Obesity: Drink till you drop
economist.com
economist.com
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?
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.
This is especially true of America where portion sizes are gigantic and people consider themselves primarily bargain-hunters rather than experience-seekers. It is amazing to me how much Americans will complain if a restaurant offers portion sizes just a little bit smaller than other restaurants in the area, even if the quality is much higher.
I suspect changing this attitude, more even than the promotion of local/organic/sustainable food production, could be the biggest social benefit of the foodie movement.
On the other hand typical American restaurants often insert sarcastic lines in their TV ads about how our portions are nothing like "French" portions -- you really get a bang for your buck when you eat here.
So it seems like there are 2 very different attitudes and 2 very different types of consumers. Both are catered to by different types of businesses.
I think the portion size has also been a hint as to how much a person should be eating. Those have been used more by the food processing industry to "mask" the caloric content of their products, rather than by consumers to modulate their food intake appropriately.
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.
I've asked for half portions for the full price instead, they just laugh at me.
I can however see them laugh at the half portions at full price (just take the leftovers if you feel bad for wasting food, maybe you could even give it to a bum if you can't bring the food home).
Americans visiting Europe would find themselves in a similar situation if they asked for a doggie bag. Most places wouldn't even be prepared to handle such a request.
But then again, the portions are so much smaller that a request of that nature is unlikely.
I'm genuinely curious, but perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.
Also I'm curious if doggy bags imply the same connotations where you are from, as here they imply simply bringing leftovers home, although it has been a very long time since I've heard the term doggy bag and am more accustomed to people asking if anyone wants a box or their leftovers wrapped up.
I'd hate to try :) I've never ever seen anybody do that, except for maybe asking for an extra spoon to share a desert.
> Also I'm curious if doggy bags imply the same connotations where you are from, as here they imply simply bringing leftovers home, although it has been a very long time since I've heard the term doggy bag and am more accustomed to people asking if anyone wants a box or their leftovers wrapped up.
I think that part of the stigma is that eating out is somewhat of a luxury in Europe whereas in America it is extremely normal. Prices are in general much higher here when eating out, the menus more varied (no thousand island dressing here, no burgers (at least, not in most places)) and people tend to dress up before going out.
A 'doggy bag' simply does not go well with the image of going out when you look at it like that. So I think that it's as much custom as it is setting and social stigma, if you asked for a doggy bag in a restaurant your peers would assume that you are either broke or very very stingy.
Or that you had a dog :)
Of course this is just my experience, maybe other Europeans can add / detract from that by giving their perspective, this is mine.
I'm pretty sure that taking food with you in a bag is unfortunately considered bad manners :( Asking for a second plate and silver maybe a less so but still.
I wouldn't have balked if they'd said no, but as I constantly say to my lad "you don't get if you don't ask" (which may not be true universally, but certainly is with me).
In France, I've seen myself denied the extra cutlery before (after leaving for some years in Asia, I was used to share food...)
as here they imply simply bringing leftovers home, although it has been a very long time since I've heard the term doggy bag and am more accustomed to people asking if anyone wants a box or their leftovers wrapped up.
It took a while for me to get used to the US phenomenon of asking for leftovers to be "boxed up" and I've noticed a similar level of surprise with less travelled Europeans I've taken to the US.
I'm used to it now (though I still wouldn't ever do it myself) but this is not even slightly common or acceptable practice in the UK. Such a request wouldn't be met with disgust or offense, though, merely confusion. I doubt many places except Chinese restuarants/takeouts would have anything to put the food in anyway.
So, yeah, this is a very American practice from the UK POV. I'd be surprised if it weren't common somewhere in Europe, though, but I've never seen it happen on my travels.
Splitting a meal or asking for more utensils to share a dish isn't exactly common here either but it is done, especially in pubs or similarly low-end places.
Why do you think that is?
Is it that Europeans see eating out as a signal of luxury and asking to take the rest of the food home somehow diminishes that perception ("oh look they must be poor if they are taking that left-over steak home..." kind of attitude). In other words are Europeans just afraid of looking bad, poor or stingy in front of others in a restaurant and Americans just don't care?
What if portion size wasn't a problem? Image that Europeans served same sized portions as Americans, would you take your leftovers home to be heated up for lunch then?
A handful of reasons, I think.
Fatigue with the particular dish (I don't want to eat the same thing within a day or two anyway), a mostly irrational "ick" hygiene factor, not wanting to carry food around (it's less common to be parked close to where you're eating in the UK), a lingering (though lessened) elitist attitude to the practice, and a fear of it being considered an unusual request.
Different cultures engage in slightly odd behaviors (such as the prevalence of stick shift cars in the UK) often because people are, en masse, afraid of being unusual and making a change. If restaurants made taking stuff home an obvious and acceptable policy, I'd probably deliberately eat only half the meal and do it from time to time.
I don't care what people think, but restaurants that don't do takeaway simply don't have containers to take food home. I've been to 10 restaurants this month, and none did takeaway.
