Flexible dieters are more successful dieters: weight regain and the tendency to think in black and white terms

Maintenance of a healthy body weight is challenging for many people. Diet success rates are generally low and it has been shown that 50% of the weight loss is usually regained after one year. 

A factor that has been associated with overeating and weight regain is thinking in black and white terms; a personality trait that is called dichotomous thinking. People often hold divided beliefs about food (healthy or unhealthy), their diets (on track or out of track), but also about their weight (acceptable or unacceptable) and these beliefs may lead them to overeating when they have the feeling that they have violated their diet.  

Katerina Palascha

For her Master thesis project, Katerina Palascha conducted a survey among 241 adults. She wrote a paper about the study and recently this paper was published  in Journal of Health Psychology. Quite an achievement!

The study revealed that the greater the self-initiated attempt to control food intake (dietary restraint) the higher the weight regain. However, it was the dichotomous thinking rather than dietary restraint that really predicted weight regain. This implies that when the attempt to control intake is accompanied by a rigid ‘black and white thinking’ style, people’s ability to control their food intake may be inhibited, thus leading to weight regain. In line with this finding, a study of Sairanen and colleagues showed that adopting a more flexible self-restrictive eating behaviour (as opposed to rigid self-restriction) could lead to a better weight loss maintenance and well-being.

Katerina's study again showed the importance of avoiding the 'what the hell' effect. Do not think: 'I have already ruined my diet for today, why not even indulge more..!'. Flexible dieters are more successful dieters.

Kies mij! Een grappig volkorenbroodje als zetje naar de gezonde keuze

Volkorenbrood is gezond! Dat weten de meeste ouders en kinderen wel. Toch blijft wit  brood aantrekkelijk. Met name kinderen houden niet altijd van de grovere structuur, de smaak en eventuele zaadjes van volkorenbrood. Kinderen motiveren door ze te vertellen dat volkorenbrood goed voor ze is, is een riskante strategie. Recent onderzoek onder kleuters laat zien dat voedsel als gezond aanprijzen een averechts effect kan hebben. Als je maar vaak genoeg zegt ‘dit is gezond’ staat dat uiteindelijk voor hen gelijk aan ‘dit is dus minder lekker’.

Marketeers in de voedingsmiddelenindustrie zijn succesvol in het verleiden van kinderen door gebruik te maken van aantrekkelijke kleuren, vormen, tekenfilmhelden op de verpakking en ‘gratis’ cadeautjes. Deze marketingtechnieken worden helaas vooral ingezet om ongezonde producten te promoten. Kunnen we deze marketingtechnieken ook inzetten om kinderen een duwtje in de goede richting geven zonder wit brood te verbieden? Deze duwtjes worden ook wel nudges genoemd. De nudging aanpak wordt als veelbelovend beschouwd, omdat het op een slimme manier probeert de keuze omgeving van mensen te veranderen zonder deze keuze te beperken.

Kan een grappige vorm van brood kinderen verleiden om voor volkoren te kiezen?

Om deze vraag te beantwoorden hebben we (onderzoekers FBR en MCB) een veldstudie opgezet tijdens het Nationaal Schoolontbijt. Dit hebben we gedaan in samenwerking met het Nederlands Bakkerij Centrum (NBC). Tijdens dit landelijke evenement eten kinderen een ontbijt in hun eigen klas op school. Twaalf scholen deden mee aan ons veldonderzoek, elk met drie tot vijf klassen (groep 5 tot en met 8). De resultaten zijn onlangs gepubliceerd in het tijdschrift BMC Public Health.

De broodjes in verschillende vormen

Kinderen kozen uit een assortiment van witte en volkorenbroodjes. De broodjes zagen er niet allemaal hetzelfde uit. Broodjes werden zowel in grappige als normale vorm aangeboden volgens een experimenteel ontwerp. In sommige klassen waren de volkorenbroodjes gebakken in een grappige vorm (visjes, handje of hartje), net als de witte broodjes. In andere klassen waren ofwel de volkoren broodjes ofwel de witte broodjes grappig. Als controle hadden een aantal klassen alleen de keuze uit normale wit- en volkorenbroodjes. Op deze manier konden we precies nagaan of kinderen in dezelfde mate overstag gaan voor een grappige vorm in het geval van wit en volkorenbrood.

