This difference was proven by the following experiment:
They [24 volunteers] were served a first course 17 minutes before lunch that consisted of either a chicken rice casserole, the same casserole with a glass of water, or a bowl of chicken rice soup. Even though the soup and the casserole-served-with-water contained exactly the same ingredients in the same amounts, the soup was more effective in curbing appetite and reducing the calories the women consumed during lunch.

The researchers further suggest:
... pasta salad bulked up with zucchini, carrots and other veggies, which have a high water content, can provide a portion double the size for the same calories as a salad made without the veggies. Chili augmented with lots of veggies and beans can expand the serving size of that dish while still maintaining a low calorie count. Sprouts, lettuce and tomato can round out the satisfaction that a sandwich provides without increasing calories.

What this research shows is it is the energy density of a food that matters in satiety, not fat content, as many people believe today. In other words, when eating the same number of calories, the more caloric dense a food is, the less satisfying it is. And conversely, the less caloric dense a food is, the more satisfying it is.

For instance, a 100-calorie serving of peanuts would be about two tablespoons. This would be a small handful. Meanwhile, a large baked potato would also only contain 100 calories. But eating a whole baked potato is more satisfying than eating a small handful of peanuts. This pattern is confirmed by the "Satiety Index."

On his Web site, Rick Mendosa discusses the Satiety Index:
Susanne Holt, PhD, has developed the Satiety Index, a system to measure different foods' ability to satisfy hunger. A fixed amount (240 calories) of different foods was fed to participants who then ranked their feelings of hunger every fifteen minutes and were allowed to eat freely for the next two hours. Of all the foods tested, potatoes were the most satisfying.

Mendosa explains the general trends of Holt's study:
The chemical components of a food is one of the factors that determines how it ranks on the index. "Beans and lentils, for example, contain anti-nutrients which delay their absorption so they make you feel full for longer," says Holt. "Roughly speaking, the more fiber, protein and water a food contains, the longer it will satisfy. But you have to look at each foodstuff individually-and that is why we think our index will be so useful." Another thing that makes a food satisfying is its sheer bulk. "You can eat an awful lot of popcorn without taking in a lot of calories," says Holt. "It may not weigh much, but it makes your stomach feel full just because it takes up so much space.... As a group, fruits ranked at the top with a satiety index 1.7 times more satisfying, on average, than white bread.

There are exceptions, but generally speaking "bulkier" foods will be more satisfying than more caloric-dense foods. This is an important point for dieters. It is not how much fat or carbohydrates in a food that matters as much as how much it will fill you up. And, not surprisingly, many God-given foods rank high on the satiety index.

Fruits, vegetables, and legumes are mostly ranked high on the index, and whole grains generally rank higher than their refined counter-parts. For a listing of all the foods that have been tested so far, see the following Web page: Mendosa.

Moreover, Runner’s World magazine reports about “… a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Those who ate the most fiber weighed an average of 8 pounds less than those ate who ate the least amount of fiber. Try to consume at least 30 grams a day from whole grain cereals and breads, vegetables, and beans (Bauman, p.28).” Again, these are all foods ranked high on the satiety index, and all God-given foods.

Runner’s World also reports about another method to help reduce food intake:
Researchers [at Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, TX] asked seven women to eat slowly, chew thoroughly, and push away their plates at every meal once their food no longer tasted delicious. Meanwhile, six other women were instructed to also eat and chew slowly, but received no hints on monitoring their taste buds. After a year, the first group of women lost an average of 9 pounds, and those in the control group gained about three pounds….

Once you’ve consumed enough food, your body sends a subtle “stop-eating signal” by dampening your taste sensations” (Bauman, p.26).

So it would seem paying attention to the taste of food can actually help one to eat less. It also should make eating more enjoyable as well.

Also, It can be helpful from time to time to analyze your diet to be sure you're getting the proper caloric distribution of carbohydrates, protein, fat, and saturated fat, along with sufficient vitamins and minerals. And nutrition software can make this analysis much easier. The best such program that I found and that I personally use is DietPower.

Moving to the other half of the equation-increased expenditure-this, of course, means exercise. I know this is a four-letter word to some, but it need not be. There is such a wide variety of exercise modalities available that anyone can find something they enjoy doing.

Exercise is advantageous to a body fat loss program for two reasons. First is the calories burned during the activity itself. More important though, regular exercise, by increasing muscle mass, will increase the basic metabolic rate. This is the number of calories spent just living. By increasing the rate in which your body burns calories you will burn up more calories in a normal day.

To force this adaptive process, you must exercise at least 30 minutes three times/week, preferably longer. Although, going over six hours per week would be unnecessary. In other words, try to work up to, at the most, about one hour, six-times/ week. How important is it to include exercise in a body fat loss program?

