y ago
      It's about the amount of pre-processing the food gets in our mouth, so the effect they're measuring depends on the time the food has spent in the mouth, in contact with enzymes from saliva, and how finely ground it was by our teeth. A bit hard to put that into a single easy to understand metric.
      • tomgp 6y ago
        yes, that is the assumption, but I couldn't find anywhere in the paper that they controll for time as suggested by the upthread posts -- I admit to only skimming it though.
  • Someone 6y ago
    That’s exactly why tlb is asking that question. The effect could be just from slower eating.
  • tlb 6y ago
    The wisdom I received in childhood was to put your knife and fork down between bites, to regulate eating speed. Is chewing longer better? That's what I wished this study told me.
    • srtjstjsj 6y ago
      Eating more slowly is most beneficial because it makes you feel full before you overeat so much, which has a much larger effect than insulin response.
• dwighttk 6y ago
  Per slice!
• hammock 6y ago
  My grandmother (who was very old guard proper type) taught us that every bitter should be chewed 26 times before swallowing. And of course, out your utensils down between bites.
  • nyghtly 6y ago
    My parents (tried and failed) to teach me similar values that they learned from their own parents. But it got me thinking--I wonder if these "old guard" values are related to food scarcity? We (peoples of industrialized nations), live in a world of abundance when it comes to food. High calorie food sources are cheap and plentiful. We don't need to chew our cheerios so much, because a machine already chewed them for us. We don't need to chew our chicken so much, because there's more where that came from. In fact, the "chew your food" lesson in childhood always came up during meals where we ate steak, and not so much other meals. Now part of this was due to the fact that the steak was tough and chewy (they cooked it well-done). However, I think it's worth considering the fact that steak is expensive, and if I was eating steak then there was not more where that came from. So maybe part of that "chew your food" lesson was actually a different one: "savor this food, because it's the last that you'll have until tomorrow." Notably, my recent ancestors were Okies.
    • hammock 6y ago
      Could be, my grandmother's parents were Boston brahmins I think so food was not usually scarce. My general understanding was that it's uncouth to devour or inhale your food at the table. In that sense the nuance is not that this might be the last food you get for a while - but rather that having food is no big deal, don't make it seem like this is the first meal you've had in forever. Another rule (not the same but similar) is to finish each course at the same time as the host, not sooner nor later.
    • sevencolors 6y ago
      Yeah my mom used to chastise me for eating too fast. Later i realized it was because she overcooked everything so meats were really tough and i just wanted to get it into my body as quickly as possible Now overcooking a steak is a just sin. It should be like butter