It would be interesting to see whether the same correlation holds when you look at individuals. These numbers would make perfect sense if food prep time is included in the "time spent eating" measure (the page summarizing the study doesn't say).
Rapidly shoveling food in your mouth is a great way of gaining weight because you don't notice the point when you stop being hungry. Instead, you only stop when your stomach screams it can't take any more food.
When I was trying to lose weight, I made sure I was eating as slowly as I possibly could. And it worked - I ate less because I got tired of chewing.
I'm not an expert -- more of a hobbyist who is actively trying to improve my statistical chops -- but I don't think there's ever a general metric for this sort of thing. For any statistic it's important to demonstrate that it's being used as intended so that its lay translation means what it seems to mean.
I mean, r^2 isn't all that misleading if your relation really is linear. R^2 plus a graph of the regression would be sufficient. Just taking a look at the residuals of the Anscombe sets easily shows that linear fitting (thus r^2) is inappropriate for sets 2-4.
(btw: if you fit the second Anscombe data set with a 2nd order polynomial, r^2 = 1. Of course, it's pretty clear that there's hardly any error in that set.)
The results aren't really that surprising, given that it takes ~20 minutes between the time you put food in your mouth to the time the brain recognizes satiation. If you eat slower it'll give your brain time to adjust to keep up with how much you've consumed. If you don't you'll keep cramming food in until your REALLY full.
Researchers once did a study to understand why the French aren't as obese as Americans even though they eat food that have a relatively higher fat content. They based their study on an idea they had about internal and external cues.
Apparently, Americans are more likely to use external cues ("there is still food on my plate") and the French are more likely to use internal cues ("I don't feel hungry anymore") when it comes to deciding when to stop eating.
I know for myself, the external cue of "there is still food on my plate" is a strong one, since I was raised to always finish my plate. I now do so religiously, but try to set myself up for success by getting smaller portions :).
I also do not like to waste as I have actually seen people in some parts of the world who are malnourished and always hungry... I can't leave food on my plate for that reason and I wish many restaurants would just server me less food. I'd still pay the same price.
If there actually is any correlation, maybe it's because in countries where people 'spend longer eating' there is a better focus on eating good quality food (rather than any direct correlation e.g. wolfing down food means you are more likely to put it on as weight).
I lived in Geneva for a while and we would always take at least a one hour lunch. There is hardly anywhere to get 'fast food', even in the city centre. And I certainly notice less 'heffers' there than when I am back in the UK.
There are two things which can be taken from that graph. Americans eat quickly and Americans have an obesity problem (certainly along with Mexico and the commonwealth). I'm sure that any correlation is a by product of a deeper difference in cultural relationship with food that results in eating slower. My point being making people eat slower in the US would only move their position on the graph horizontally.
* quality of life focus => (enjoy food => slow, exercise lots => thin)
* workaholic => fast, (no exercise => fat)
Also, I think you could draw a plausible correlation the other way, along the Norway-New Zealand axis and consider the US, Turkey and France the outliers.
You people are such idiots. I lost 40 pounds in two months and it was the easiest thing in the world. But most of you won't ever even see these words because I was rude on here too many times and now (from what I hear) they have me on some kind of auto-delete or auto-obscurity or something like that.
Forty pounds in two months, gone, no effort at all. All you have to do is eat natural vegan foods. No meat, no processed food of any kind, no refined grains, no dried fruit. Just natural vegan. That's it. You'll hit your ideal weight in no time and once you get there you won't lose another pound.
I was surprised by the difference in obesity rates between the US and Canada. Both have similar eating time values, and I generally consider them culturally and economically pretty similar. But still Canada's obesity rates are much lower than in the US.
My wife's 35 year old brother-in-law eats so fast he resembles a vacumn cleaner, yet he is a skinny as a stick. I eat slow and in small quantities and have a bit of belly.
I suspect that the reasons for obesity are myriad and are complexly intertwined (though at the most basic level simply eating fewer calories and getting regular exercise can have a big impact).
Off topic, but wouldn't your spouse's in-laws be directly related to you? That would make your wife's brother-in-law your brother. Am I missing something?
28 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 65.2 ms ] threadWhen I was trying to lose weight, I made sure I was eating as slowly as I possibly could. And it worked - I ate less because I got tired of chewing.
See the Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
and especially its well done graphs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Correlation_examples.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anscombe.svg
(one based on a famous article by a statistician) for what correlation coefficients alone do and do not say about relationships among data points.
However, is there a better/more respected metric for comparing how two datasets are related? Mutual Information perhaps?
I mean, r^2 isn't all that misleading if your relation really is linear. R^2 plus a graph of the regression would be sufficient. Just taking a look at the residuals of the Anscombe sets easily shows that linear fitting (thus r^2) is inappropriate for sets 2-4.
(btw: if you fit the second Anscombe data set with a 2nd order polynomial, r^2 = 1. Of course, it's pretty clear that there's hardly any error in that set.)
Apparently, Americans are more likely to use external cues ("there is still food on my plate") and the French are more likely to use internal cues ("I don't feel hungry anymore") when it comes to deciding when to stop eating.
http://vivo.cornell.edu/individual/vivo/individual20060
I lived in Geneva for a while and we would always take at least a one hour lunch. There is hardly anywhere to get 'fast food', even in the city centre. And I certainly notice less 'heffers' there than when I am back in the UK.
* eat fast => no satiety signal => fat
* empty carb diet => fat, fast binge eating
* high density food => fast, fat
* quality of life focus => (enjoy food => slow, exercise lots => thin)
* workaholic => fast, (no exercise => fat)
Also, I think you could draw a plausible correlation the other way, along the Norway-New Zealand axis and consider the US, Turkey and France the outliers.
When I was in France (granted it was 1995), I saw that a lot of people smoked, which could explain how they stay thin despite a lot of fatty foods.
When I was in Tokyo last year, some people smoked, but their diet is rich in vegetables, fish, and rice.
Forty pounds in two months, gone, no effort at all. All you have to do is eat natural vegan foods. No meat, no processed food of any kind, no refined grains, no dried fruit. Just natural vegan. That's it. You'll hit your ideal weight in no time and once you get there you won't lose another pound.
I suspect that the reasons for obesity are myriad and are complexly intertwined (though at the most basic level simply eating fewer calories and getting regular exercise can have a big impact).