http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/dining/11snac.html

October 11, 2006

Seduced by Snacks? No, Not You

By KIM SEVERSON

Ithaca, N.Y.

"PEOPLE almost always think they are too smart for Prof. Brian Wansink's
quirky experiments in the psychology of overindulgence.

When it comes to the slippery issues of snacking and portion control, no one
thinks he or she is the schmo who digs deep into the snack bowl without
thinking, or orders dessert just because a restaurant plays a certain kind
of music.

"To a person, people will swear they aren't influenced by the size of a
package or how much variety there is on a buffet or the fancy name on a can
of beans, but they are," Dr. Wansink said. "Every time."

He has the data to prove it. Dr. Wansink, who holds a doctorate in marketing
from Stanford University and directs the Cornell University Food and Brand
Lab, probably knows more about why we put things in our mouths than anybody
else. His experiments examine the cues that make us eat the way we do. The
size of an ice cream scoop, the way something is packaged and whom we sit
next to all influence how much we eat. His research doesn't pave a clear
path out of the obesity epidemic, but it does show the significant effect
one's eating environment has on slow and steady weight gain.

In an eight-seat lab designed to look like a cozy kitchen, Dr. Wansink
offers free lunches in exchange for hard data. He opened the lab at Cornell
in April, after he moved it from the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, where he spent eight years conducting experiments in
cafeterias, grocery stores and movie theaters. Dr. Wansink presents his work
to dieticians, food executives and medical professionals. They use it to get
people to eat differently.

His research on how package size accelerates consumption led, in a
roundabout way, to the popular 100-calorie bags of versions of Wheat Thins
and Oreos, which are promoted for weight management. Although food companies
have long used packaging and marketing techniques to get people to buy more
food, Dr. Wansink predicts companies will increasingly use some of his
research to help people eat less or eat better, even if it means not selling
as much food. He reasons that companies will make up the difference by
charging more for new packaging that might slow down consumption or that put
seemingly healthful twists on existing brands. And they get to wear a halo
for appearing to do their part to prevent obesity.

To his mind, the 65 percent of Americans who are overweight or obese got
that way, in part, because they didn't realize how much they were eating.

"We don't have any idea what the normal amount to eat is, so we look around
for clues or signals," he said. "When all you see is that big portions of
food cost less than small ones, it can be confusing."

Although people think they make 15 food decisions a day on average, his
research shows the number is well over 200. Some are obvious, some are
subtle. The bigger the plate, the larger the spoon, the deeper the bag, the
more we eat. But sometimes we decide how much to eat based on how much the
person next to us is eating, sometimes moderating our intake by more than 20
percent up or down to match our dining companion.

Much of his work is outlined in the book "Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More
Than We Think" (Bantam), which will be published on Tuesday. The book is his
fourth over all, but his first directed at a general audience. It is
peppered with his goofy, appealing Midwestern humor and practical diet tips.
But the most fascinating material is directly from his studies on university
campuses and in test kitchens for institutions like the United States Army.

An appalling example of our mindless approach to eating involved an
experiment with tubs of five-day-old popcorn. Moviegoers in a Chicago suburb
were given free stale popcorn, some in medium-size buckets, some in large
buckets. What was left in the buckets was weighed at the end of the movie.
The people with larger buckets ate 53 percent more than people with smaller
buckets. And people didn't eat the popcorn because they liked it, he said.
They were driven by hidden persuaders: the distraction of the movie, the
sound of other people eating popcorn and the Pavlovian popcorn trigger that
is activated when we step into a movie theater.

Dr. Wansink is particularly proud of his bottomless soup bowl, which he and
some undergraduates devised with insulated tubing, plastic dinnerware and a
pot of hot tomato soup rigged to keep the bowl about half full. The idea was
to test which would make people stop eating: visual cues, or a feeling of
fullness.

People using normal soup bowls ate about nine ounces. The typical bottomless
soup bowl diner ate 15 ounces. Some of those ate more than a quart, and didn
't stop until the 20-minute experiment was over. When asked to estimate how
many calories they had consumed, both groups thought they had eaten about
the same amount, and 113 fewer calories on average than they actually had.

Last week in his lab seven people were finishing lunch while watching a
big-screen TV. Cartoons on the TV served as a distraction so participants
would not be influenced by what and how much those nearby ate.

Because he does not take money from food companies and is a newcomer at the
university, the lab runs on the cheap. The menus, like the one on this day,
are often built from Beefaroni, applesauce, M&M's and Chex Mix: simple,
inexpensive food that subjects are familiar with and that can be easily
manipulated.

He prefers to experiment on graduate students or office workers, whom he
sometimes lures with the promise of a drawing for an iPod. "It's easy to
find undergraduates to participate, but with the guys nothing makes sense
because they all eat like animals," he said.

On this day he is testing how much people eat depending on whether they have
exercised. Over the past several weeks they have sent subjects, some who
have exercised and some who have not, through an unlimited buffet line. By
measuring the difference between how much and what people eat depending on
whether they have exercised, Dr. Wansink hopes to prove that even moderate
exercise makes us think we are entitled to many more calories than we
actually burned.

"Geez Louise, you can't believe how much people eat to overcompensate," he
said.

Those kinds of things - intuitive bits we know about food but think we are
either immune to or don't think about - are the spine of "Mindless Eating."
In it he outlines an eating plan based on simple awareness. Employ a few
tricks and you can take in 100 to 300 fewer calories a day. At the end of a
year you could be 10 to 30 pounds lighter.

