January 13, 2010June 3, 2022

Why we overeat

This article is also available as a podcast. Click to listen

One of the main arguments for a low-carb diet is that reducing carbohydrates theoretically reduces your appetite. You’re not as hungry and therefore you eat less and you lose weight. But that assumes that we only eat when we’re hungry and that we stop when we’re full.

Most Eating Is Not About Hunger

In fact, there’s a growing body of evidence showing that that environmental cues may have a much bigger impact on how much we eat than physiological hunger—factors such as how much food is on the table or in the package, how much the people around us are eating, and even how big our plates are have a huge effect on how much we eat.

Does the Size of Your Dinner Plate Matter?

For example, researchers have observed that the average size of a dinner plate in the 1950s was 9 inches across. By the 80’s it had grown to 11 inches and today the average dinner plate is a whopping 13 inches. The increase in obesity rates parallels the increase in dinner plate size almost exactly. Coincidence? Some people don’t think so.

A popular new diet book, called The 9-Inch Diet, by Alex Bogusky, starts by having you replace your over-sized dinner plate with 9-inch plates. Bogusky claimed that shaving three inches off his dinner plate helped him whittle three inches off of his waist.

We Eat With Our Eyes, Not Our Stomachs

So, can weight loss really be as simple as that? No rigid eating plans? No forbidden foods or special recipes? Well, environmental cues are extremely powerful. That old joke about someone’s eyes being bigger than their stomachs turns out to be truer than you might have thought.

A now-famous experiment involving trick soup bowls proved that your stomach doesn’t tell you when you’re full; your eyes do. Researcher Brian Wansink describes the soup bowl experiment in his book Mindless Eating. The subjects were asked to eat a bowl of soup and then to rate how full they felt. But some of the bowls were secretly refilled from the bottom as diners ate the soup The people with the bottomless soup bowl ate 73% more soup but rated their level of satisfaction exactly the same as the others—after all, they’d only had a single bowl of soup!

We Decide How Much to Eat Based on Visual Cues

It seems that we decide how much to eat based not on how hungry we are or how filling the food is, but according to visual cues, which can be misleading.

Another experiment by Wansink’s group shows that you’ll eat more from a large container, even if you don’t like the food! They replaced the popcorn at a movie theater with stale, 2-week old popcorn. People complained about how terrible the popcorn was. Nonetheless, people who were given a large bucket ate about 35% more popcorn than those who were given a smaller container.

Apparently, the only ones who can be trusted to eat according to their actual physical appetites are babies and small children. Research by Barbara Rolls suggests that three-year-olds are not influenced by serving size; they eat according to their appetite. By the time they are five, however, they’ll eat more if they are served more.

You Can Overeat Without Being Overweight

Just because you’re not overweight doesn’t mean you’re not over-eating.

If supersized portions seduce you into over-eating unhealthy foods, you may cut back on more nutritious foods to compensate. You may be maintaining your weight, but at the expense of good nutrition.

So, this week, I’d like to experiment with the behavioral side of your diet. Unlike the metabolic diet concepts we discussed last week, which focused almost entirely on which foods you can eat, we’re going to focus instead on changing the environmental cues and behavioral patterns that lead to over-eating.

How to Trick Yourself Into Eating Less

So this week, you can eat whatever you like (as long as you promise to eat your vegetables, of course). Plus, I want you to follow the following rules.

Use smaller dishes: Use smaller plates, bowls, and glasses. If your dinner plates are bigger than 9 inches across, use the sandwich plates instead.
Don’t use serving bowls: No serving bowls or containers on the table. Put your food on the plate and then go to a separate area to eat it. If you are still hungry when your plate is empty, wait at least 15 minutes before serving yourself seconds.
Prepare only what you need: When cooking, try to prepare only as much as is needed. Overcooking leads to overeating. That doesn’t mean you can’t cook enough for two meals. But when you’re done cooking, package up the second meal and put it away before serving yourself from the remainder.
Don’t eat while distracted: Do nothing else while eating. Being distracted by television, the computer, or reading material can lead you to eat far more than you otherwise would. If you’re watching a movie or surfing the web and you decide to have a snack, pause the movie or shut down the computer until you’re done eating.
Hide tempting food: Keep tempting but unhealthy foods out of sight. When we see food we like, it actually makes us feel hungry. The obvious corollary to this is to keep healthy foods readily available. In other words, line all the vegetables up at the front of the fridge. Bury the fudge in the back of the drawer. And remember: chewing gum can help you avoid snacking.

