Blog: Hilda Bastian: "Am I Going to Need a Smaller Plate? In Which I Juggle a New Weight Loss Trial & Old Systematic Reviews"

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
It just seems logical, doesn’t it? Super-sizing your food can super-size you. So when I used to see claims that a bigger plate = a bigger you, it made sense.

But then a new trial rolled in, straight into my wheelhouse. It’s got everything! Old, conflicting systematic reviews! Research integrity issues! And personal interest. I’d like to lose some weight. I don’t want to have to buy all new tableware, but hey, if it’s that easy, then I guess I should think about it. I rolled up my sleeves and got stuck in.

So here are the characters in this story. First, the new trial. By Daina Kosīte and colleagues, it’s decent-sized for this kind of study – 134 adults. They were randomized to large or small plates for a self-service lunch in a purpose-built laboratory that’s meant to be home-like, but with concealed video cameras the participants are told about. They didn’t know it was how much they would eat that was being studied, though:

To conceal the true purpose of the study, at the time of recruitment, participants were informed that the study was examining the impact of time of the day on a range of mental processes, and that they had been allocated to a lunchtime session.

They had half an hour for lunch, in a “lounge room” with a TV going, and a heated food trolley.

This trial had lots of the pillars of good science: it was fully pre-registered, with a data analysis plan posted early on, too. Randomization was by an external statistician, and the data analysis was, too. The people preparing and serving meals had nothing to do with the study.

The result?

There was no clear evidence of a difference in consumption between the two groups… There was no evidence of impact on meal micro-structure, with the exception of more food being left on the plate when larger plates were used.
Click to expand...

Does this sound familiar???
Where does all this leave us? The systematic reviews end up being rather misleading, I think, in part because they have lumped too many disparate interventions together and obscured the weakness of the evidence base. The “claiming benefit” side of the ledger is compromised, too. And now we have a piece of strong evidence that doesn’t show a benefit. None of it gets directly at the question of weight loss and whether it’s worth buying a new dinner set.

Count me down as endorsing the Kosīte trial authors’ conclusion:

This study suggests that previous meta-analyses of a low-quality body of evidence may have considerably overestimated the effects of plate size on consumption. However, the possibility of a clinically significant effect – in either direction – cannot be excluded. Well-conducted trials of tableware size in real-world field settings are now needed…
Click to expand...
https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-m...new-weight-loss-trial-old-systematic-reviews/
 
A recent article in the New Scientist said that all the evidence for food was just rubbish. Common sense says moderation is probably a good thing but there is no genuine scientific reason to change.

Looking at food labels and choosing the thing with the least additives is as good a reason to make a choice as looking at the latest research.
 
Andy said:
Does this sound familiar???

https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-m...new-weight-loss-trial-old-systematic-reviews/
Click to expand...
Science began largely as an effort to categorize things, to determine what is one thing and not another, what makes different things different and how they differ, by what characteristics. Basic questions like is a rock different from a tree and how. This was a painful centuries-long effort.

All the lessons have been thrown out the window by the evidence-based medicine thing with systematic reviews. Things are lumped together, specific effects are blurred and things that barely have superficial similarity are insisted to be the same.

So not only is the crisis of replicability allowed to fester and grow, its problems are being expanded into other areas, largely by the process of dismissing the scientific method in favor of the old system of rhetoric-based arguments.

And those who point out those flaws, calling for more rigorous scientific method, are angrily insulted as anti-science. Good grief.
 
rvallee said:
Science began largely as an effort to categorize things, to determine what is one thing and not another, what makes different things different and how they differ, by what characteristics. Basic questions like is a rock different from a tree and how. This was a painful centuries-long effort.

All the lessons have been thrown out the window by the evidence-based medicine thing with systematic reviews. Things are lumped together, specific effects are blurred and things that barely have superficial similarity are insisted to be the same.

So not only is the crisis of replicability allowed to fester and grow, its problems are being expanded into other areas, largely by the process of dismissing the scientific method in favor of the old system of rhetoric-based arguments.

And those who point out those flaws, calling for more rigorous scientific method, are angrily insulted as anti-science. Good grief.
Click to expand...

^^ A much needed observation!! Are/were you in the sciences?
 
NelliePledge said:
Total calories consumed is much more complex than the size of your plate
Click to expand...

In my case it does make a difference... My meals are cooked and dished up by OH. If he's dishing up on a big plate I get HUGE portions (I think he's afraid I'll starve :rofl:). Sometimes I eat more of them than I should*. So I now request him to use small/smaller plates. After all, if I'm still hungry after finishing my plate of food, I can always ask for seconds.

* I think the problem is that I don't want to hurt OH's feelings if I leave food he's so lovingly prepared and cooked for me. So I guess you're right, @NelliePledge, it is more complicated than merely the size of plate. But smaller plate works for me. But that's more for psychological reasons than physical ones?
 
I would suggest that the trick to weight loss is to use much bigger cutlery, no matter what size the plate is, if indeed there is a plate.

I suspect this is why barbarian heroes are always ripped - the effort of using a 5 foot long knife discourages eating much, as well as burning excessive amounts of calories and providing a fairly intensive workout when they do. When using a 5 foot knife as cutlery slow and careful would be the moto, as those who don't won't remain barbarian heroes for long. Coincidentally this is exactly the way you are supposed to lift heavy things for maximum results.
 
In our family, I think it was encouraged to not leave food on your plate. I think I have only done it a small number of times in my whole life. Possibly didn’t help with weight gain at one stage.

It’s interesting to see it being more acceptable for my nieces and nephews to not clear their plates.
 
Last edited:
Sisyphus said:
^^ A much needed observation!! Are/were you in the sciences?
Click to expand...
Does being a science nerd count? :)

Not much in school, ironically, I wasn't a good student despite good grades. I learned software development, of which a primary skill is the rigorous application of a scientific process, that gave it practical value. Then expanded into soft skills: politics, economics, philosophy, which made me appreciate the scientific method even more, especially its real-life impact. I fell in love with physics, though I have no ability to maths despite lots of advanced classes at university, and science in general more recently. I like truth, mainly. Science is the best process for that.

Experiencing the impact of bad science made it all too real. I've long had an interest in disinformation and I couldn't miss the strong similarities between political disinformation and bad science. This stuff is important, it isn't merely academic. Which really makes being insulted as an anti-science activist by lousy ideologues all that more ridiculous.
 
I bought some smaller plates for me and my daughter to use. Not for slimming, but for small appetites, and because they are significantly lighter to handle. It means when family members visit and cook for us they don't give us too much food too.
 
Regardless of the size of plate used, I still usually manage to get a lot of its contents either onto the table or onto myself when eating (and miss the plate when trying to put food on it from the cookware).
 
Probably nothing will beat a sharp pain in the gut at the slightest trespass into eating too much that ME has brought me. That and the constant nausea. And the bloating. And the pain. I already mentioned pain, but it's actually a different kind of pain. Like, layers of pain.

Want to eat a tiny bit too much? Well, IT WILL HURT LIKE HELL! Now that's an effective diet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom