Afgelopen voorjaar gaf Noraly aan 148 deelnemers een portie chips met daarbij op de verpakking gemanipuleerde informatie over het aantal calorieen in een portie en hoe lang je moet sporten om deze calorieen te verbranden. Heeft deze informatie invloed op hoeveel mensen eten en hun concrete sportplannen? Maakt het de chips juist lekkerder en het schuldgevoel na het eten groter? Lees het in de paper van Noraly hieronder!
Blog on the psychology behind self-control, food intake, exercise, weight and mindless eating
November 27, 2013
De invloed van calorie- en beweeginformatie op hoeveel je eet: Noraly Duizer's presentatie tijdens Student Research Conference
Afgelopen week had Noraly Duizer de eer om haar bachelor thesis te presenteren tijdens de Student Research Conference (SRC) te Amsterdam. Op de SRC presenteren geselecteerde studenten hun bacheloronderzoek. Hoewel Noraly niet in de prijzen viel ging haar presentatie erg goed.
November 04, 2013
The dining table should be more than just a place for eating
A study of Brian Wansink and myself as co-author was published recently. The study shows that the dining environment itself is associated with weight status. It was picked up by several newspapers, such as the Los Angeles Times ('Mealtime rituals might make a difference in obesity, researchers say') and the Daily Mail Online ('Telly tubbies: Eating dinner in front of the TV 'makes you fatter than sharing a meal with family at the table').
Read the Cornell University's Press Release:
'Beyond plate size and calorie and carbohydrate counts, the war against obesity may have a better front – the dinner table. Eating dinner with kin (and without the TV on) is linked to lower body mass, reports a Cornell behavioral economist in the journal Obesity.
Families that eat together frequently – and stay seated at the table until everyone’s finished – have children with lower weights and Body Mass Index (BMI). This is especially strong with boys. Strong, positive socialization skills that dinners foster possibly supplant the need to overeat, explain the researchers. Mothers and fathers who talk meaningfully with children about their day at the dinner table also have lower BMIs.
“The ritual of where one eats and how long one eats seems to be the largest driver,” said Brian Wansink, professor in Cornell’s Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management and director of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab. He co-authored the study with Ellen Van Kleef, assistant professor at Wagening University, the Netherlands.
“By focusing on family dining rituals, this research departs from the more food-centric approaches. Dinner starts with meal preparation, and while being involved in meal preparation was unrelated to the BMI of young boys, it was positively correlated with the index of young girls,” said Wansink.
“Family meals and their rituals might be an underappreciated battleground to fight obesity.”
The study, “Dinner Rituals that Correlate with Child and Adult BMI,” was published online in Obesity, Oct. 1, and was funded by the Cornell Food and Brand Lab.'
October 22, 2013
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.
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.
October 18, 2013
Interview Professor Paul Rozin: Why we have to change people's world if we want them to eat better
Retiring this year, but still busy doing research. Inspired by the way musical pieces often start out slow, build up and then climax, he enthusiastically talks about a new project. 'People come up with a summary judgement of how good a meal is. We are looking at the degree to which an ending is important. You put the best things at the end. People like things that rise', he explains a new study.
In December, I am invited to stay at the Centre For Advanced Studies at the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. Every year, this centre hosts three parallel research groups organized around a central theme. One theme of this year is 'The ecology of food perception'. Researchers from Norway and abroad are invited to work together for several months. Paul Rozin is also invited and I visited him during his stay. He is a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. Paul Rozin is considered to be one of the most influential researchers on human food choice and particularly known for his work on the meaning of disgust.
We talked about working with Brian Wansink ('We have similar attitudes towards things and we are both outliers'), journals' bias to only publish positive results ('That is ridiculous') and pressure to publish or follow a particular model of how to do research. 'The basis question one should ask is how much the contribution adds to understanding', he writes in his 2009 paper in Perspectives on Psychological Sciences. In this paper, Paul Rozin talks about the value of moving from top-down hypothesis testing as dominant research model in many top psychological journals to research approaches that lead to broader generalizations of interesting phenomena. ''What they do is that they find something with a set of experimental parameters and then instead of saying 'Is this real?', 'Can I change the parameters a bit and is it still there?', they go ahead, they analyse it and they go down. That is what a journal wants', he said. Exploring the large picture of a phenomenon is key according to him; 'Even in the lab, you can vary your parameters. A parameter that you think is not critical, often is in real life'.
