That’s a question many of us are probably asking ourselves. With obesity and other weight-related problems being the talk of the day, reducing the calories we eat seems to be the proper way. We’ve got cooks saying that we should eat a high-fiber diet, doctors who say that we should skip the salt, while there’s that advice from a friend of mine who said I should eat my meals longer (so I can skip on the snacks later).
Health buffs believe that eating drawn-out meals increases the level of satiety in our bodies, reducing our need to reach for that pack of chips in the cabinet. When people eat longer, the body gets more time to digest the food, sending signals to the brain saying that the body is full already. It is a different story when you eat quickly, since the body does not have enough time to send satiety signals to the brain before your stomach becomes bloated.
Although the reasoning does have some proof, there are researchers who are saying that it may not be so. You do become satisfied better when you eat food longer, but that doesn’t stop you from craving for more. According to a study published in the Journal of Nutrition, there’s not much difference when it comes to eating snacks between people who eat longer compared to those who ate their food rather quickly. Sure, the slower eating parties feel full much better, but the moment they are presented with treats such as apple cake, chocolate-covered marshmallows, peanuts, chips, and waffles, they just could not resist it.
The study just shows how some diet plans do not really go as you expect. The theory is sound, there is no doubt about it, but sometimes, putting it in action produces unexpected results. So how should we put this study, then? Maybe the age-old advice of nutritionists should come to mind: eat moderately.