Consider the following study done at Queen's University in Klingston, Ontario.
In what might be called the dieting equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the study showed 12 obese women each losing more than 20 pounds in 16 weeks. Unfortunately, lean tissue and skeletal muscle made up a significant part of those lost pounds.

Yet in the same study, 12 other obese women followed a similar diet and lost the same amount of weight, and virtually all of it was from fat. What was the difference? Simple. The second group exercised aerobically five times a week in addition to restricting their caloric intake (Burn, p.38).

So exercise protects lean tissue while encouraging body fat loss. That is why exercise is so important to include in a body fat loss program. And it is not just aerobic exercise; strength training as well is important to include in a body fat loss program.

Consider yet another study done at this writer's alma mater, Penn State, "There, 23 female collegiate tennis players weight trained two to three times per week.... Result: The athletes dropped from 23 percent to 18 percent body fat. A significant change, especially given that there was no dietary restrictions placed on the study subjects" (Burn, p.38).

Moreover, "[An] University of Maryland study looked at 15 sedentary post-menopausal women aged 50-69. The women worked out three times a week for 16 weeks.... By the end of the study, the women increased their resting metabolic rates.... The increase amounted to about 50 calories a day, enough to burn five pounds of fat if it were continued for a year" (Burn, pp.39-40).

So both aerobic exercise and strength training are important in a body fat loss program. And remember exercise should become a permanent part of your lifestyle, not just something you do for a couple of weeks or until you have lost your desired pounds.

Exercising several hours a week, every week is needed for the calories burned during exercise and to maintain the elevation of the basic metabolic weight. These factors will help to keep body fat from creeping back on. The same applies to maintaining a low-fat, low-sugar diet. Re-increasing fat and sugar levels can lead to a slow return of unwanted pounds.

Once you have reached your desired level of body fat, you will have to slightly increase your caloric levels to prevent further body fat loss. However, I would recommend adding these calories in the form of "healthy" foods.

Dr. Meinz has a very good suggestion for dieters, "Throw your scale away!" The reason for this is a scale tells you absolutely nothing of importance. This is especially the case if you take the above suggestion and include exercise as part of your body fat loss program.

Dr. Meinz explains:
If you lose ten pounds of fat, but because of physical activity, gain seven pounds of muscle, the liar scale will say you only lost three little pounds! The scale can't tell you what the weight loss is made up of. You're wearing smaller clothes, you're looking great in the mirror, and all your friends want to know your secret-but the scale says you're a failure. And if you believe the scale you will be a failure (pp., 53-54; emphases in original).

The reason you'll be "wearing smaller clothes" if you lose fat while gaining muscle is because muscle is more dense than fat. In other words, a pound of muscle is smaller than a pound of fat. So simply looking at how your clothes fit, or even yourself in the mirror, is a better "gauge" of how well your body fat loss program is going than weighing yourself on a scale.

But if you need to have a more objective way of recording your progress, there are ways to measure how much body fat you have. Body fat is expressed in percentages. “Normal" levels are as follows: men under thirty: 14-20%, men over thirty: 17-23%, women under thirty: 17-24%, women over thirty: 20-27% (Tanita, p.2).

A simple method to measure body fat percent is with skin-fold calipers. These measure the amount of "pinchable" flab on various parts of the body. The measurements are then compared to a chart that then gives the fat percent. Such calipers are readily available from fitness centers.

A more sophisticated method is the water tank. Since muscle is denser than fat, then the more muscle a person has the more they will sink. Conversely, the more body fat someone has, then the more they will float. Such measurements can be rather expensive though.

A newer, and less expensive way is to use a "body fat scale." Such a scale will not only give you your body weight, but also your body fat percent. I have such a scale, and it seems rather reliable.

Body fat scales work on the principle that fat and muscle hold different amounts of water, hence their electrical conductivity differs. You stand on sensors and they send a small, but unnoticeable electrical charge through your body, and the rate of conductivity is measured, then the fat percent given.

So noticing how your clothes fits, looking at yourself in the mirror, or measuring your body fat percent using calipers, a water tank, or a body fat scale, are all preferable methods to gauging your progress than using a traditional scale.

In sum, do not go on a diet-change your lifestyle. Reducing the fat and sugar levels of your diet and including exercise will allow for slow (1-2 pounds/ week), sustained, permanent body fat loss. Crash diets will give more rapid weight loss but with just as rapid weight re-gains. Also, they will send you on a roller coaster ride of weight-loss, weight-gain, with possible health damaging effects.

Starting an Exercise Program? Copyright © 1999, 2003 By Gary F. Zeolla. The above article was excerpted from the book Creationist Diet by Gary F. Zeolla.

The above article was posted on this Web site July 17, 2003.

General Health and Fitness     Text Search

Alphabetical List of Pages  Contact Information

Fitness for One and All Home Page

Books and eBooks by the Director