Get our free newsletter.|Already signed up? Please log in here.
|Text size: A A A
How to Diet

How to Diet

Are There Benefits to Eating Slowly?

Will it help you control your weight?

Eating slowly may help you eat less.

Scientists offered 35 normal-weight and 35 overweight or obese men and women a huge portion of the same lunch (pasta with tomatoes, olive oil, parmesan cheese, garlic, herbs, and spices) on two separate occasions.

On the “fast eating” day, the participants were told to eat their lunch as quickly as possible without feeling uncomfortable, to take large bites and chew quickly, and to not pause or put their utensils down between bites. They typically finished eating in 9 minutes.

On the “slow eating” day, they were told not to rush, to take small bites and chew thoroughly, and to pause and put their utensils down between bites. They typically took 22 minutes to eat.

The results: slower eating cut the calories from about 890 to 800 in the normal-weight people, but from only about 720 to 670 in the overweight or obese (which wasn’t a statistically significant difference). Both groups were less hungry after eating slowly.

What to do: Slow down. It takes time for your satiety hormones to kick in.

Source: J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 114: 393, 2014.


Other relevant links:

Add Your Comments


  1. Byron
    Posted April 21, 2014 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    According to the numbers given, the obese people absorbed fewer calories in both the fast and slow eating, 720 and 670, vs the normal-weight people, 890 and 800. So obese people absorb fewer calories than normal-weight people eating the same amount of food? How come?

    • First
      Posted April 21, 2014 at 9:14 am | Permalink

      From Nutrition Action Healthletter: Both the normal-weight and the obese people in the study consumed (not absorbed) fewer calories when they ate slowly versus when they ate fast. The difference was statistically significant in the normal weight but not in the obese.

      • Byron
        Posted April 21, 2014 at 9:49 am | Permalink

        OK, I actually meant consumed, but my question remains, and I can’t understand the difference unless the obese people were given less food to eat, 720 & 670, vs 890 & 800, or if they did not finish the food on their plates. The study doesn’t seem to explain any of this, so the numbers make no sense to me. Am I missing something obvious?

      • First
        Posted April 22, 2014 at 9:12 am | Permalink

        From Nutrition Action Healthletter: The participants in the study were served far more food than they could or would eat. The men were given meals containing 1734 calories, the women 1300 calories, so probably no one finished the food on their plates.

  2. Byron
    Posted April 21, 2014 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    BTW, you folks never responded to my question regarding the confusion about vitamin E.

  3. Marsha
    Posted April 21, 2014 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Yes, I see the statistical significance of eating fewer calories between the groups on the fast eating v. slow eating days, but I believe what Byron is asking about is the fact that the obese eaters ate less food than then normal weighted eaters on both days, 84% of food on the slow eating days and 81% on fast eating days. Obese eaters ate less food than the normal eaters on both days. Did the study authors comment on this discrepancy?

    • First
      Posted April 22, 2014 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      From Nutrition Action Heathletter: That obese individuals eat less food than normal-weight individuals in scientific studies has been observed for decades, so it’s not a “discrepancy” the authors commented on. Some overweight or obese individuals may really eat less food (and there may be other reasons for their weight issues) or they may be self-conscious and eat less than they normally would when they know they’re being watched in an experiment.

  4. Byron
    Posted April 24, 2014 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    Clarity at last, and the arising of intriguing questions (why did the obese folks eat less; is obesity cause more than calories in/calories out). Thanks, folks!

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Canadian Address
US Address
Enter Your Log In Credentials

Forgot your password?

Enter Your Log In Credentials

If you are a registered user, please use this form to log in now. Or, if this is your first time visiting us online, click here to link your print subscription first.

Forgot your password?