I'd like to know how much obesity is caused by a structural "finish everything on your plate" problem. By this I mean the tendency of certain folks to finish everything that is served, no matter what their hunger level is. Also, I've heard it said that people who eat from smaller plates will consume fewer calories over time.
In the study, the group given water also had their food portions slashed by a substantial amount. What happens if the portions stay the same size? How many people will read or see re-hashed versions of this study in their daily papers or news and simply prefix a large glass of water before their dinners, only to find that it has made no difference?
Getting over the cultural teaching that I must eat everything that is served in that sitting was the KEY to my weight loss, personally. I had no real dietary changes. I found that if I just ate slower and stopped when I felt satisfied most meals were nearly twice the size they needed to be. Another upside of this is it is cost effective to grab lunch and have the left overs for dinner (or the reverse)
Recently I crossed the country with my parents to visit my grandma. She was born in the 1920s and spent a large part of her childhood in the Lower East Side, so it's quite a culture shock to visit her. In her case, it's not that you have to finish everything on the plate - it's that as soon as you finish one item, you're compelled to try three more. Or in other words, large quantities of food is the only form of hospitality she's really familiar with.
However this strategy arose, all her children have rejected it, which leads me to believe that these sorts of things can change quickly between generations. On the other hand, my parents are still erring on the side of "low-fat" style nutrition, even though I've told them repeatedly that it's been essentially debunked.
I wonder, what bad nutritional advice will I cling to desperately when I'm older?
Plenty of it, but that's also because typically people will prepare (or expect to be prepared for them in restaurants) unbelievable amounts of food.
I weigh about 70 Kg and a half portion in any US restaurant is more than enough for me. I always feel bad about sending food back to the kitchen but I'd feel even worse for overeating.
When I was a kid I wouldn't feel obligated to finish everything on my plate. When I started buying my own food I almost always ate everything even if I was satisfied. I think subconciously I thought I should eat a little extra just in case I couldn't buy my next meal. Perhaps it's an evolutionary instinct.
Whilst I haven't done the research to back up such a strong statement, I feel that this form of childhood conditioning is strong & damaging enough to qualify as abusive parenting (semi-forced feeding + impact in later life). Doubling up with sugary rewards (dessert) if they force themselves to eat too much in the first place surely makes it even worse.
Of course, it's not the only factor that leads to obesity, but it's extremely outdated and idiotic practice.
Agreed. Most of the time, we don't eat until we feel full, we eat until we finish what we've got.
I can see the benefit to those who like to snack because they're hungry during the day - regularly drinking water will help ward off the hunger until meal time. In the end, though, it all boils down to common sense: the less you eat, the less weight you put on.
Me and the significant other have known this for quite a while. Frankly, I'm REALLY surprised that this wasn't an established scientific result.
The way it works IMHO is not too obscure - water fills you up and gives you the impression of being 'full' earlier, so you tend to reduce your regular food intake. Feeling 'fuller' equates to being satiated for a lot of people (including me), so the tendency to chow out at random times during the day is highly reduced/eliminated.
I used to be 90+ kg in the middle of 2009. Once I decided to drink copious amounts of water during the day, by Jan 2010 I had come to about 60ish kg and lost 4 inches around the waist. My other breakfast/lunch/dinner eating habits remained the same, and the water meant I cut down on snacking between meals.
Seriously, isn't there any research showing water fills you up?
In the study, they controlled for caloric intake by giving everyone a limit. This would seem to point toward an effect other than the fact that water makes you eat less. It's possible that the group drinking water actually stayed below their caloric limit, but I didn't see that mentioned in the article.
Frankly, I'm REALLY surprised that this wasn't an established scientific result.
There must be an awful lot of things which are very hard to prove in a proper controlled study, but which are totally obvious to anyone who tries them. To prove something about diet to everybody's satisfaction I'd have to get dozens of volunteers, compensate them properly for their time, carefully monitor what they eat, and worry about all sorts of experimental artifacts coming from the fact that they know they're taking part in a dietary experiment. As you can see in this thread, people are still complaining that this presumably-expensive experiment still doesn't really prove its point.