Per klas werd bijgehouden hoeveel broodjes er werden gegeten. De kinderen aten gemiddeld bijna drie broodjes, waarvan de meerderheid (76%) bestond uit wit brood. Het goede nieuws is dat vorm wel invloed had op de keuze voor een volkorenbroodje. Een leuke vorm van het volkorenbroodje maakte dat de keuze voor volkorenbrood verdubbelde (van gemiddeld een half broodje naar bijna een heel broodje). Het vaakst gingen kinderen overstag voor volkorenbrood als het wittebrood een gewone vorm had en het volkoren een grappige.

 

Kinderen waren enthousiast over de broodjes en namen vaak uitgebreid de tijd om de leukste vorm te kiezen. Dit plezier in kiezen bleek ook uit de ingevulde vragenlijsten na afloop. Het gehele ontbijt smaakte zelfs wat lekkerder als er grappige broodjes te kiezen waren.

Deze studie laat zien dat kinderen positief reageren op onze nudge. Dit kan vooral waardevol zijn als we kinderen willen helpen om te wennen aan iets nieuws. Herhaaldelijk aanbieden kan er vervolgens voor zorgen dat kinderen volkorenbrood meer gaan waarderen en dat het eten van volkorenbrood een vertrouwde gewoonte wordt.

Portiegrootte bepaalt sterk hoeveel we eten; of het nu komkommers zijn of chips

Kinderen worden in ons land steeds zwaarder; ongeveer 1 op de 8 kinderen heeft overgewicht. Dit komt niet alleen door te weinig beweging, een belangrijke reden is ook dat we steeds grotere porties eten. De laatste decennia zijn portie groottes van veel voedingsmiddelen gegroeid. Een voorbeeld is de familiefles Coca-Cola die in 1957 werd geïntroduceerd in ons land. Deze fles bevatte maar 750 ml cola. Nu bevat een familiefles het dubbele of zelfs 2 liter. Dit fenomeen is ook te zien bij plakjes kaas, zakken chips en bakjes friet. Als consumenten houden we van ‘waar voor ons geld’ en fabrikanten en restaurants gaan hier op in door grotere porties aan te bieden. Onderzoek heeft echter laten zien dat mensen helemaal niet zo goed zijn in het bepalen van wat een normale portie is. Wat op ons bord of in de verpakking zit eten we voor 95% op. Het blijkt dat we dit teveel aan eten meestal niet compenseren door later minder te eten. Dit wordt ook wel het ‘portie grootte effect’ genoemd en is een belangrijke oorzaak van het overgewichtsprobleem.

Maar wat als we dit ‘portie grootte effect’ gebruiken om kinderen meer groente te laten eten? Groente bevat vitamines, vezels en is van nature ‘light’, maar kinderen eten er, net als veel volwassenen, te weinig van. Ga je ongemerkt meer eten als je meer krijgt, of stop je omdat je vol zit of je het niet meer lekker vindt? Deze vragen waren, kort gezegd, de aanleiding van de ‘komkommerstudie’ waarin 255 kinderen van de basisscholen de Springplank in Rhenen en de Koning Davidschool in Ede aan hebben meegedaan. Ilse Bruggers heeft de studie uitgevoerd als haar afstudeerproject, begeleid door mijzelf en Emely de Vet.

Hoewel een koekje de populairste schoolsnack bleek te zijn (bijna 77% van de kinderen gaf aan koekjes mee te nemen naar school), namen alle kinderen enthousiast deel aan de studie. ‘Ik vond het heel leuk en lekker! Kunnen jullie de volgende keer terugkomen met aardbeien?’ schreef een 9-jarige meisje op de vragenlijst. Elke klas kreeg de komkommer op een andere manier aangeboden. In sommige klassen kreeg elk kind wel twee derde komkommer en in andere klassen een derde. We varieerden ook de grootte van de stukjes; sommigen kregen plakjes komkommer en andere een heel stuk. Er mocht net zo veel of weinig gegeten worden als je wilde; zelfs niets of alles opeten was prima. Na het invullen van een vragenlijst namen we de resten op het bordje weer mee en wogen hoeveel elk kind gegeten had.