Besides, a half-eaten reheated meal doesn't sound very appetizing. The sauce will have congealed or soaked up by the food, the pastry gotten soggy, etc. etc.
Perhaps take your own tupperware with you, I'd love to see that.
Sadly I so rarely get to eat out that I tend to finish everything so I'm not likely to be taking a tupperware any time soon.
You: "can I have a mop bucket to take my food home in please?"
Waiter: "perhaps if we just wrapped it in foil ...?"
I did this the other day in my favorite Chinese restaurant. I wasn't hungry enough to eat an entire "Chinese-style Steak" myself, so I split the meal with my brother. Anytime my family has ever asked to get an extra plate it's never been a problem. (Also, there is this tendency to treat Europe as one big country, as if the customs in France are going to be equivalent to customs in, say, Sweden!)
"...I'm curious if doggy bags imply the same connotations where you are from, as here they imply simply bringing leftovers home,..." Funny story concerning "doggy bags": I worked at a hotel once. There was a wedding on one night, and there was a huge volume of food leftover (regular occurrence, the amount of food wasted in the hotel and restaurant business is eye-opening). One guest caught my attention as I was clearing plates, and said "was there any chance that I could bag up all the leftovers". I said no problem. Turns out he had greyhounds, and was looking to save money by feeding them leftovers from the wedding food. I bagged up all the leftovers and gave them to him. I was happy to do it because it was destined for the bin otherwise. Btw we don't use the expression "doggy bags" over here, but in this case it literally was a case of the food going into a "doggy bag".
There's some great business opportunities around waste. I've read about entrepreneurs using methane from rubbish dumps to fuel heating systems. Some great fortunes are made in the waste business (turning trash into cash to use a cliche). I remember reading a great article about one guy who converted his Hummer to run on leftovers that he collected from local restaurants. Not only did his "mpg" increase, but his cost of running the Hummer decreased enormously (he even brought food sometimes, put it in a blender, and used the chopped up food as fuel - still cheaper than a tank of traditional petrol/gasoline). It was the "Green Hummer" or some similarly named project if you wish to Google around.
Feeding your own dog/chickens/whatever your own leftovers is not illegal fortunately.
The portions there really are huge.
The food quality/quantity is a secondary concern if you're doubling them with a sugary beverage.
Go into a Bojanles and order a large hash brown as a side order for breakfast. It's enough potatoes for three or four adults.
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?
Of course, it's not the only factor that leads to obesity, but it's extremely outdated and idiotic practice.
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?
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_to...
It seems to me unlikely, given that eating tissue paper is really difficult and in my opinion it would take far more willpower to force down enough tissue paper to induce satiety than it would to just stay hungry. It would be much easier to eat, say, a pound of celery, which would be calorifically indistinguishable from the paper.
Besides, real ballerinas must do a hell of a lot of exercise. I'm thinking they probably eat like athletes, not like teenagers with eating disorders.
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 problem is lots of stuff that people think they know and is totally obvious is completely wrong and completely subjective. Science has a harder job, it has to prove things objectively.
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.
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.
I ask because in the many years I've developed software or managed the development of software, I've never found it a useful metric to study because there are too many variables that impact it. However, if I'm missing something there, I'd like to know.
"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.
It may be "obvious", but I'm not sure if that's true!
"The second rule of fat loss is that healthy fat does not make you fat. Excess calories, in particular excess from the wrong calories makes you fat. This is a very hard concept to get across. People still believe that fat makes you fat and will argue without you to the grave while they eat a gallon of low fat ice cream that has the power to make you fat over night.
...
Lets get back to fat. Low fat diets equal low testosterone and low progesterone production. Both are necessary for men and women for optimal fat loss and well-being.
Without adequate levels of fat in your diet (30% of calories), you will not have adequate levels of testosterone. Without adequate levels of testosterone you will not be able to build muscle. Building muscle is the most effective way to get rid of fat and keep it off. " - Mike Mahler
What is undeniable is that any study where people self-count their caloric intake has a ton of potential problems which have been demonstrated over and over again. People are notoriously terrible at counting calories in what they eat.
It is true that sugars have certain metabolic effects, for example with insulin, that will make you hungrier and crave more. This makes it true that they should be avoided. Basically I think we're on the same page if you're willing to scratch the "obviously".
Another point is that the amount that doing weight training raises your metabolism is extremely overrated. I don't have the hard data in front of me but I think if you look up how many more calories you burn by gaining a pound of muscle, you will be shocked that it isn't that much. This is one of those "everybody knows" facts about fitness that everyone believes but isn't really backed up very well.
From what I've heard most people seem to think that 50 calories are burned per pound of muscle per day, but I think that it's closer to 8? I was under the impression that the repairing of the muscle after workouts is where you burn the majority.
There doesn't have to be a metabolic advantage for there to be a difference between calorie sources.