Alternatively, to prove it to my own satisfaction I can try it out for two weeks and see whether it works. And that's all I really care about.
The GI tract is exquisitely sensitive to stretch, which is one of the many "fullness" signals. So it's not unreasonable to guess that this is part of what occurs. The single most likely explanation behind the weight loss is that the consumption of water displaced some portion of calorie consumption, causing participants to eat fewer calories.
I was wondering if it altered the quality of calories taken in. The article mentioned that it wasn't just dropping calories from drinks, since they were counted as part of the allocated amount.
On the other hand, if people were eating (for instance) more proteins in place of the simple sugars of fizzy drinks, they would drastically alter how their body was interacting with those 1800 calories.
I was disappointed by the apparent attitude in the article that every calorie was equal, regardless of source. I really believe calories are to the nutrition industry what counting lines of code is to software: a number that is just too easy to calculate but absolutely meaningless in measuring anything.
"...absolutely meaningless in measuring anything."
This is not true, not for calories nor for lines of code. Both are not sufficient measures when used on their own, and both need context to be interpreted in, but outright dismissing any measurement of them is just as wrong as blindly relying on them.
Apart from this, this study was done by professional nutritional researchers - the article may have dumbed down their word a bit but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that they didn't account for things like that.
While I completely agree with the gist of the article, Dr Davys counter-argument is terrible:
"It is possible that the water displaced sugary drinks in the hydrated group, but this does not explain the weight loss because the calories associated with any fizzy drinks consumed by the other group had to fall within the daily limits."
There is such a thing as good calories and bad calories - obviously getting your calories from healthy fats such as olive oil and avacados is going to be a lot more beneficial to your weight in the long run than getting your calories from sugary fizzy drinks such as coca-cola.
> obviously getting your calories from healthy fats such as olive oil and avacados is going to be a lot more beneficial to your weight in the long run than getting your calories from sugary fizzy drinks such as coca-cola.
It may be "obvious", but I'm not sure if that's true!
I can agree with healthy fats being good for you. But explain to me bad calories affecting weight gain more than "good" calories. That doesn't make sense to me at all.
3500 calories = 1 pound of fat, no matter the source.
You can lose weight eating only McDonald's if you counted calories, but you would be:
I just started doing this myself a few days ago. I've found that I've bloated up a little bit at first (as water is prone to cause) but at every meal I am feeling 'full' earlier and not eating as much. My body seems to be enjoying it as well. I definitely say give it a try, the most painful outcome being an increased number of trips to the bathroom - the bladder can only hold so much liquid.
The problem with "solutions" like this is that they don't really fix the problem where it lies. Weight gain is attributed to caloric surplus, there's no two ways about it.
Drinking water before a meal will help you feel a little fuller and ultimately, eat less. People ignorant to nutrition will begin to use this as a free pass to eating even more poorly.
If you really take a step back and look at this, what they are suggesting is filling up with less calorie dense foods (water being the ultimate example), preferably with a high satiety index (here's a list: http://www.mendosa.com/satiety.htm).
> People ignorant to nutrition will begin to use this as a free pass to eating even more poorly.
One danger would be that they would wash out too many useful substances out of their body by drinking to much liquid.
I would also imagine so much liquid dilutes the stomach juices and the food doesn't digest properly. I don't have any scientific basis for this btw, just a hunch.
> ... what they are suggesting is filling up with less calorie dense foods
Another way to accomplish the same thing (for me at least) is to eat spicier, more flavorful foods.
On the upside if you are more conscious about your diet and go for proteins (to feel full longer), fresh stuff and less carbs then lots of water are practically mandatory to prevent gout.
So the article's point of drinking lots of clean water being good for you is pretty spot on IMHO - regardless of dodgy science or faulty methods.
The advice I read (somewhere, so long ago I don't remember) is that sometimes when you think you're hungry or craving something, you're really thirsty. This has worked well for me for many years, and usually means I don't end up eating anything at all. Too bad it doesn't help with anxiety.
Not sure about the "science" behind this, but this technique has definitely worked for me. I've been drinking ~3 litres of water daily for the last year - and along with other changes in my lifestyle, have lost ~65lbs in that time.