De resultaten waren duidelijk; hoe groter de portie komkommer op het bordje, des te meer er werd gegeten. De kinderen aten gemiddeld wel 54% meer komkommer. Dat is al ruim 70 á 93% van de aanbevolen dagelijkse hoeveelheid groente voor kinderen tussen de 9 en 13 jaar. Of de komkommers nu in stukjes waren gesneden of niet had geen invloed op hoeveel de kinderen aten. De grote stukken komkommer maakten wel indruk; kinderen dachten dat ze meer gegeten hadden dan de kinderen die dezelfde hoeveelheid in plakjes voorgeschoteld hadden gekregen. Wat betekent dit nu in de praktijk? Als u wilt dat u kind meer groente of fruit eet, geef dan meer. Snijd het wel even in stukjes, dan hebben ze niet door dat ze er veel van eten.
 

Impulsive snacking at the checkout counter: nudging consumers towards healthier 'grab-and-go'-snacks

Candy aisle near checkout 

Tempting snacks placed right near the checkout counter can be hard to resist. Even though you know buying one is not in your best interest, they catch attention. These high-profit 'grap-and-go' snacks are particularly hard to ignore at the end of a shopping trip after making dozens of decisions. Even at my local shoe store, they tried to tempt me in buying candy (see picture).

In our recent paper published in BMC Public Health, we (that is Hans van Trijp, Kai Otten and myself) report two nudging studies on whether assortment structure and accessibility of healthier snacks influences consumer choices. The idea was that providing a larger assortment of healthier snacks and putting them on top of shelves makes these snacks more salient, attractive and convenient, leading hopefully to higher sales.

To test this idea, we first carried out a study among students in which we asked them to make a hypothetical choice from a shelf displayed at their computer screen. The results of this study showed that when the majority of snacks is healthy, students were are more likely to choose such a snack. Although this may seem obvious, they were equally satisfied with their choice and did not feel restricted.

However, lab studies do not always provide reliable predictions about how people behave in real-life. Therefore, we conducted a  field experiment in hospital 'De Gelderse Vallei'. We now put an actual snack shelf near the checkout of the staff canteen. Each week, an alternative snack assortment was on display. The assortment included either 25% or 75% healthy snacks. We also altered their place on the shelf (either on the higher shelves or the lower shelves). On completion of the study, we also conducted a brief survey among employees.

When 75% of the assortment consisted of healthy snacks, sales of healthy snacks were higher. In contrast to our expectations, putting healthy snacks at the most convenient (top) shelf space did not impact consumer choices and sales. It could be that our manipulation was not strong enough (see picture). Interestingly, the majority of surveyed employees did not notice assortment changes. When asked, however, they preferred the shelf displays including the larger variety of healthy snacks.

Overall, these studies show the size of a healthy assortment of snacks matters. A relative large assortment of healthy snacks is able to influence consumer choices. However, we do not know whether this intervention really leads to better snacking habits at the longer term. Moreover, these types of interventions are typically more successful in canteens than those in restaurants and grocery stores, where financial interests are at stake.  


While not all nudges are effective (see for example our nudging study among children), this nudge might be worth to give a try. Without forbidding any foods, a larger assortment of healthy snacks may catch consumer attention and even seduce them to purchase. 


Nudging paper in BMC Public Health: Healthy snacking at the checkout counter: a lab and field study 


van Kleef E, Otten K, & van Trijp HC (2012). Healthy snacks at the checkout counter: A lab and field study on the impact of shelf arrangement and assortment structure on consumer choices. BMC public health, 12 (1) PMID: 23231863

Just a bite or the full portion size? Dramatically smaller snack portion sizes satisfy hunger and cravings

A key reason we are getting overweight is because we eat too large portion sizes of food. But is this overeating giving us more satisfaction? Could eating smaller portions be similarly effective in decreasing food cravings or feelings of hunger as larger portions? That was the key question in the study that I conducted with Mitsuru Shimizu and Brian Wansink while visiting the Food and Brand lab. The paper is now published in Food Quality and Preference (see also full-text paper).



