It doesn’t sound like much, but there appears to be a lot of power in 100 calories. In fact, some of the country’s leading obesity experts believe 100 calories may hold tremendous potential to stem the obesity epidemic.
In an excellent commentary in the Journal of the American DieteticAssociation titled Using the Energy Gap to Address Obesity, James O. Hill and colleagues make a case for the “energy gap.” This term was coined to estimate the degree of change in the energy balance point that’s required to prevent weight gain or maintain weight loss. It’s a calculation based on ”calories in” vs. ”calories out.”
The researchers begin the article with evidence showing how our country got into the mess we’re in. Our collective poundage happened gradually over time — with the average American adult gaining 1 to 2 pounds per year. To prevent this weight gain, the researchers estimate that 100 calories a day change in the population energy balance could theoretically prevent weight gain in 90% of the U.S. adult population. That’s powerful stuff for such a small number.
To lose weight, the energy gap goes up — but not that significantly. The energy gap for weight loss is estimated to be 200-300 calories per day. The researchers suggest having a specific and achievable goal for changing diet and physical activity may be more beneficial than generic advice to eat less and exercise more.
This chart from the article shows the energy gap at work. For a 100-kg (220 lb.) person to lose 10% of body weight the energy gap is 190 to 200 calories per day. For the same person to lose 15%of body weight, the energy gap is 280 to 300 calories per day.
The continued rise in obesity rates makes you think that something isn’t working. I like the argument that Hill makes in the article. Do people feel overwhelmed by the thought of drastic lifestyle changes to lose weight? He’s been a major champion of the small-changes approach, aimed at helping people make small changes in lifestyle behaviors, which was the focus of a recent report of a joint task force of the American Society for Nutrition, Institute of Food Technologists and International Food Information Council.
There has been little long-term success in treating established obesity through lifestyle change, perhaps because of the large permanent changes in diet and physical activity required to keep weight off. An alternative strategy to address the obesity epidemic involves not focusing on weight loss but promoting small changes in diet and physical activity to initially prevent further weight gain. With the use of this strategy, obesity rates could first be stabilized in most populations and then, over time, decrease gradually. Supporting data show that small reductions in conscious energy intake and increases in physical activity can reduce excessive weight gain. The opportunity exists to use the small-changes approach to bring different stakeholders together to create a national initiative to address the global epidemic of obesity.
In the “energy gap” article, Hill and colleagues outline multiple ways to implement the energy gap and small changes concept. Research indicates that a small change focused on 100 calories is something that people can achieve and sustain. It’s a specific goal and people feel like they can do it. That may translate to eating 100 calories less (as easy as skipping that giant smear of butter on your bread, drinking water instead of a soda, or foregoing a second glass of wine). Or it could be increasing physical activity — such as taking 2,500 steps a day counted by a pedometer. Starting small is at least starting, and even little lifestyle changes can jump-start other healthy behaviors. But beyond preventing weight gain, taking an energy gap approach can make the task seem more achievable. Setting your sights on a 300-calorie deficit (to lose 15% of body weight) is a specific daily target that can be broken down between diet and physical activity changes.
The article ends with a call-to-action:
A small-changes approach must be included in public health strategies and in public policies to address obesity.
I agree. Let’s don’t overlook the power of small changes. Once again, less is more.
The latest diet to hit the infomercial scene is Sensa, a “natural weight loss system” designed to help you eat less by changing your sense smell and taste. It appears to be a reincarnation of “The Sprinkle Diet” that got a lot of press a few years ago. Now it’s back and coming on strong. In fact, in Chicago I’ve heard radio ads that sound like they’re recruiting for a clinical trial using Sensa — offering to provide a free supply of the “sprinkles.” No dieting, no exercise required. Sounds too good to be true, huh?
So here’s how it’s supposed to work. You buy a month’s supply of the Sensa packets ($59.oo) and sprinkle it on everything you eat. The flavorless “crystal tastants” are supposed to make you feel full faster by stimulating the part of your brain that tells your body it’s time to stop eating. The product claims to induce something called “sensory-specific satiety.” Sensa creator Dr. Alan Hirsch said it makes your brain think you’ve eaten more than you have and you’ll eat less and lose weight. What you eat doesn’t appear to matter. The trysensa web site features a big piece of pie a la mode with someone pouring on the sprinkles. Hmmm…what kind of message does that send?
Known as “Dr. Smell,” the Sensa creator Dr. Alan Hirsch is an interesting guy – he’s a neurologist, psychiatrist and founder of the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago. Dr. Hirsch has pioneered much of the research on smell, taste and appetite — and his studies were the subject of a Dateline NBC feature several years ago. It’s worth checking out…
His studies in the ’90s paved the way for Sensa. The first study was published in 1995 and the second study doesn’t appear to be published (only presented at a scientific meeting in Prague). Both studies are included on the web site in abstract form. The primary claim — people who sprinkled the tastant crystals on everything they ate lost an average of 30 pounds in 6 months, which was statistically significant more than those who did not use the sprinkles. The Web site boasts:
Sensa’s results beat Weight Watchers, Atkins and the Zone with more pounds lost in less time.
