Chew the Day

Back in the late 1890s, a guy named Horace Fletcher hit on the ultimate weight-loss protocol: He would chew each mouthful of food 32 times, then spit out whatever hadn’t dissolved and slid down his throat. According to this (scroll down toward the bottom), he lost more than 40 pounds by turning every bite of food into a chew toy. One of the biggest fans of “Fletcherizing” was John Harvey Kellogg of Battle Creek, Michigan, the subject of The Road to Wellville, T.C. Boyle’s very entertaining novel about the healthy-living craze of the early 20th century.

(I’m finally reading Road to Wellville now; I have no idea why I waited so long, considering I’ve read most of Boyle’s books and I’m actually interested in the subject.)

Reading about century-old health and nutrition fads is humbling, in a way, especially for someone who attempts to offer advice in those areas. I cringe at some of the ridiculous ideas people had back then — particularly the militant vegetarianism of guys like Kellogg, who was obsessed with bowel movements and “intestinal flora” — but recognize the messianic confidence with which they offered their “physiologic” solutions to problems ranging from obesity to depression.

Still, they were right about some things, especially tobacco. And given the unsanitary conditions of the slaughterhouses 100 years ago, they may have even had a point about avoiding meat.

I bring all this up because a new study shows they were also right about Fletcherizing:

A new study provides the first-ever scientific proof that if you eat slowly, you will eat less — and you will enjoy the meal more.

Women consumed about 70 fewer calories when they were told to take their time eating a meal of pasta and sauce, compared to when they were instructed to eat it as quickly as possible. They also rated the meal as more pleasant when they ate slowly.

“They got more pleasure for (fewer) calories, and more satiety for (fewer) calories,” Dr. Kathleen Melanson of the University of Rhode Island in Kingston told Reuters Health.

Melanson decided to conduct the study when she learned there was no research to support the familiar claim that eating slowly reduces appetite.

What’s most remarkable about the study is the extremes: First the group was told to eat as fast as possible, and wolfed down 646 calories in nine minutes. Then, on another day, they were told to eat as slowly as possible, and put away 579 calories in 29 minutes, on average. Since nobody actually eats like that, I have to wonder about the study’s practicality.

It also reminds me of those fidgeting studies, which show that thin people tend to fidget more. Since a non-fidgeter can’t choose to become a fidgeter, what good is it to know that fidgeting burns off calories?

I know eating patterns can be consciously altered, but my guess is that some people just naturally eat faster than others. I confess I’m a speed-eater, and my kids tend to eat like me. But we’re also fidgeters. So part of our genetic code predisposes us to be lean, while another part leads to overeating.

Looking at it the other way, wouldn’t non-fidgeters be the most likely to eat food slowly anyway? And, since they’re less active in general, does chewing food slowly really do them any good?

If only Fletcher and Kellogg were still around to sort it out for us.

Tags: Tags: obesity