We presented 104 participants with either a small portion of three commonly craved snacks - chocolate, potato chips and apple pie - or substantial larger portions of the same snacks. For example, the small portion of chocolate was 10 grams, while the large portion was 100 grams. Feelings of hunger and craving were assessed just before participants started with the taste test, immediately after the taste test and about 15 minutes later. Secretly, we also measured how much participants ate.

Results show that although providing larger food portions increased snack calorie intake by 77% (103 calories), after 15 minutes, they do not reduce hunger or cravings any more than smaller portions. In other words, after 15 minutes, when all food was out of sight, everyone was equally happy.

A typical snack in the US contains about 264 calories (see Piernas and Popkin, 2010). This amount closely resembles the total calories consumed in the large portion size condition in our study (about 237 calories). Nevertheless, although participants in the small portion size condition ate considerably less (about 134 calories, which is about 51% of what people typically snack), they were equally tempted by the snacks. This shows that whereas large portions tend to increase food intake, smaller portions may make you equally satisfied. 

Going for the large portion size of their favourite food

How to stop eating when you are craving a food? One way is to make sure that there is less food in front of you in the first place. That is not simple. Large food portions are common in supermarkets, restaurants and even at home. Portion sizes of many foods have increased during the last decades and we are getting used to it. For example, snack foods and beverages are offered in increasingly large packages. Although many consumers find 'value for money' important, it would be better to stop the emphasis of getting more food for you money. Smaller portion sizes can help you limit the amount of food you eat.

sciseekclaimtoken-50250596151f0

Wanting to eat healthier, but little healthy foods sold at McDonalds

Most fast food restaurants do not share their sales data of healthy foods, but that did not stop Lyndall Wellard and colleagues to find out how many healthy items are actually sold at the biggest fast food chain in the world. They observed what people bought at 20 McDonalds restaurants in Australia. Of the 1449 meal purchases observed, only 1% could be considered healthy, 65% were unhealthy and 34% were take-away (so impossible to determine whether food is healthy or not).

Only 1% of all meals eaten in the restaurant! That is not much... Why would you sell healthy foods in a restaurant when hardly anyone is buying it? As a service to the 1% die-hard dieters who really do not want burgers and fries? Or to create a healthier image which may lead to higher overall sales?

According to a survey among Americans, 47% said they wanted restaurants to offer healthier items like salads. Even 23% said they tend to order those foods. Apparently many consumers like to have these items on the menu. Maybe as a license to indulge? Research of Wilcox and colleagues already showed that adding a salad or fruit to the menu makes you more likely to order fries. And to make it worse: consumers also tend to believe that adding a healthy item to a meal magically decreases the number of calories of the total meal.

In my previous blog post, I discussed the essay of Marion Nestle and David Stuckler on the influence of large food companies on public health. They are right, healthier foods are inherently less profitable. At least when eating out, most consumers seem to just want to indulge (without feeling too guilty).

Dealing with Big Food: Slow public health response to large food companies' influence

Recently, the world population exceeded 7 billion people. One billion of them is hungry, while at the same time two billion are overweight. This shows we have a huge problem in meeting people's dietary needs. As what people eat is increasingly determined by a few multinational food and beverage companies, this month a new series of articles on the influence of these companies ('Big Food') will appear in PLOS Medicine Magazine. Highly recommendable!

David Stuckler and Marion Nestle start off with their essay on Big Food's problematic influence on the global food system. The authors cite research that shows that the ten largest food companies control over half of all food sales in the United States. Unfortunately, what they successfully sell consists primarily of processed foods enriched in sugar, salt and fat. Frequent consumption of these foods is associated with excess weight and chronic diseases.

The decades-long fight against tobacco has provided us with insights on typical tactics used by industry to undermine public health measures such as taxation and regulation, they state. Basically, that is because food companies aim to maximize profits and not health. They do not like interventions that threaten their profits.

Public health professionals are slow in responding to the threat of Big Food and the authors therefore urge for more strong and conscious choices about how to deal with Big Food's influence. Dealing with the food industry involves more than partnering or waiting for self-regulatory initiatives. It requires a critical approach, recognizing the conflicts of interests that play a key role.