So what exactly is Sensa? The ingredients don’t look so magical. Actually, the packets contain similar ingredients to what you’d find in many processed foods…
Maltodextrin (corn starch)
Tricalcium phosphate (”bone ash,” a source of calcium used in supplements and fortification, also acts as an anticaking agent, so it probably helps the crystals not stick together)
Natural and artificial flavors
Artificial color yellow #5 (the second most widely used coloring that causes allergic reations, according to CSPI)
Carmine (the red coloring obtained from insects)
There are some earlier studies that suggest maltodextrin may offer some satiety benefits (particularly when added to soup), but it surprises me that the sprinkles would have such a dramatic impact on fullness. People have such a hard time getting in touch with their hunger cues (and certainly don’t always stop when they’re satisfied), so it’s hard to think that the sprinkles can help overcome this. It’s great that people lost weight with the product, but I have some concerns:
What did they learn? Those sprinkles are not helping you learn positive new behaviors, not helping you address the reasons you’re struggling with your weight.
What about the quality of the diet? There’s basically no nutrition education involved with the program. You can eat all the junk you want, as long as you add the sprinkles.
How long can this last? The program tells you to eat whatever you want. What’s going to happen when you stop using the sprinkles. Will you be sprinkle-dependent forever? What about long-term results, lifestyle changes?
No exercise plan. Sensa proudly declares that you don’t need to exercise. So there’s no encouragement of daily physical activity.
Your pocketbook. An additional $59.00 a month can add up quickly. I’d rather people spend the money on fresh fruits and vegetables, which have tremendous satiety value — and a lot more nutrients than you’ll find in maltodextrin.
Photo illustration by Erwin Olaf for the New York Times
Of course, there are many reasons for America’s weight problem, but could we improve our collective poundage if everyone started cooking? That’s one of the questions posed in Michael Pollan’s excellent essay in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine.
Once again, Pollan stirs the pot and makes some excellent points in his in-depth piece that tackles everything from takeout to “Top Chef.” He addresses many issues, but the one I was most drawn to was the idea that the “end of cooking” may be behind our growing behinds. Research conducted at Harvard by David Cutler and colleagues found that the rise of food preparation outside the home was associated with the increase in obesity in this country. The researchers found that as the “time cost” of food preparation has fallen, calorie consumption has gone up — particularly consumption of the sort of snack and convenience foods that are typically cooked outside the home. They found that when we don’t have to cook meals, we eat more of them. As the amount of time Americans spend cooking has dropped by about half, the number of meals Americans eat in a day has climbed. Since 1977, we’ve added about half a meal to our daily intake.
“Cutler and his colleagues also surveyed cooking patterns across several cultures and found that obesity rates are inversely correlated with the amount of time spent on food preparation. The more time a nation devotes to food preparation athome, the lower its rate of obesity. In fact, the amount of time spent cooking predicts obesity rates more readily than female participation in the labor force or income. Other research supports the idea that cooking is a better predictor of a healthful diet than social class: a 1992 study in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association found that poor women who routinely cooked were more likely to eat a more healthful diet than well-to-do women who did not.”
At the end of the article, Pollan includes a quote from the NPD Group’s Harry Balzer that really hits the nail on the head when it comes to the power of home cooking…
“Easy. You want Americans to eat less? I have the diet for you. It’s short, it’s simple. Here’s my diet plan: Cook it yourself. That’s it. Eat anything you want — just as long as you’re willing to cook it yourself.”
Thoughts, opinions, musings and discussion about nutrition, food trends, diet myths, new products and fad-free healthy eating.
About Janet Helm
I’m a writer, registered dietitian and mom of twins. My passion is translating nutrition science into intelligible words – and healthy food choices. I want to help people make sense of nutrition news. I don’t think it needs to be complicated or confusing. l believe food should be enjoyed, not feared. And I think taste and health can happily co-exist.
In the “energy gap” article, Hill and colleagues outline multiple ways to implement the energy gap and small changes concept. Research indicates that a small change focused on 100 calories is something that people can achieve and sustain. It’s a specific goal and people feel like they can do it. That may translate to eating 100 calories less (as easy as skipping that giant smear of butter on your bread, drinking water instead of a soda, or foregoing a second glass of wine). Or it could be increasing physical activity — such as taking 2,500 steps a day counted by a pedometer. Starting small is at least starting, and even little lifestyle changes can jump-start other healthy behaviors. But beyond preventing weight gain, taking an energy gap approach can make the task seem more achievable. Setting your sights on a 300-calorie deficit (to lose 15% of body weight) is a specific daily target that can be broken down between diet and physical activity changes.
The latest diet to hit the infomercial scene is Sensa, a “natural weight loss system” designed to help you eat less by changing your sense smell and taste. It appears to be a reincarnation of “The Sprinkle Diet” that got a lot of press a few years ago. Now it’s back and coming on strong. In fact, in Chicago I’ve heard radio ads that sound like they’re recruiting for a clinical trial using Sensa — offering to provide a free supply of the “sprinkles.” No dieting, no exercise required. Sounds too good to be true, huh?
