Chewing Less = Fewer Calories?

I was in the doctor's office last week and leafed through an issue of
National Geographic. It contained an article about mammalian evolution
after the dinosaur die off and I found an interesting quote from a
scientist about the development of teeth. To paraphrase, he said that
mammals had to develop better teeth than reptiles in order to get the
maximum caloric benefit from their food.

I assume this means food that is not well-chewed and partially "digested"
enough in the mouth, will not fully digest in the stomach and intestines.
Conventional wisdom says that thoroughly chewing your food can be helpful
in achieving weight loss (because you notice you're full earlier?), but is
thorough chewing truly helpful for losing weight? Or would it be better to
eat large chunks of food, just small enough not to choke?

Is there a significant caloric difference between well-chewed and under-
chewed food?

James

In article ,
James wrote:

Is there a significant caloric difference between well-chewed and under-
chewed food?

You remember what your mamma told you about chewing your corn well?

Unchewed in, unchewed out. No need to even consider caloric content.

You may actually absorb less starch from chewing less, since starch is
broken down by enzymes in the mouth.

I'm not sure that I would consider Less Chewing to be the next big diet
craze.

Jake.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:34:46 GMT, James wrote:

Is there a significant caloric difference between well-chewed and under-
chewed food?

Depends on the food.

Ever look at your poop after eating corn on the cob?