We went on to talk about obesity ('We plateaued, I think it is because we now drink more bottled water') and interventions that could help people to eat better. When I asked his opinion on Herman and Polivy's argument that not much progress has been made so far in combatting the obesity problem and that it is probably easier to make the case that things are getting worse, he strongly agrees. 'I think they are right. They are very smart people, they worked on this for decades. I have said that but I do not know whether I said it in print. Nothing has been shown to work except maybe bariatric surgery', he said.
This may seem a pessimistic view, but Paul Rozin has clear ideas about possible solutions. He is a believer of the nudge approach: 'I do not think that we can change people. I think we have to change their world. That is what I think has happened in France. Their world is different, the way their food is presented is different. That is why they have half our obesity rates. I cannot proof that, there are too many variables. That is encouraging, that their environment is so different and they are much thinner.'
Paul Rozin, however, is not yet convinced about the long-term potential of nudging: 'There is no question that it works in the short run. What we do not know is whether nudging will work in the long run. We know that it works over a week, but we don't know whether it works over a year, because there may be compensation in various ways. Doing a year's study will involve a lot of investment. You have to get too many people to support you', he said. An interesting perspective of Professor Paul Rozin; a leading expert you should definitely continue to follow.
In December, I am invited to stay at the Centre For Advanced Studies at the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. Every year, this centre hosts three parallel research groups organized around a central theme. One theme of this year is 'The ecology of food perception'. Researchers from Norway and abroad are invited to work together for several months. Paul Rozin is also invited and I visited him during his stay. He is a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. Paul Rozin is considered to be one of the most influential researchers on human food choice and particularly known for his work on the meaning of disgust.We talked about working with Brian Wansink ('We have similar attitudes towards things and we are both outliers'), journals' bias to only publish positive results ('That is ridiculous') and pressure to publish or follow a particular model of how to do research. 'The basis question one should ask is how much the contribution adds to understanding', he writes in his 2009 paper in Perspectives on Psychological Sciences. In this paper, Paul Rozin talks about the value of moving from top-down hypothesis testing as dominant research model in many top psychological journals to research approaches that lead to broader generalizations of interesting phenomena. ''What they do is that they find something with a set of experimental parameters and then instead of saying 'Is this real?', 'Can I change the parameters a bit and is it still there?', they go ahead, they analyse it and they go down. That is what a journal wants', he said. Exploring the large picture of a phenomenon is key according to him; 'Even in the lab, you can vary your parameters. A parameter that you think is not critical, often is in real life'.
We went on to talk about obesity ('We plateaued, I think it is because we now drink more bottled water') and interventions that could help people to eat better. When I asked his opinion on Herman and Polivy's argument that not much progress has been made so far in combatting the obesity problem and that it is probably easier to make the case that things are getting worse, he strongly agrees. 'I think they are right. They are very smart people, they worked on this for decades. I have said that but I do not know whether I said it in print. Nothing has been shown to work except maybe bariatric surgery', he said.
This may seem a pessimistic view, but Paul Rozin has clear ideas about possible solutions. He is a believer of the nudge approach: 'I do not think that we can change people. I think we have to change their world. That is what I think has happened in France. Their world is different, the way their food is presented is different. That is why they have half our obesity rates. I cannot proof that, there are too many variables. That is encouraging, that their environment is so different and they are much thinner.'Paul Rozin, however, is not yet convinced about the long-term potential of nudging: 'There is no question that it works in the short run. What we do not know is whether nudging will work in the long run. We know that it works over a week, but we don't know whether it works over a year, because there may be compensation in various ways. Doing a year's study will involve a lot of investment. You have to get too many people to support you', he said. An interesting perspective of Professor Paul Rozin; a leading expert you should definitely continue to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

