A famous study in 2000 compared the effect of lemonade and jellybeans. The researchers gathered a group of people who received an extra 28 tablespoons of sugar in addition to their normal daily diet in the form of jellybeans or carbonated lemonades. Then they measured how many calories they had consumed during the rest of the day, to see if the bodies of these people will compensate for this extra sugar. Here’s how many calories the group that ate the jellybeans consumed, before the study began. But when they ate a handful of jellybeans, their bodies registered all those extra calories, so in the end they ate less other food during the day.
So even if they were added calories from jellybeans, continued to consume almost the same number of calories – before and after adding jellybeans to their diet. But in the group that drank lemonade, here’s how much they started eating and despite all the added calories from lemonade cans, who drank every day continued to eat about the same amount of food. So along with the calories they got extra in the lemonade, it’s no wonder they started after a month drinking lemonade to gain weight. Their body didn’t seem to recognise any more calories when they were in liquid form, so it was not compensated by a decrease in appetite, thanks to which they would eat less for the rest of the day. This lack of regulation can be used to our advantage, if you want to get fat, scientists suggest. But what if you don’t want to? If you drink a smoothie for breakfast instead of eating a normal meal, your body will think you missed breakfast, and causes you to have such a great appetite at lunch, that you eat more than usual, which is why you gain weight? Well, first of all, let’s say this effect is solid vs.
Liquid calories real? Lemonade and jellybeans do not differ only in physical form – they also have different compositions. This is a problem with many such studies. They use different foods. Like this study comparing a liquid breakfast with a fixed one. They were given either fruit juices and skim milk for breakfast. or oatmeal with blueberries and apples. And lo and behold, the subjects were less hungry for oatmeal. Oh no.
This is not a demonstration of solid vs. liquid effect – these are completely different foods. To test the comparison of solid and liquid effects, you have to use the exact same food in two different forms. Even this study was wrong. It was supposed to eat apples before eating will fill you so well that you will then consume much fewer calories, but apples in the form of puree were not so effective. But instead of just mixing the apples, first hell for 45 minutes. This can change the way the body handles them. I have seen all these studies, but they have not convinced me that that they would compare a solid and a liquid effect. And then this study was published. Fruit salad with raw apples, apricots and bananas plus 3 cups of drinking water or take 2 cups of this water, add it to the fruit, make a fruit smoothie and then just drink the third cup of water.
So it is the same food; one in solid form, one in the form of a smoothie. What happened? People felt much less filled with smoothies. The same amount of food, the same amount of fiber, but in the form of a smoothie, people just didn’t get enough as if they ate fruit in its natural form. We originally thought it was caused by the absence of chewing. The very act of chewing can be a signal of satiety and a signal that we have had enough. And when you compare 35 chews per bite with 10 chews per bite, if you tell people to eat pasta until they are pleasantly full, those who had to chew one bite 35 times ended up eating it about a third cup less pasta. So here we have it: we have proof of a solid and a liquid effect.
We have a mechanism here, and as is often the case in science, just when we have everything neatly wrapped and tied with a ribbon, a paradox arises. In this case, it is a great soup paradox. Soup mixed into puree, basically a hot green smoothie from mixed vegetables, it fills us more, than the same vegetables in solid form. The same food in the liquid form satiated more than in the solid form.
So it can’t be chewing. In fact, it’s not here at all does not show that any solid and fluid effect exists at all, Because cold smoothies seem to fill less, but hot smoothies fill more. So much so that the people who have their first course of soup eat so much less main course, that even if you add calories to the soup, they still consume fewer calories overall. So how can we explain this paradox? Perhaps the fruit in the form of puree satisfies much less than in the solid form, but will he also satisfy more vegetables in the form of puree? I think you could try making apple soup or something, but who will … Purdue University. To prepare the apple soup, they mixed about a cup of apple juice with two cups of apple sauce, mixed in a blender and warmed up. If you have people who eat three real apples instead, they start pretty hungry, but 15 minutes after eating the apples, they were almost not hungry at all.
Drinking 3 cups of apple juice did not solve the hunger at all, but what about soup that was nothing but just mixed hot apple juice with apple sauce. She was able to eliminate hunger almost as much as whole apples, even more than an hour later, and even beat whole apples in the overall reduction in calorie intake per day. What is so special about soup? What does eating soup have to do with prolonged chewing, What makes them different from drinking smoothies? Time. It took about twice as long to chew, and think how long it takes to eat a bowl of soup compared to drinking a smoothie? Eating more slowly reduces calorie intake.
Or maybe we just imagine that the soup satisfies us, and it’s like a placebo effect. Feelings of hunger and satiety are subjective. People tend to show signs of hunger in line with how many calories does he think he has, rather than based on actual calorie content If you are studying people without short-term memory, like in that movie Memento, where they don’t remember, what happened just a minute ago they may overdose on food because they forgot they ate. This shows how weak we are about our own hunger. And it’s not just subjective effects. In this famous study of Mind Over Milkshakes, when you offer people 2 milkshakes, one of which is described as relaxed – the decadence you deserve, the other as reasonable – satisfaction without guilt, people react differently to them hormonally. Despite being deceived and were offered the same milkshake. And in the end, maybe it was just that the soup was hot and warmer dishes can be much more satisfying. So how do we find out what the solution to the soup mystery is? Is it time, thought, or temperature? I wish this study had a third group.
They had those who ate solid food and those who drank liquid food. I wish they also had a group to eat liquid food. And they had. They also served cold fruit smoothies in a bowl, that participants eat them with a spoon – not unlike soup – so if it was an idea or a temperature, the saturation rate would be reduced by drinking fluids, thanks to a smoothie. If, however, what made the soup a meal that satiated as well as solid foods, eating was slower, then the number would approach the group that consumed the solid diet.
And it was just that high, which means that the only real reason why smoothies don’t get so saturated is is that we drink them quickly, but if we sip them slowly and for a long time, it satisfies us as if we ate fruits and vegetables in solid form. Wow, this study thought of everything! But you only know half. They also wanted to see if it would work with high-fat smoothies. So how about almond butter or walnuts? No, LF was a liquefied fat smoothie of boiled pork belly. I think a smoothie can sometimes effectively suppress an appetite..