By: Jean Johnson for Reflux1Eating right and consuming sensible portions is especially important for sufferers of gastroesophageal reflux disease or GERD. Our society however, does not make this endeavor easy. The overweight and obesity epidemic has medical researchers in most of the sub-specialties scrambling. People with the following diseases must also pay special attention to caloric intake and portion size:
• various cancers including endometrial, breast, and colon
• type 2 diabetes
• coronary heart disease
• stroke
• gallbladder disease
• sleep apnea and respiratory problems
• hypertension
• osteoarthritis
• dyslipidemia that can be manifested with high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides.
It is not a good idea to take in more calories than the body needs. Nonetheless people do precisely that, day in and day out. “Although one of the national health objectives for the year 2010 is to reduce the prevalence of obesity among adults to less than 15 percent,” the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states, “current data indicate that the situation is worsening rather than improving.”
| Take Action |
The Centers for Disease Control offer the following food/activity equivalents:
One small chocolate chip cookie (50 calories) is equivalent to walking briskly for 10 minutes.
The difference between a large gourmet chocolate chip cookie and a small chocolate chip cookie could be about 40 minutes of raking leaves (200 calories).
One hour of walking at a moderate pace (20 min/mile) uses about the same amount of energy that is in one jelly-filled doughnut (300 calories).
A fast food meal containing a double patty cheeseburger, extra-large fries and a 24 oz. soft drink is equal to running 2½ hours at a 10 min/mile pace (1,500 calories). |
Overweight and Obesity Epidemic TrendsThe CDC has compiled trends for the period between 1985 and 2005. Data from this 20-year period indicate that “there has been a dramatic increase in obesity in the United States. In 1985 only a few states were participating in the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and providing obesity data. In 1991, four states had obesity prevalence rates of 15-19 percent and no states had rates at or above 20 percent.”
By 2005, however, the picture was considerably different. “Only four states had obesity prevalence rates less than 20 percent,” according to CDC data, “while 17 states had prevalence rates equal to or greater than 25 percent, with three of those having prevalences equal to or greater than 30 percent (Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia).”
As far as children are concerned, the situation is grim. The upcoming generation is the first one to have a life expectancy that is lower than its parents. CDC statistics show that overweight increased from 11 to approximately 18 percent in children and teens between 1988 and 2004.
Food Psychologist Devotes Career to Studying Vulnerability to Food Cues
“We don’t realize we eat as much as we do,” Brian Wansink, PhD states on his Web site foodpsychology.org that is devoted to educating the public about subliminal messages that influence eating.
Wansink holds a doctorate in marketing from Stanford University and directs the Cornell University Food and Brand Lab that opened in April 2006. The lab moved from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne where, according to the New York Times (NYT) that recently profiled his work, the professor “spent eight years conducting experiments in cafeterias, grocery stores, and movie theaters.”
Specifically, Wansink’s work has focused on the psychology behind what people eat and how often they eat it. On the Cornell Food and Brand Lab Web site, Wansink notes that: “A primary focus of the lab is in helping people eat more nutritiously and to help control how much they eat. An additional focus is on increasing the acceptance of soy foods and the consumption of fruits and vegetables.” Indeed, according to Wansink, “Soy has tremendous potential to improve the diet of the overfed American.” Consequently his work is aimed at figuring out “how we get it into the house and onto the plate.”
Vulnerability is Greater Than People Think
“To a person, people will swear they aren’t influenced by the size of a package or how much variety there is on a buffet or the fancy name on a can of beans, but they are,” Wansink told the NYT. “Every time.”
He points out that people who thought they were drinking high-priced wine tended to eat more than the group that thought the libations were run of the mill.
“We don’t have any idea of what the normal amount to eat is, so we look around for clues or signals,” he added. “When all you see is that big portions of food cost less than small ones, it can be confusing.”
Wansink thinks that the same companies that have been selling super-sized bags, bottles, and cans will get on the bandwagon once consumers are educated enough to drive the market. “He reasons,” the NYT wrote, “that companies will make up the difference by charging more for new packaging that might slow down consumption or that put seemingly healthful twists on existing brands. And they get to wear a halo for appearing to do their part to prevent obesity.”
As many as 200 different factors a day influence how much people eat, Wansink says. Perhaps that’s why he titled his most recent book, published in October 2006, “Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think.” How the person we are sitting next to eats, the size of our plates and spoons, how big the serving bowl is – all of these factors and more play into the calculus of the amount of food that ends up going into the mouth, the professor maintains.
One of his experiments makes use of a bottomless bowl that he and his undergraduate students devised. Via tubing connected to a pot of hot soup, the bowl never gets below half full. Wansink found that subjects using the bottomless soup bowl ate about 1.5 times more than their counterparts who ate from regular soup bowls.
It was the same thing with popcorn. The bigger the bucket, the more folks consumed – and it didn’t even seem to matter that the popcorn was stale. As expected, it was the same for cookies and ice cream.
Wansink does differentiate between what he calls externally motivated eating bouts and those that are internally motivated. External cues are those that come, for example, from having a gallon of ice cream in the freezer or a few dozen fresh cookies in the jar.
“If it’s not around, you won’t eat it,” stated Wansink in one of his articles titled, “What Made You Eat the Whole Bag of Cookies” – that is if you are an externally motivated eater.
“To minimize externally stimulated eating bouts, consumers should make food less available and out of sight.” He adds that “to minimize [internally motivated] eating bouts stimulated by moods and cravings, consumers should realize that once eating bouts begin, they are not guided by reason, and they often continue until the product is gone.”
Regarding how the environment influences the way people eat, Wansink maintains that we are more like sheep than we like to admit. Because of this chameleon effect, he suggests that those who are interested in consuming less should position themselves next to the lean person at the table. He or she will most likely be the last one to start eating as well as the slowest eater in the crowd.
Wansink further suggests plating high-calorie items like proteins and sauces in the kitchen and allowing only the low-calorie vegetable dishes onto the table. And for buffets, Wansink’s rule of thumb is simple: only take two items at once. People can always get a clean plate and go back for more – which is the way Europeans have always done it.
As a way to seal the deal on his analysis of how easily we’re swayed to eat too much, Wansink is currently looking at people’s attitudes toward extra calories and exercise. His conclusion: we inflate how much we’ve worked and go for the snacks with gusto.
“Geez Louise, you can’t believe how much people eat to overcompensate,” he told the NYT, letting his folksy Midwestern humor show.
But whatever moves Americans to eat more than their bodies need, Wansink thinks that the education he is offering will be empowering.
“Will being more mindful about how we eat make everyone 100 pounds lighter next year?” he said. “No – but it might make them 10 pounds lighter.”