Stuckler and Nestle conclude by stating 'without taking direct and concerted action to expose and regulate the vested interests of Big Food, epidemics of poverty, hunger, and obesity are likely to become more acute'.  A strong plea for action...

Satiety enhancing food development: State of the art in the field of nutrition, food technology, consumer, marketing and technology

Developing foods that keep you feel full for longer is not a matter of simply adding extra fibers, water or air to a food. For many people, the signs of fullness that their body is giving them after eating are easily overridden by the temptations in our environment that trigger to continue eating. Think of the high visibility of delicious foods and large, convenient portion sizes. They all have substantial influence on the amount of food we eat and the resulting satisfaction.

Satiety is a complex interaction of physiological, social and psychological mechanisms.

Food providing enhanced satiety will have to function in the life of people surrounded by cues that stimulate excessive eating. This requires an integrated approach between various food-related disciplines.

This month, our new paper has been published: 'Successful development of satiety enhancing food products: Towards a multidisciplinary agenda of research challenges'. The paper presents the state of the art and key research challenges around satiety enhancings foods in the field of nutrition, food technology, consumer, marketing and communication.

My co-authors are Hans van Trijp, Joost van den borne and Charon Zondervan. Just click on the Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition-paper below to read it full-text.

 

'Would you like to downsize your dish?' - An easy strategy to nudge consumers towards more sensible portion sizes

New nudging papers keep on appearing in the literature. I just read a very interesting nudge experiment conducted by Janet Schwartz, Jason Riis, Brian Elbel and Dan Ariely. It is inspired by the sentence 'Do you want to supersize your order?’ that you could have heard at McDonalds before negative publicity (including the movie ‘Supersize me’) made an end to this practice. Such a verbal prompt, however, is still being used at station kiosks (‘Do you want something to eat with your coffee?’) and some other shops.

The basic idea behind their experiment is to simply ask consumers at a fast food restaurant if they would like to downsize their side dish (with and without a small incentive). Usually, less than 1% of the customers at fast food restaurants request a smaller portion size. The intervention was successful: between 13 and 44% of the consumer accepted the offer, regardless of whether they were also offered a discount of 25 cents.The authors also compared this intervention with a calorie labelling intervention and showed that only the offer to downsize had a signficant effect on the number of calories consumers ate.

This example of verbal encouragement can give consumers just that little push to make a different choice and exercise self-control. Consumers are likely to give in to such little pushes because they implicitly think that saying ‘yes’ is an appropriate response. When you ask people for an active response (always respond verbally or in writing) they are more likely to respond positively than when you ask for a passive response (only respond in case of yes).

Do increased serving bowl sizes influence how much we eat?

It is often stated that that the increasing size of food portions is a strong factor contributing to the incidence of overweight and obesity. Numerous studies have shown it again and again: larger portion sizes, serving devices and packages lead people to eat more, often without them realizing it. In particular, individual serving devices such as plates, spoons and bowl have been shown to influence food intake. However, what has not been shown is whether the most central focus of the dinner table, the main serving bowl, has a similar magnifying effect. When one is eating at home and eating out in buffet restaurants, food is often available in serving bowls from which individual portions are distributed.

This month, the paper 'Serving bowl biases the amount of food served' I wrote together with Mitsuru Shimizu and Brian Wansink came out in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. This paper reports our study in which we wanted to determine how serving bowls filled with food for many persons influence serving behaviour and consumption. We expected that the larger the size of a multiple-serving bowl, the more people will serve and consume. In the study, 68 participants were randomly assigned to a group serving pasta from a large-sized bowl (almost 7 litre capacity) or a medium-sized bowl (almost 4 litre capacity). When given a large bowl, diners served 77% more pasta compared with the diners serving from the medium-sized bowl. They ate more, even though the food was not rated tastier or otherwise notable different.


Bowl size matters, so fill your largest bowl with salad



We wondered about the reasons for our findings. It could be that more 'social' reasons inhibit an individual from taking too much food from a smaller common bowl. Perhaps people use the size of serving bowl filled with food for multiple persons as an indication of how much they can best serve themselves. It could even seem greedy to take more food from a smaller bowl.