Obviously, these rules all by themselves don’t ensure a balanced diet. But right now, we’re just experimenting with the environmental aspects of hunger and eating.

It might be best to minimize your time in restaurants this week, just for the sake of the experiment. You have very little control over portion sizes and other environmental cues in restaurants. At the very least, I suggest you avoid buffets, all-you-can-eat anything, and any restaurants that describe menu items with words like “jumbo” or “belly-buster.”

Questions to Ask Yourself

During your experiment with these behavioral strategies, here are some things to ask yourself:

Do you feel more or less hungry than you usually do?
Do you find yourself eating more or less at meals?
Do you find yourself eating more or less often?
Do you find it difficult or inconvenient to stick to the rules?
Do you notice any differences in your energy levels or mood?
Could you imagine continuing the experiment for more than a week?
How would you rate the overall quality and balance of your diet? Better or worse than usual?

Originally published at QuickandDirtyTips.com

January 5, 2010June 10, 2015

Lard vs shortening?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Q. I am attempting to cook this recipe I found on the internet. It calls for 1/4 cup of lard OR vegetable shortening. I am health-conscious and I was wondering which option is healthier?

A. If the vegetable shortening contains hydrogenated or inter-esterified oils, I’d say go with the lard–unless you’re a vegan, of course.

Lard has a bad reputation that I’m not sure it deserves. Like most animal fats, lard contains a mixture of saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats. In fact, it contains more monounsaturated fats (13mg per ounce) than saturated fats (11g per ounce). It also provides 280mg of omega-3 fatty acids per ounce.

If you’re looking for a vegetarian option, see if you can find a shortening that combines coconut or palm-kernel oil with unhydrogenated vegetable oil. Both coconut and palm-kernel oil contain saturated fats, which allow them to stay solid at room temperature. In baked goods, that is often key to getting the right texture.

But straight coconut or palm kernel oil might not produce the best results. Unlike lard, coconut and palm kernel oil are almost 100% saturated fat. At room temperature, they are the consistency of candle wax! To produce something similar to shortening, manufacturers blend them with liquid (unsaturated) oil.

December 18, 2009September 9, 2015

Local produce hard to find in winter?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

I’m a big fan of the local food idea. Eating food grown close to where you live saves a ton of gas, spares the environment, supports local growers, and puts fresher, more nutritious food on your table. If you live in Southern California or the southeastern U.S., the growing season is more or less year-round. But what about the rest of us?

Where I live in Maryland, for example, not much grows in the winter. So how do we get our five-a-day without resorting to fruits and vegetables that have been trucked in from California or flown all the way from South America? Growing your own sprouts (or “micro-greens”) can provide you with fresh, crisp greens throughout the winter. And what could be more local than your own kitchen windowsill?

All you need to grow your own sprouts is a couple of quart-sized jars, some cheesecloth or sprouting lids like the ones pictured here, along with a supply of seeds and beans for sprouting. You can find everything you need at your local health-food store or online. In three to five days, you’ll be harvesting your own fresh vegetables. I usually have two jars going: One with smaller “salad” sprouts like alfalfa, clover, radish, or broccoli sprouts and another with larger sprouts like lentils, sunflower seeds, mung beans or other legumes.

The salad sprouts are rich in vitamins C, A, and K and a host of other nutrients. Broccoli sprouts also contain potent cancer-fighting chemicals. You can use salad sprouts in place of lettuce in sandwiches or wraps. We also love piling an inch or two of mixed salad sprouts on a slice of lightly buttered whole wheat bread.

The larger sprouts from beans and other legumes are particularly high in protein, fiber, folic acid and other B vitamins. Their heartier texture makes them good in soups, stir-fries, and omelets. If you are a baker, knead a half cup of sprouted sunflower seeds or wheat berries into whole-grain bread dough just before shaping your loaf. Or try some of these great, healthy recipes from Epicurious.com:

Miso-Glazed Black Cod on Sprouted Sunflower Seeds (pictured)

Spinach and Sprout Salad

Marinated Halibut on Radish Sprout and Fennel Salad

December 3, 2009January 13, 2012

Bias in Research Not Always What You’d Expect

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

I know that many of you are suspicious of nutrition research. Many are convinced that the dairy, egg, beef, corn, or [fill in the blank] industries have bought off the researchers, journals, government, and the media in an effort to cover up the truth about their products–suppressing negative research and fixing studies to produce findings favorable to their products. There are certainly times when research is misconducted, misinterpreted, and/or misreported. That’s why all research (and reporting!) needs to be viewed with a critical eye–and all potential interests need to be disclosed.

