Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

It is commonly said that eating slower will reduce your appetite. This site, for example, claims:

Portion control & Overeating prevention. When you eat slowly it is definitely hard to overeat. Slow eating little by little decreases the desire to eat, so you can stop eating before your plate is empty. It is suggested that it takes about 20 minutes for your stomach to produce the hormones telling your brain that you are full.

Weight control benefits. Slowly eating habit reduces the risk of becoming overweight. Recently Japanese researches found strong positive correlation between higher eating speed and obesity.

Is it true that eating a meal more slowly will make one prefer to eat less? Could this help to lose weight?

share|improve this question
I think the claim is that eating slower makes you eat less, not that it makes you lose weight. In other words, nobody is claiming that if you eat salad fast and substitute with eating chocolate slowly, then you'll lose weight. Please update the question so it's clear what variables we are keeping fixed, etc. – Sklivvz Jul 2 '11 at 7:56
Thanks for the clarification, @picakhu. I have substantially edited the question based on it. Please check I am still capturing your question. – Oddthinking Jul 2 '11 at 9:41
I think slower eating means more and better chewing, which is much better for your stomach and overall digestion. This should avoid mostly to gain wait because of bad digestion. – Martin Scharrer Jul 2 '11 at 10:57
I think its because when you eat slower, you tend to chew the food more, making the pieces smaller and more digestible. – Thursagen Jul 2 '11 at 13:30
@Martin, @Ham: I say this without any great knowledge of the workings of the digestive system, but wouldn't your theory run counter to weight gain? If smaller bits of food are somehow digested more completely as you suggest, wouldn't that mean that your body is actually absorbing more? Wouldn't it follow that with more absorption comes more weight gain? If you're not digesting properly, food is just going to go right through you; you can't gain weight from undigested food. – erekalper Jul 6 '11 at 15:51
up vote 12 down vote accepted

The Japanese research indicated is available here in the BMJ. It is based on a survey of >3000 people's self reported eating habits in a Japanese village.

it does show a very strong correlation between people indicating they "eat quickly" or who "eat until they are full" and incidence of obesity.

The BMJ itself wrote that participants were according to this report

The researchers also found that both men and women in the "eating until full and eating quickly" were three times more likely to be overweight than the participants from the "not eating until full and not eating quickly" group.

Now obviously correlation is not causation, but it is at the least an indicator that changing your eating habits to take more time can mean less energy intake at mealtimes.

Whether this will lead to one losing weight long term is obviously dependent on a whole host of other factors.

share|improve this answer

No, because overweight is a metabolic issue and not a behavioral one.

It's currently the fashion to believe that overweight people suffer from sloth and gluttony; however, adipose tissue is not the result of character defects but rather of metabolic function. As it turns out, the obese don't consume more calories than the lean.

“Most studies comparing normal and overweight people suggest that those who are overweight eat fewer calories than those of normal weight.” [National Academy of Sciences, Diet and Health]

Not all calories are created equal. The body metabolizes them differently. The current belief is that:

A calorie of protein provides the same amount of energy to the body as a calorie of fat or carbohydrate. Lost in this distillation is the fact that the effects of these different nutrients on metabolism and hormone secretion are so radically different, as is the manner in which the body employs the nutrients, that the energetic equivalence of the calories themselves is largely irrelevant to why we gain weight. As Rubner suggested more than a century ago, “the effect of specific nutritional substances upon the glands” may be the more relevant factor. [Taubes, Gary (2007). Good Calories, Bad Calories (p. 276). Anchor.]

Insulin regulates body fat. Modern diets are full of refined carbohydrates that cause excessively high blood glucose, and this in turn causes the pancreas to secrete insulin to force the tissues store it as fat.

To lose fat, keep the blood sugar under control by avoiding refined carbohydrates like white sugar, white flour, potatoes, beer, and white rice. You don't need to force yourself to eat slowly. (The research doesn't yet exist for me toI can't prove this assertion, but here is a great list of the current state of research.)

The current wisdom is that to lose weight, one must eat less and exercise more (as if the human body were a car, and all food was petrol), and yet anyone who has ever tried this approach knows it's uncomfortable at best. However, it's beginning to appear that changing the types of calories we consume rather than the quantity is actually more appropriate:

We're beginning to see meta studies as well:

An even more recent meta-study of randomized controlled studies that compared low-carbohydrate diets to low-fat/low-calorie diets found that measurements of weight, HDL cholesterol, triglyceride levels and systolic blood pressure were significantly better in groups that followed low-carbohydrate diets. The authors also found a higher rate of attrition in groups with low-fat diets. They conclude that "Evidence from this systematic review demonstrates that low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets are more effective at 6 months and are as effective, if not more, as low-fat diets in reducing weight and cardiovascular disease risk up to 1 year."

share|improve this answer
This makes a large number of claims that appear to conflict with the consensus view of nutrition. That doesn't mean it is wrong, but it does mean it needs some substantive evidence to support it. Quotes from a couple of individual nutritionists, in a field known to reward mavericks, doesn't cut it, I am afraid. – Oddthinking Jul 18 '11 at 2:49
“It is scientifically well known that the obese do not consume more calories than the lean” – this is at least partially wrong, if not totally. Please find a scientific reference for a tempered version of this claim. The same counts for ret of the claims. – Konrad Rudolph Jul 18 '11 at 12:26
Thank you. I've edited it to add references; I hope I've done better. – goblinbox Jul 18 '11 at 20:59
Much better. – Konrad Rudolph Jul 19 '11 at 9:13
"No, because overweight is a metabolic issue and not a behavioral one." Those are not mutually exclusive. – Muhd Dec 21 '12 at 1:14

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.