If for no other reason, drinking that water reduces my urges for fizzy drinks - which helps a lot. Additionally, as others have said - reducing the amount you eat, in whatever way that works for you, has helped a lot.
Could that be related somehow with people drinking less and less tap water (I live in US, but also seeing this in my home country Bulgaria)?
I mean nowadays you have to buy your water most places, you might as well get something "better" for that money, and that won't be water - some some kind of beverage, soft drink, etc.
So you would be drinking less, simply because you have to pay (yes, you pay for tap-water too, but that's done as part of all your water usage bill, and it's done at the end of the month usually, and probably way cheaper than bottled water).
It would be interesting if restaurants cut the portion sizes in half, kept the same prices, but used higher quality products and better care in preparing.
Piper's in Raleigh has a really good fish n chips plate - my wife loves it. However, it's an insanely huge portion. $13.95, but it's more than enough for two people (she split it with a friend last time and they couldn't finish it). Dropping the sizes in half and making it $10.95 would still be a good value (well, in line with the rest of their portions, FWICT). The waitress has said that most people don't finish the fish because it's too much - it just ends up being thrown out. You can't easily reheat fried fish the next day as a leftover (well, I can't - any tips?)
Getting Chinese takeaway always felt a bit expensive (for the good stuff around us). However, we've cut back on portion sizes, and my wife's dinner is enough for dinner, then lunch, then usually another dinner, all from an $11 menu item. In those terms, it's a good deal. But if you tried to eat it all in one sitting, it's too much.
I just do not understand restaurant portion sizings.
[+] [-] Maciek416|15 years ago|reply
In the study, the group given water also had their food portions slashed by a substantial amount. What happens if the portions stay the same size? How many people will read or see re-hashed versions of this study in their daily papers or news and simply prefix a large glass of water before their dinners, only to find that it has made no difference?
[+] [-] Goosey|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chipsy|15 years ago|reply
However this strategy arose, all her children have rejected it, which leads me to believe that these sorts of things can change quickly between generations. On the other hand, my parents are still erring on the side of "low-fat" style nutrition, even though I've told them repeatedly that it's been essentially debunked.
I wonder, what bad nutritional advice will I cling to desperately when I'm older?
[+] [-] jacquesm|15 years ago|reply
I weigh about 70 Kg and a half portion in any US restaurant is more than enough for me. I always feel bad about sending food back to the kitchen but I'd feel even worse for overeating.
[+] [-] tlrobinson|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sambe|15 years ago|reply
Of course, it's not the only factor that leads to obesity, but it's extremely outdated and idiotic practice.
[+] [-] obsessive1|15 years ago|reply
I can see the benefit to those who like to snack because they're hungry during the day - regularly drinking water will help ward off the hunger until meal time. In the end, though, it all boils down to common sense: the less you eat, the less weight you put on.
[+] [-] shrikant|15 years ago|reply
The way it works IMHO is not too obscure - water fills you up and gives you the impression of being 'full' earlier, so you tend to reduce your regular food intake. Feeling 'fuller' equates to being satiated for a lot of people (including me), so the tendency to chow out at random times during the day is highly reduced/eliminated.
I used to be 90+ kg in the middle of 2009. Once I decided to drink copious amounts of water during the day, by Jan 2010 I had come to about 60ish kg and lost 4 inches around the waist. My other breakfast/lunch/dinner eating habits remained the same, and the water meant I cut down on snacking between meals.
Seriously, isn't there any research showing water fills you up?
[+] [-] brownleej|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hugh3|15 years ago|reply
There must be an awful lot of things which are very hard to prove in a proper controlled study, but which are totally obvious to anyone who tries them. To prove something about diet to everybody's satisfaction I'd have to get dozens of volunteers, compensate them properly for their time, carefully monitor what they eat, and worry about all sorts of experimental artifacts coming from the fact that they know they're taking part in a dietary experiment. As you can see in this thread, people are still complaining that this presumably-expensive experiment still doesn't really prove its point.
Alternatively, to prove it to my own satisfaction I can try it out for two weeks and see whether it works. And that's all I really care about.