The number of calories eaten does not equal the number absorbed. Some things will be absorbed more readily than others. Foods are not all equal. People differ in significant ways both longer and short term. We don't all have the same mix of intestinal floura to help with digestion. Some foods may help/hinder getting calories/nutrients from others. Efficiency no doubt is higher when the food is taken in throughout the day instead of mostly at once. Even chewing better makes some difference. And other aspects of body chemistry, such as stomach acidity level no doubt have an influence.
I read of a U.N. worker working to help people with serious health problems in very poor nations. To get a fast inexpensive benefit a comparison was made of healthy/unhealthy people with similar (limited) food access and exposure to environmental hazards. The conclusion was that those who spread a given amount of food out through the day got more nutrition that those who ate it all at once. Of course some things are absorbed very easily (like our corn syrup), but it's easier to disrupt absorption of fats and heavier things.
I'd been taught that it was better to delay most liquids to the end of a meal, so that stomach acids would be more effective for breaking things down. Eat most of the heavier items first, shifting towards veggies and fruit then liquids.
Doing the opposite may cause weight loss (seems better to say less gain), but I think most consuming a significant amount of liquid first are apt to feel uncomfortable, especially with higher fat meals, as they're not handled as well. Eating a patty melt or other greasy food after a lot of water or coffee always had me feeling much worse on the road afterward than the same amount of everything in the reverse order. It's better to eat less than to make digestion less efficient.
My summary: It's the water reducing the acidity that made the difference with constant calorie input, but it's better to eat less than to make digestion less efficient like that.
- All fats are more than twice the calorific density of carbs/proteins. Disagree? - Good fats will still make you put on weight if you eat a lot of them. Disagree? - Predominate attribute used to decide "good"/"bad" is effect on heart/cardiovascular health. Disagree? - Essential fats cannot be metabolised by the body from simpler substances. Disagree? - All calories have the same energy content by definition, and apart from details will make you fat at the same rate per amount eaten. Disagree?
I think it's pretty obvious that I don't believe "fat [alone] makes you fat" as in the quote but health fat most certainly will if you eat a lot of it. I haven't read the famous popular book on the subject, but my understanding is that the thesis is based on things like satiety and a new take on heart health, not a fundamental difference in "types of calorie" re: weight gain. Regardless, downvoting seems inappropriate.
As a nutrition/fitness buff I completely agree with the comment. There is no good or bad calorie when it comes to weight loss. You eat good fats for health reasons, but as far as weight gain/loss goes, it is purely a function of calorie intake-- no matter the source.
John and Dave both eat the exact same 3 meals every day, for 30 days. When they both come home, they both do exactly the same workout. After the workout John has 50g of whey protein powder @ 110 calories, whilst Dave has 110 calories worth of coca cola (~290ml).
Now, given that protein helps muscle growth, and the more muscle you have, the more calories you burn, who loses the most fat after the 30 days?
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.
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).
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.
I've never heard of that happening, or anything like it. There is such a thing, supposedly, as water intoxication though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
It's not a serious concern for anyone not running marathon distances or taking part in a water-drinking competition, though.
Why do you doubt that water intoxication exists? Exertional Hyponatremia for example doesn't seem to have any gross reasons to doubt.
I'm just a little annoyed at the article, because all it offers the reader is something along the lines of "drink water before meals, it helps you lose weight, but we're not sure why!"
Any dietician could immediately them that they're losing weight because of a caloric deficit-- a result of feeling more full from the water.
I would have just preferred they point it out rather than equate a glass of water before meals to some sort of magic pill.
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.
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).
I guess it's wishful thinking.
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.
The food is a very small part of their costs. They can double the amount of food for a cost of $1, charge an extra $2 AND have many more customers for their great value!
It's like selling home PCs with a 1Tb drive, most users don't need it but it only costs them $5 more than a 500Gb drive.
I would also guess that it depends on the type of food. High quality, fresh organic produce is a lot more expensive, so perhaps for some food items it really is about the price. For example the fish in fish and chips could be some really expensive fish. Doubling the portion would be a lot more than adding another $1 to the cost.
For things like that I suggest a toaster oven. Put it on 350-400 or so and put the food in long enough to get hot. Works well for most fried foods, pizza, and other things that don't microwave well.
Put chopped peppers, onion and garlic with butter in a pan and put it on the stove with a lid. Stir a few times until the peppers get soft. DON'T let anything become brown, turn down the heat. Next put it in a food processor or use a similar device until it's a nice smooth sauce. It can't hurt to process it too long. You don't want bits of pepper skin in it. Next put it back in the pan with a laurel leaf and some cream (optional, but like many sauces and soups, adding some cream makes it taste better) and let it cook for a minute or so. Add salt and pepper to taste.
Goes well with fish and pasta and some parmegiano. Cut the fish in relatively small pieces and mix with the sauce. This hides the fact that it has been reheated.
Just a reminder that studies may find a typical or probable result. They do not find cause -> effect for everyone.