NOAA Makes It Offici… on NOAA Makes It Official: 2011 A… Noma Bakhshian on Pi Time Jan Heryk on Should You Kill Your CEO Lefty on Firefox and Chrome tools block… Joey Williams on NRC tracking flooding at two n…
See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1a9mp
I’ve tried consciously eating before and had great results, but I fell off the wagon and have gained weight recently.
Thought this was a great article to inspire slower more conscious eating.
Amplify’d from blogs.scientificamerican.com
About a century ago, a new craze gripped the country’s health conscious: mastication. Chewing each bite of food precisely 32 times would help people control how much food they consumed—turning them from gluttons to epicureans—according to the early 20th-century dietician Horace Fletcher.
Among his many ardent adherents the tactic became known as “Fletcherizing.” And Fletcher, in turn, has gone down in dietary history as “The Great Masticator,” with the purported catch phrase: “nature shall castigate those who don’t masticate.”
The theory, almost quaint in its specificity, soon fell out of popularity to be replaced by more familiar mid-20th-century forms of calorie-limiting diets.
Jie Li of the School of Public Health at Harbin Medical University and colleagues found that both healthy-weight and obese men consumed fewer calories (about 12 percent less) at an unlimited half-hour meal when they chewed their food more.
Wolfing down a whole meal is often considered poor form, and previous research has linked slower eating habits with a healthier weight. The common wisdom is that eating more slowly gives the body more time to “feel full.”
But as logical as it is that slower eating—coupled with or aided by more chewing—might be linked to consuming less, the specifics have yet to be fully worked out. One theory is that breaking food down in the mouth via more chewing allows the body easier access to nutrients, which would allow less consumption for the same nutritional benefit. But how does the body know when it should stop stuffing its face?
“Mastication apparently plays a role in the gut hormone profile, which consequently influences energy intake,” the scientists wrote in their paper, published in July in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Hunger is largely controlled by hormonal signals, including that from ghrelin, which spurs the feeling of hunger. The team found that when study participants chewed more, their ghrelin levels were consistently lower post-mealtime. It might be that the longer the body senses food in the mouth, the more ghrelin is released.
The study centered on a series of experimental breakfasts. Young men recruited for the study—16 of whom had body mass indexes (BMIs) of 18.5 to 23, which is considered lean for Asian men, and 14 of whom had BMIs of 27.5 or greater, which qualified them as obese for their demographic, sat down each morning to 300 grams of pork pie (a standard Chinese breakfast dish), with an option for additional servings. Researchers videotaped each subject eating and subsequently counted how many times they chomped down on each bite. The range across subjects was roughly 15 to 40 chews. During subsequent breakfasts, each subject was told to chew their bites either15 or 40 times.
Left to their own devices, all of the men had roughly the same preferred bite size (about 10 grams), but obese men ate each gram of food more quickly and with fewer chews than those who were leaner.
But after breakfasts during which they had to chew each bite 40 times, subjects consumed 11.5 percent fewer calories overall—and had lower concentrations of the hunger-piquing ghrelin hormone in their bloodstream afterward—than after morning meals during which they chewed each bite only 15 times.
So will more mastication help people slim down or keep the pounds from piling on in the first place? The researchers suggest “interventions for improved chewing activity” as a possible means for helping to stem obesity. The new study was too preliminary to tell whether The Great Masticator’s historical message could help rein in expanding waistlines for the long term. But the new findings at least give us something to chew on.
See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1a9mq
See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1a72a
Former President George W. Bush says his apparent lack of reaction to the first news of the September 11 2001 attacks was a conscious decision to project an aura of calm in a crisis.
Worst president ever.
Amplify’d from www.thedailybeast.com
He might have overshot the mark. In an interview with National Geographic Television, former president George W. Bush explains his much-criticized blank reaction to the news of the September 11 terrorist attacks as his attempt at projecting calm. Describing getting the news while visiting a Florida classroom, he says: “My first reaction was anger. Who the hell would do that to America? Then I immediately focused on the children, and the contrast between the attack and the innocence of children.” Then he realized a lot of people would be watching his reaction. “So I made the decision not to jump up immediately and leave the classroom. I didn’t want to rattle the kids. I wanted to project a sense of calm.”
See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1a2db
See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a19zo4
Click through to check out the day by day totals for what the US will have to pay (or not pay as the case may be).
See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a19znh