In any case, small increases in food intake may lead to substantial additional caloric intake over a longer time period and even weight gain. Just like larger package sizes, large serving devices seem to suggest to people that large portions are appropriate to consume.

These findings again highlight the role that external cues play in food consumption and show the importance of considering serving bowl size in nutrition education. Maybe our findings can be used to turn bad habits around; just put your salad in bigger bowls.

Are you thinking too much or too little about food?

I came across a really good paper of Dan Ariely and Michael Norton about the fascinating research being done in human decision making: 'From thinking too little to thinking too much: a continuum of decision making'.

Basically, there are two approaches to thinking; on the one end of the extreme someone is thinking too much and too carefully. On the other end of the extreme someone is thinking too little; a thinking style based on intuition, heuristics and quick short cuts. Both thinking too little and too much can have negative consequences and lead to mistakes, they argue.


More ice-cream options is definitely better... 

Thinking too much makes decisions harder or leads to postponing them. They refer to the famous study of Iyengar and Lepper who showed that grocery shoppers who were offered free samples of 24 jam flavors were less likely to buy any jam at all than those shoppers who sampled only 6 flavors. This clearly shows that considering too many options made it too hard to choose one. Barry Schwartz calls this 'the paradox of choice. Why more is less' and argues that we are faced with far too many choices on a daily basis. Nevertheless, Iyengar and Lepper's study also showed that people given more options enjoy the process of choosing. That is what I recognize when looking at my daughters in an Italian gelateria. They love to take their time to make a decision, although they typically end up with the same familiar strawberry flavour.

Dieters tend to think a lot about eating, particular negative self-thoughts. Their long history of going on and off on diets and guilty thinking patterns makes them more likely to overeat when confronted with tempting foods. Clearly an example of thinking too much, with harmful consequences. That is because their thinking is too 'concretely' and too much about the struggles of the moment ('shall I take the apple or the chocolate cake?). This uses up a lot of self-control in contrast to thinking about long-term goals (such as being fit and healthy) which can enhance your self-control. This finding came out of a study of Fujita and Han in Psychological Science.

Relying on habits ('I have always done it in this way') can be harmful as well. For example, out of habit, people tend to eat the entire portion that is served to them, even when it is stale popcorn. A little bit more thought could be good in that case. In other words, you may miss out opportunities to eat healthier when you often make quick decisions out of habit.

In an interview, Norton concludes by saying: 'What we know now is that people sometimes think too much, and sometimes they think too little. But we still don't know the right amount to think for any given decision, which is a fascinating decision yet to be solved.'

Food compensation: do exercise ads change food intake?

The answer to this question is: yes, they do! Our paper 'Food compensation: do exercise ads change food intake?', based on a Food and Brand lab study with Brian Wansink and Mitsuru Shimizu has been published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. More about the results of this study can be found at a previous blog post. Essentially, fitness commercial viewers ate fewer calories, enjoyed their meal more, and considered themselves to be more active and in shape than the people who watched the control commercials.

To take advantage of the results of our study, Amanda Sides suggests cutting inspiring fitness pictures out of magazines like Shape, Yoga Journal or Runner's world and hanging them at your kitchen cupboard. Another idea is to get a few shots of yourself during your group fitness workouts and make sure you see these pictures every day. This will help you keep on the healthy track. Funny idea, I think I am going to try it myself.

By the way, the paper is published in an open access journal, which means that full-text papers are free available online with no expensive subscriptions needed for interested readers. I like that! I hope you do as well.

Flexible working arrangements – will it make us fat or skinny?

Work whenever and wherever you want. The days are over when we worked a standard 8 hours per day, from 9 till 5. Here in the Netherlands, this is the 'Week of the flexible working arrangements' (November 8 till 14), or in Dutch: ‘Het Nieuwe Werken’. 

