What Makes You Eat More Food

Photos: What Makes You Eat More Food

Broken Escalator

Too funny!

The Mandometer: A plate that tells you not to eat so fast!

According to Brian Wansink, author of Mindless Eating: Why we eat more than we think, studies have shown that it takes about 20 minutes for our brain to tell us we're full.

The problem?

We eat way too fast... and can pack in a lot of calories before those 20 minutes are up.
Most of us rarely even feel full-and, as a result, have lost the ability to recognize when we've eaten enough.

Wansink refers to a study that found it takes us, on average, 11 minutes to eat a fast-food lunch, if we're eating alone (13 minutes at a workplace cafeteria).

The solution?

Slow down!

OR

Get The Mandometer!

This gadget, developed by researchers in England, is basically a scale, connected to a computer, on which you put your plate.
Throughout the meal, the user is asked to input how full they feel, re-educating them to become aware of these fullness cues, and measures the speed at which the plate is emptying. It compares eating speed with a "normal" speed, and will nag the user to slow down if they're eating too fast.

The Mandometer has been successfully used in eating disorder clinics, usually instructing anorexic or bulimic patients to eat more quickly.

The only problem I can see with this gadget (apart from it getting kind of annoying!) is that it doesn't know what's on your plate- mostly vegetables, or all junk food...

But interesting idea- I wonder if it'll ever become mainstream in helping people struggling with weight loss...

Check out this short video to see the Mandometer in action.

Dinner with Roger Ebert

What would you miss most, or remember most, if you couldn't eat or drink?

Film critic Roger Ebert was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002. He later underwent surgery and treatment for cancer in his salivary glands, and near his right jaw.
These surgeries resulted his inability to speak, eat or drink- he has a feeding tube.

In his very touching blog entry, Nil By Mouth, Roger Ebert tells his story of losing the ability to eat, drink, and speak... something that most of us just couldn't imagine.

Storytelling

I've been reading, in class, about the use of storytelling (aka the narrative) as a way for caregivers to better understand their clients, and as a way for individuals to understand, control, make sense of what's happening to them; as a way to cope, to heal. Another purpose of storytelling is to make the personal public- to connect with others, to share, to get others thinking and talking ("personal narratives energize public narratives"). Kind of describes a blog, right?

As you read Roger Ebert's story (or my summary, below), think about the role of storytelling:

If you have a journal or a blog (and blog about your life)... why? What does it bring to you?

If you don't write down your story- keep a journal, for example- do you think doing so would help you... cope with, understand, have control over.... certain situations in your life?

If you were to see a new health care provider- a doctor, dietitian, therapist etc.- would you feel more comfortable and honest telling them why you're there, or presenting them with a story? Which would represent you best?

Roger Ebert's Story (as summarized by me):

Ebert writes that he was never told that he might lose the ability to eat, drink or speak during his first surgery, and while subsequent surgeries were supposed to 'fix the problem', they failed... and, he recalls, "it gradually became clear that it wouldn't ever be right again. There wasn't some soul-dropping moment for that realization. It just...developed. I never felt hungry, I never felt thirsty, I wasn't angry because the doctors had done their best. But I went through a period of obsession about food and drink".

In his hospital room, he recounted his fantasies of drinking Root Beer to his brother-in-law and his wife, telling them that, for the first time in 60 years, he remembered, with complete clarity, driving with his father to the A&W Root Beer stand.

His brother-in-law, a religious man, interpreted Ebert's "story" in terms of his own faith, saying:

"Could be, when the Lord took away your drinking, he gave you back your memory".

Ebert states that: "those were the words I needed to hear. And from that time I began to replace what I had lost with what I remembered".

But while he could remember clearly the meal he regularly ordered at Steak n' Shake or the tastes and texture of the amazing "cheap" candy he used to buy, what he missed most about not eating was not the food, but the loss of dining. He ends his story:

"It may be personal, but for me, unless I'm alone, it doesn't involve dinner if it doesn't involve talking. The food and drink I can do without easily. The jokes, gossip, laughs, arguments and shared memories I miss. Sentences beginning with the words, "Remember that time?" I ran in crowds where anyone was likely to break out in a poetry recitation at any time. Me too. But not me anymore. So yes, it's sad. Maybe that's why I enjoy this blog. You don't realize it, but we're at dinner right now".

Chew gum, snack less?

The study:

115 men and women who regularly chew gum visited a lab at Louisiana State University's Pennington Biomedical Research Center on 2 occasions:

On the first, they were given a lunch and then stayed for 3 hours, chewing Extra® sugar-free gum for 15 minutes, once an hour.

Hunger and cravings were assessed with the help of questionnaires and at the end of the 3 hours, subjects were given a variety of snacks to choose from.

The next visit was exactly the same, but they weren't given chewing gum.

The result:

When subjects chewed gum, they reported significantly less feelings of hunger and cravings for sweet foods and felt significantly less sleepy.

Gum chewers also ate significantly less calories after the 3 hours: 40 calorie less but, more interesting to the researchers, 60 calories less from sweet snacks.

According to Paula Geiselman, Chief of women's health and eating behaviour and smoking cessation at Pennington, this is the first study to look at the nutrient composition of snack food choices following gum chewing.

What I think:

First of all, 40 or 60 calories doesn't sound like a lot. In fact, it's the equivalent of only 4-6 jelly beans. Nonetheless, that could lead to a 4-6 lbs weight loss a year if it was kept up daily.

However, I wonder if these study findings be the same if the subjects weren't regular gum chewers?

Maybe regular gum chewers that can't chew gum for 3 hours need to keep their mouths occupied and eat more (and have more cravings) whereas people that don't normally chew gum wouldn't have the same problem... In that case, wouldn't it be better to tell people never to start chewing gum in the first place?!

Measuring this only on 2 controlled occasions i very limiting too. For example, the subjects obviously knew the difference between their 2 visits was the gum chewing.

Clearly this is something that needs to be studied way more before any recommendations can be made.

Oh. Did I mention that the study was funded by the Wrigley's Science Institute? Hm.

Want to lose weight? Don't rely on chewing gum!

Deferred Gratification: The Marshmallow Test

In the 60s, psychologist Walter Mischel from Stanford University designed the Marshmallow Test: 650 4-year olds were individually given one marshmallow and were left alone in a room. The pre-schooler was told that he or she could either eat it right away BUT, if they waited 15 minutes and didn't eat the marshmallow, they'd receive a second.
This test was designed to measure willpower in delaying gratification.

It was found, based on questionnaires sent to the parents, teachers and academic advisers of the former pre-schoolers, now high schoolers, that those that were unable to delay gratification (that ate the marshmallow right away) had more behavioural problems, had trouble paying attention and maintaining friendships and had lower SAT scores.

The results are based on self-reported information therefore subject to error. However, Mischel, now at Columbia, is attempting to recruit the original subjects to get fMRIs done in an attempt to identify the brain regions responsible for self-control. Wouldn't that be amazing?

Watching the kids trying so very hard to delay gratification is hilarious! This is a re-enactment: