Sometimes the best way to lose weight is not what you eat for dinner, but what you eat dinner on.

Unless we’re on the road, on the run, or at a ball game, all of us eat dinner on plates, right? Well, these plates have a way of tricking our brains, as depending on their size, they can make what we put on our plates seem like we’re eating like a pauper (small servings) or pied piper (large servings).

I recently watched an episode of “Food Detectives” on the Food Network that tackled the question of whether or not people actually eat more if given larger plates. In other words, do large plates “entice” larger helpings, or are plates – large or small – simply decorous dishes?

To determine this, researchers recruited two groups of parched participants. They were told at the study’s outset that they only wanted to get their opinions on what they thought of the food they would be eating (pasta). In actuality, the groups were part of the researchers’ analysis as to whether they would eat more or less depending on the size of their plates.

The first group had the large plates. They were encouraged at the study’s outset to feel free to have seconds or thirds if they’d like and were invited to come up and help themselves from the very large bowl of pasta. Some took the researchers up on their offer, others didn’t.

Then the second group was invited in. Again, having no knowledge of the study’s actual intent, they too were encouraged to have as much pasta as they’d like, the only difference was their plates were smaller than the first group (not significantly smaller, but clearly smaller than the others’).

Bear in mind that the food served to both groups was exactly the same. The same ingredients were used. The groupings were the same (same number, same number of men to women). The bowls containing the pasta weighed the same, and both groups were given the same instructions. The only variable was plate size.

The researchers found that not only did the first group take more from their bowl of pasta, but they also ate more. They couldn’t simply judge this by what was taken from the bowl, of course, because the large-plate group also left more on their plate at dinner’s end. But even after putting back what wasn’t eaten, the large-plate group consumed an average of about 150 calories more than the small-plate group.

Now, 150 calories may not seem like a whole heck of a lot, but if you were to eat 150 calories extra every day – just for dinner – that adds up to a whopping 54,750 calories a year! That’s 15 pounds of extra weight by year’s end! And that’s just in one meal! Now, granted, there could have been more voracious eaters in the first group than in the second, but I think their ultimate conclusion is an accurate one: Large plates “trick” the brain into thinking that one isn’t eating as much because there’s more empty space on the plate. Put the same amount on a small plate, though, and the plate looks full.

One of my favorite truisms is “It’s not always what you say but how you say it.” The same principle applies to food: It’s not always what you eat, but on what you eat it.”

Something as simple as a plate change can help keep creeping obesity from sneaking up on you.