Related content: Can we trust industry funded research?

The White Hat Bias

But biases don’t always run in favor of commercial interests. Researchers writing in the International Journal of Obesity have documented what they’re calling a “white-hat bias,” which influences researchers to reach conclusions that support their preconceived notions about nutritional “bad guys.”

As evidence, they present two widely-cited studies on the link between sweetened beverage consumption and obesity. Both studies found that the link between the two was statistically insignificant. Yet these studies are regularly misrepresented by the press and cited by other researchers as evidence that sweetened beverages are positively linked to obesity.

They also show that studies which do find a link between sweetened beverages and obesity are much more likely to be accepted for publication than studies that fail to find a link–a so-called publication bias. In other words, scientists have become so convinced that soda is a “bad guy” in the war on obesity that they overlook or misinterpret evidence to the contrary.

I’m not saying that sweetened beverages aren’t a problem. But ignoring evidence that doesn’t conform to what we’ve decided is “true” isn’t going to improve our understanding. And for those who believe that all nutritional research has been bought and paid for by Big Industry, it’s worth noting that an entrenched “thought bias” can be just as influential (and just as counter-productive) as commercial interests.

November 23, 2009August 12, 2015

What if we call it calorie cycling instead?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

In previous posts, I’ve looked at the merits of something they’re calling Alternate Day Modified Fasting (ADMF) as a way to lose weight. But the word “fasting” appears to have a lot of baggage–to many, it implies extreme, dangerous, or even disordered eating.

ADMF is not really fasting at all. A more accurate term, Calorie Cycling, is now gaining traction and this rebranding may allow people to get beyond their assumptions and preconceived notions for long enough to evaluate this approach on its merits.

There seems to be a deeply entrenched–but completely arbitrary–notion that we should eat the same number of calories every day. Fans of the evolutionary nutrition movement would point out that primitive man certainly did not have the luxury of constant, consistent access to food. We now suffer from an epidemic of over-nourishment. Maybe it’s time to think outside the box a little?

The Logic Behind Calorie Cycling

If you were to cut your normal daily caloric intake by a third, you would lose weight–and fairly quickly. But there are problems with this approach to weight loss:

1. You will probably experience hunger.

2. Staying on the regimen requires constant vigilance, monitoring, and self-control.

3. After about 72 hours of sustained caloric restriction, your body will adjust by slowing its metabolism (slightly).

So, let’s say we take the same reduced number of calories. But instead of spreading them evenly throughout the week, we alternate very low calorie days and normal or slightly above normal days.

Instead of this:

you have this:

Over the course of the week, you’d consume the same number of calories on either regimen and experience comparable weight loss. And, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that in both scenarios, you are eating a well-balanced array of nutritious foods.

Does calorie cycling offer any advantages?

Well, for one thing, because there is no sustained calorie restriction, your body does not adjust its metabolism or start catabolizing lean muscle tissue as it would on a sustained low-calorie diet. Additionally, some people report that calorie cycling requires less will-power than constant restriction. Although you may feel hunger on your low-intake day, you can eat to satisfaction on your high-intake day. Contrary to assumptions, research shows that most people will eat only slightly more calories than normal following a skipped meal or fast.

As a bonus, some studies suggest that calorie-cycling may have benefits unrelated to weight loss, such as reducing oxidative damage, improving insulin resistance, and slowing mitochondrial aging.

Calorie cycling clearly isn’t for everyone, and I’d strongly encourage anyone considering it to check in with their doctor or nutrition professional first. Those suffering from hypoglycemia, pregnant, or with a history or risk of eating disorders are not good candidates, for example. Aside from health issues, some people may simply prefer or be more successful on a more traditional approach.

But for some, it may be a helpful alternative strategy. At the very least, I think it’s worthy of further investigation and study.

October 17, 2009January 6, 2014

Purslane as a source of omega-3: a reality check

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Purslane has gained a reputation as being a good source of omega-3 fatty acids. An oft-cited 1992 analysis, published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, found that 100 grams of purslane contained 300-400 mg of omega-3 fats.

But if you search the scientific literature, you’ll see that the amount of omega-3 fats in purslane varies a LOT, depending on the variety, the age of the plant, the part of the plant you analyze (leaves, stems, seeds), and the time of harvest. The purslane analyzed in the 1992 study was clearly at the high end of the range.

Is purslane a valuable source of omega-3 or not?