[+] [-] carbocation|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] araneae|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|15 years ago|reply
On the other hand, if people were eating (for instance) more proteins in place of the simple sugars of fizzy drinks, they would drastically alter how their body was interacting with those 1800 calories.
I was disappointed by the apparent attitude in the article that every calorie was equal, regardless of source. I really believe calories are to the nutrition industry what counting lines of code is to software: a number that is just too easy to calculate but absolutely meaningless in measuring anything.
[+] [-] roel_v|15 years ago|reply
This is not true, not for calories nor for lines of code. Both are not sufficient measures when used on their own, and both need context to be interpreted in, but outright dismissing any measurement of them is just as wrong as blindly relying on them.
Apart from this, this study was done by professional nutritional researchers - the article may have dumbed down their word a bit but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that they didn't account for things like that.
[+] [-] tommizzle|15 years ago|reply
"It is possible that the water displaced sugary drinks in the hydrated group, but this does not explain the weight loss because the calories associated with any fizzy drinks consumed by the other group had to fall within the daily limits."
There is such a thing as good calories and bad calories - obviously getting your calories from healthy fats such as olive oil and avacados is going to be a lot more beneficial to your weight in the long run than getting your calories from sugary fizzy drinks such as coca-cola.
Still, nice article.
[+] [-] WilliamLP|15 years ago|reply
It may be "obvious", but I'm not sure if that's true!
[+] [-] carbocation|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] evanchen|15 years ago|reply
3500 calories = 1 pound of fat, no matter the source.
You can lose weight eating only McDonald's if you counted calories, but you would be:
1. Hungry all the time. 2. Look terrible.
[+] [-] hswolff|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] evanchen|15 years ago|reply
Drinking water before a meal will help you feel a little fuller and ultimately, eat less. People ignorant to nutrition will begin to use this as a free pass to eating even more poorly.
If you really take a step back and look at this, what they are suggesting is filling up with less calorie dense foods (water being the ultimate example), preferably with a high satiety index (here's a list: http://www.mendosa.com/satiety.htm).
[+] [-] rdtsc|15 years ago|reply
One danger would be that they would wash out too many useful substances out of their body by drinking to much liquid.
I would also imagine so much liquid dilutes the stomach juices and the food doesn't digest properly. I don't have any scientific basis for this btw, just a hunch.
> ... what they are suggesting is filling up with less calorie dense foods
Another way to accomplish the same thing (for me at least) is to eat spicier, more flavorful foods.
[+] [-] kahawe|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elptacek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmanocha|15 years ago|reply
If for no other reason, drinking that water reduces my urges for fizzy drinks - which helps a lot. Additionally, as others have said - reducing the amount you eat, in whatever way that works for you, has helped a lot.
[+] [-] carbocation|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malkia|15 years ago|reply
I mean nowadays you have to buy your water most places, you might as well get something "better" for that money, and that won't be water - some some kind of beverage, soft drink, etc.
So you would be drinking less, simply because you have to pay (yes, you pay for tap-water too, but that's done as part of all your water usage bill, and it's done at the end of the month usually, and probably way cheaper than bottled water).
[+] [-] b3b0p|15 years ago|reply
I guess it's wishful thinking.
[+] [-] mgkimsal|15 years ago|reply
Piper's in Raleigh has a really good fish n chips plate - my wife loves it. However, it's an insanely huge portion. $13.95, but it's more than enough for two people (she split it with a friend last time and they couldn't finish it). Dropping the sizes in half and making it $10.95 would still be a good value (well, in line with the rest of their portions, FWICT). The waitress has said that most people don't finish the fish because it's too much - it just ends up being thrown out. You can't easily reheat fried fish the next day as a leftover (well, I can't - any tips?)
Getting Chinese takeaway always felt a bit expensive (for the good stuff around us). However, we've cut back on portion sizes, and my wife's dinner is enough for dinner, then lunch, then usually another dinner, all from an $11 menu item. In those terms, it's a good deal. But if you tried to eat it all in one sitting, it's too much.
I just do not understand restaurant portion sizings.
[+] [-] njharman|15 years ago|reply
Just a reminder that studies may find a typical or probable result. They do not find cause -> effect for everyone.
[+] [-] c00p3r|15 years ago|reply