More freedom, flexibility and responsibility. That sounds great, but what will be the influence on our eating habits? Will it make us fat or skinny? Think about it. The traditional office job is relatively structured and predictable. Coffee in the morning, lunch around noon in the canteen, and then back to work behind your desk. Compare this to flexible working conditions. Full of temptations at first sight. Work anywhere you want, at Starbucks for example. After all, Starbucks provides you with 'a great digital experience to go with your great cup of coffee'. But at the same time, they also provide you with a wide range of temptations, such as Frappucchinos, Iced Lemon Pound Cake (my favorite!) and Double Chocolate Brownies. Working at home may also lead to overeating as you get easily drawn to your kitchen cabinet and fridge, filled with indulgent snacks and leftovers. And luckily there are no colleagues looking over your shoulder saying: 'Hey, again enjoying a candy bar?’  Seeing food means eating food. Visibility and convenience are the two main influencers of how much we eat. Remember the famous candy jar experiment of Brian Wansink. Brian placed candy jars full with chocolates at office workers' desks. After a month, the jar was moved six feet away. The workers ate five more candies daily (about 125 calories) when the jar was nearby. A typical example of "Mindless eating".

Fortunately, a quick look at the scientific literature paints a much more positive picture. Flexible working arrangements have a positive impact on a variety of outcomes. Diane Halpern found that employees with time-flexible work policies reported less stress and higher levels of commitment to their employer. Another study in 2007 found that if employees saw their work schedules as flexible, they were more likely to exercise, eat well and get the sleep they need. It is well-known that stress is a trigger to overeat. Too much stress undermines people's ability to control their desires and hence their body weight. In sum, good news for the 24-7 world that we live in nowadays. A better work-life balance means less stress for you, your family and your colleagues. And probably less dieting.

Our Food & Brand lab study in the USA Today!

Exciting day today! This morning I ran to the hotel lobby to get a copy of the USA Today. And why? Because our study (the one that I did with Brian Wansink and Mitsuru Shimizu at the Food and Brand lab last year) can be found at the Life section of this important newspaper.

I love the headline: 'Watch a fitness commercial and you just might eat less'. And this is what Nanci Hellmich, the journalist of the USA Today wrote:

'If you're struggling to eat less and keep your appetite under control, here's a tip: Try watching someone else exercising. People consumed less at meals after watching exercise-related commercials than they did after viewing other types of ads, a new study says. Researchers at the Cornell Food and Brand Lab in Ithaca, N.Y., recruited 125 participants and had half watch TV exercise-related ads for running shoes and fitness centers. The other half watched ads for things such as car insurance and washing machines. Then all participants were offered a buffet lunch. Findings:

• Those who saw the fitness messages ate 22% fewer calories at lunch than the others.
• Participants who viewed the exercise commercials reported feeling more active, athletic and in better shape than those in the other group.
• Those who watched the exercise messages thought the meal was healthier and liked it better than those watching the other ads.

The exercise commercials may have caused people to be more health- and body-conscious, says the study's lead author, Ellen van Kleef. She presented the results this weekend at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society in San Diego. The fitness messages reminded people of how much work it is to burn off calories, says Brian Wansink, director of the Cornell lab. "They realized that half-cup of pudding is going to mean a mile and half on the treadmill."'

One year at the Food and Brand Lab: participating in discovering the why of people's eating habits

From September 2009 till August 2010 I worked at the Food and Brand lab at Cornell University in New York. I had such a good time there! It was wonderful to be part of this action-oriented and creative group of researchers, led by Dr. Brian Wansink.

The Food and Brand lab at Cornell University is best known for the famous studies of Brian on Mindless Eating. Mindless eating refers to the research finding that people make twenty times more food decisions that they are aware of. His studies have shown that people are easily influenced by subtle cues in their environment, including food packaging, signs, names, light, color, shapes and scents, the food stocked in your kitchen cabinet and so on. Still, if you ask people, they are usually unaware of these influences on what and how much they eat.

The lab is not large, but much is possible. For example, it can be transformed into a dining room where you can secretly watch people from behind two way mirrors. The great thing is that there is always someone working on a study, so lots of food is present. Working at the Food and Brand Lab was a year full of experiments, fun ideas and food. Now I am back at the Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group of Wageningen University in the Netherlands, continuing my research in this fascinating field.