It’s true that, compared to other green vegetables, purslane is rich in omega-3 fatty acids. About half the fat in purslane is omega-3. But green vegetables are very low in fat, so that doesn’t add up to much.

Let me put this in perspective for you: Even if you were lucky enough to got some high octane purslane like the stuff analyzed by Simopoulos in 1992, you’d need to eat 4 pounds of it to get the amount of ALA found in one tablespoon of flaxseed oil. Hope you’re hungry!

September 9, 2009April 9, 2015

Probiotic Confusion

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Last week, I answered a question from a reader who had seen a study showing that probiotic supplements reduced cold and flu symptoms in children. He reasoned that eating yogurt every day might be a good step and wondered how much he’d have to eat to get a similar “dose” of probiotics. To answer his question, I compared the number of active cultures in a typical probiotic supplement to the number of active cultures in a typical yogurt.

But I missed an opportunity to clarify what I think is a widespread misunderstanding about probiotics. Many people think of all probiotic supplements and foods as being somewhat interchangeable. They’re not.

Probiotics: an umbrella term for thousands of different bacteria

In terms of labeling foods and supplements, the FAO/WHO defines probiotics as “Live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host.” That’s any health benefit.

There are hundreds of different strains of lactobacillus bacteria and they offer a variety of potential health benefits to humans. Some colonize the large intestine, others live in the lining of the stomach, still others have an affinity for the mucus membranes in the nose. Of the many strains likely to colonize the large intestine, for example, some may improve gut immune function, others digest complex sugars, others may benefit the host by producing vitamin K.

There are also lactobacillus bacteria that don’t do much of anything to improve or defend your health. These, while harmless, would technically not be classified as probiotics–although they might still be considered “live and active cultures.”

Foods versus supplements

Most probiotic foods contain a variety of bacterial strains–your average supermarket yogurt might contain six different bacterial strains. And the lactobacillus bacteria found in yogurt are not necessarily the same as those found in other fermented foods like kefir or kim-chi.

Many of the studies you read about use “boutique” strains that are not likely to be found in any traditionally-fermented foods. In the case of the study I mentioned above, for example, they used two trademarked strains called Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM and Bifidobacterium lactis Bi-07.

Is there any point to consuming probiotic foods?

I still think there are general health benefits to eating traditionally-fermented foods like yogurt, kefir, kim-chi, kombucha, sauerkraut, and miso. Eating a variety of fermented foods, which provides a wider variety of bacterial strains, might offer a wider range of benefits.

But we need to be careful about assuming that the findings on a particular strain apply to all probiotics and probiotic foods. If you’re going for a specific therapeutic benefit, such as protecting against side effects while taking antibiotics or improving flu resistance, there’s no guarantee that yogurt or any other fermented food will contain the same bacteria as were used in a particular study.

Similarly, when shopping for probiotic supplements, pay attention to the individual strains in that supplement and how they compare with the strains used in various studies you might be responding to.

September 4, 2009October 27, 2011

What’s so magical about the Mediterranean Diet?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Forget the mouse studies. After a couple weeks of controversial and much-contested rat studies on the effects of carbohydrates on various aspects of metabolism and disease, here’s a study involving 200 newly-diagnosed, diabetic humans. Half were told to follow a Mediterranean-style diet, rich in vegetables, whole grains, and monounsaturated fats from poultry, fish, and olive oil and limiting carbohydrates to 50% or less of total calories.

The other half were assigned to a “low-fat” diet, which also emphasized whole grains and discouraged sweets and high fat snacks. Fat was limited to 30% or less of calories and saturated fat to 10% or less of calories.

After four years, the Mediterranean group had lost more weight and was only half as likely to need anti-diabetic medications.

What’s the real difference here?

Notice that the macronutrient distributions between the two diets are not all that different. The Mediterranean diet was not terribly low in carbohydrates (although it’s being described in media reports as a “low-carb” diet). The low-fat diet isn’t really all that low in fat. The two percentages certainly aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, it’s entirely possible that the distribution of fats, proteins, and carbohydrates between the two groups was very similar. Nor can we necessarily chalk it up to refined versus complex carbohydrates. Both groups were instructed to favor whole grains.

Perhaps it was just a matter of what the dieters were told to focus on. The Mediterranean group was told what to eat: vegetables, fish, grains, olive oil. The low-fat group were told what to avoid: sugary snacks and high-fat foods. Could it be as simple as casting dietary recommendations in terms of positives instead of negatives?