For example, sit next to the person you think will be the slowest eater when
you go to a restaurant, and be the last one to start eating. Plate
high-calorie foods in the kitchen but serve vegetables family style. Never
eat directly from a package. Wrap tempting food in foil so you don't see it.
At a buffet put only two items on your plate at a time.

His dieting methods aren't as fast as the Atkins plan or even Weight
Watchers, and have little to do with matters that consume nutrition
researchers or even culinarians. Dr. Wansink is not that guy. Although he
has studied to be a sommelier and keeps a mental list of his 100 best meals,
he drinks vats of Diet Coke and will inhale a box of Burger King Cini-mini
rolls with no apologies. He doesn't think that his work will solve the
obesity problem, but it's a start.

"It's like a big pyramid," he said. "The people at 30,000 feet can look down
and say we need a wholesale change in our food system, in school lunches, in
the way we farm." At the bottom of the pyramid, he said, are the
nutritionists and the diet fanatics who think the problem will be solved by
examining every nutrient and calorie.

Dr. Wansink does his research for the person in the middle, the guy on the
sofa who can appreciate a good meal, whether it is from Le Bernardin or Le
Burger King.

"Will being more mindful about how we eat make everyone 100 pounds lighter
next year?" he said. "No, but it might make them 10 pounds lighter."

And the best part, he promises, is that you won't even notice."

</>

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/dining/11snac.html


> On this day he is testing how much people eat depending on whether they have
> exercised. Over the past several weeks they have sent subjects, some who
> have exercised and some who have not, through an unlimited buffet line. By
> measuring the difference between how much and what people eat depending on
> whether they have exercised, Dr. Wansink hopes to prove that even moderate
> exercise makes us think we are entitled to many more calories than we
> actually burned.


That's an interesting article. I'd be interested to see if any of his
research looks at people's eating habits over the week, instead of the
single meal or day. From observing myself, I know that I'll overeat at
an all you can eat buffet-- for one meal. But by the time for the next
meal, I won't want anything to eat at all. I might skip it. You'd have
to give me all you can eat buffets all the time to make me gain weight.
And even then, I'd probably start skipping meals and not coming down
from the hotel room. At least, I think that's what I'd do. He does say
that people aren't good at judging their own reactions.


> On this day he is testing how much people eat depending on whether they have
> exercised. Over the past several weeks they have sent subjects, some who
> have exercised and some who have not, through an unlimited buffet line. By
> measuring the difference between how much and what people eat depending on
> whether they have exercised, Dr. Wansink hopes to prove that even moderate
> exercise makes us think we are entitled to many more calories than we
> actually burned.


I wonder about the conclusions from this too. If these are people who
don't usually exercise, who don't like to exercise, and who feel like
they deserve a reward for exercising, then his conclusions make sense.
But what about people who lead active lives and who get enjoyable
exercise as part of them? Exercise always lessens my desire for food.
I can't think about eating after a workout. (Again, I think that's the
case. I've never measured calories burned versus calories consumed.)


--Lia

Gregory Morrow <gregorymorrowBEYONDTHEVALLEYOFTHELOAFHEADS@earthl ink.net> wrote:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/dining/11snac.html
>He has the data to prove it. Dr. Wansink, who holds a doctorate in marketing
>from Stanford University and directs the Cornell University Food and Brand
>Lab, probably knows more about why we put things in our mouths than anybody
>else.

I'm gonna call him and ask him why Sheldon is so
enamored of his own foot...

>His research on how package size accelerates consumption led, in a
>roundabout way, to the popular 100-calorie bags of versions of Wheat Thins
>and Oreos, which are promoted for weight management. Although food companies
>have long used packaging and marketing techniques to get people to buy more
>food, Dr. Wansink predicts companies will increasingly use some of his
>research to help people eat less or eat better, even if it means not selling
>as much food.

People who eat better don't eat oreos at all. 100-calorie
packs will become the means of survival for junk-food companies,
not their way of being "good" to their customers.

>To his mind, the 65 percent of Americans who are overweight or obese got
>that way, in part, because they didn't realize how much they were eating.

And they were poorly educated about what it meant.
Nutritional education in the 70s and 80s and 90s and
even now is crap.

>"We don't have any idea what the normal amount to eat is, so we look around
>for clues or signals," he said.

See my previous comment.

>Much of his work is outlined in the book "Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More
>Than We Think" (Bantam), which will be published on Tuesday.

Ought to be required reading every year from 3rd grade
through graduation.

>Dr. Wansink is particularly proud of his bottomless soup bowl, which he and
>some undergraduates devised with insulated tubing, plastic dinnerware and a
>pot of hot tomato soup rigged to keep the bowl about half full. The idea was
>to test which would make people stop eating: visual cues, or a feeling of
>fullness.

I got a bowl of carbonara at the Niebaum-Coppola in Palo
Alto like that once. It was served just al-dente, and as
I ate, it continued to cook and expand. When I was full,
so was the bowl. I finished it anyway. That's one of
the 85 lbs I've lost by now. It was tasty, though.

>has studied to be a sommelier and keeps a mental list of his 100 best meals,

100?

I can name maybe ten.

>he drinks vats of Diet Coke and will inhale a box of Burger King Cini-mini
>rolls with no apologies. He doesn't think that his work will solve the
>obesity problem, but it's a start.

Um...anyone who'd do this for a living and eat like that...
has a problem...

--Blair