1. Food Psychology: Why We Eat More Than We Think Dr. Jim Painter, PhD, R.D. University of Texas-Houston School of Public Health

2. Obesity Trends Obesity Trends Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults BRFSS, 1990 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person)

3. % of Females with BMI >30 in 2008 3

4. Are poor food choices the cause? Why are Americans gaining weight? I. Lack of exercise II. Sedentary lifestyles III. Stress/pressure IV. Advertising V. Genetic VI. Deep emotional needs, Dr Phil VII. Haven’t found the right diet Premise for today! We lose track of how much we are eating

5. Gary Foster Penn State ADA

6. What Effect Consumer Choice? 1.Portion Size 2.Shape and Size 3.Visibility 4.Food Labels 5.Visual Cues 6.Food recording

7. I. Portion size 1. Restaurants

8. Historical Glance Young & Nestle, 2003. JADA Expanding Portion Sizes in the us Marketplace. (231-234)

9. Then and Now…Bagel 20 years ago 3 in diameter 140 calories Today 350 calories

10. Then and Now…Spaghetti 20 years ago 1 C. pasta-sauce w/ 3 meatballs 500 calories Today 2 C. pasta-sauce w/3 meatballs 1,025 calories

11. Then and now…Fries 20 years ago 2.4 oz 210 calories Today 6.9 oz 610 calories

12. Then and Now…Burger 20 years ago 333 calories Today 590 calories Monster Burger 1420 calories Web video video

13. From the monster to the Riley burger

14. From Riley to more madness

15. Calorie Comparison of 7-eleven Coke-a-Cola 1515

16. Legislation on Portion Sizes: Bloomberg New York state Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling declared invalid Mr. Bloomberg's plan to prohibit restaurants, mobile food carts, delis and concessions at movie theaters, stadiums or arenas from selling sugary drinks in cups or containers larger than 16 ounces. Was to go in effect in March 2013 The Wall Street Journal. 2013. Judge Cans Soda Ban. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578354543929974394. html

17. Other Trends Nestle Toll House cookies recipe yields 60 vs. 100 when written in 1949

18. Portion size me Web video Super Size Me Documentaries

19. CBS Features Portion Size Me video

20. II. Size and Shape of Containers General Finding About Package Size... Study 1. Package Size Study 2. Portion Size Study 3. Serving Shapes Study 4. Shape Study #2

21. Package Size Increases Consumption People who pour from larger containers eat more than those pouring from small Consistent across 47 of 48 categories General Finding: Package Size Can Double Consumption Wansink, Brian (1996), “Can Package Size Accelerate Usage Volume?” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60:3 (July), 1-14.

22. Hungry for Some Stale Movie Popcorn? General Question Does portion size effect consumption? The Field Study (Chicago, IL) 2x2 Design Large vs. X-Large Popcorn (pre-weighed) Fresh vs. 10-day-old Popcorn

23. We Eat Much More from Big Containers – People eat 45-50% more from extra-large popcorn containers – They still eat 40-45% more with stale popcorn Grams Eaten 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Large Bucket Extra- Large Bucket Fresh 10 Days Old

24. Do Peripheral Cues Influence Experts with Precise Target Volumes? Do Peripheral Cues Influence Experts with Precise Target Volumes? 48 Philadelphia bartenders Given 4 tall, slender (highball) glasses or 4 short, wide (tumbler) glasses Given 4 full 1500 ml bottles and asked to pour … Split in to... Less than 5 years experience More than 5 years experience Pour gin for gin & tonic Pour rum for rum & Coke Pour vodka for vodka tonic Pour whiskey for whiskey/rocks Highball Glass Tumbler

25. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Tall Highball Glass Short Tumbler Glass oz “When in Philadelphia, Should I Ask for a Tumbler or a Highball Glass?” Bartenders poured 28% more alcohol into tumblers than highball glasses Experience doesn’t eliminate bias < 5 years 5+ years

28. III. The effect of visibility and convenience on dietary consumption Gas stations, remember when someone else pumped the gas Fast food, remember when you had to go in

29. Amount of Candy Consumption According to Condition Painter, J., Wansink, B., Hieggelki, J. (2002). How Visibility and Convenience Influence Candy Consumption. Appetite 38, 237-238. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 on deskin desk2 meters from desk # of candies consumed on desk in desk 2 meters from desk

30. Increase in Dietary Intake When Food is Visible (on desk) Compared to Invisible (in desk) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 GrapesChocolateCarrotsPretzels Percent increase

31. IV. Can Labels Change the Taste of Foods? Study 1. Descriptive Labels in the Cafeteria

32. Menu Items Used Red beans & rice Seafood filet Grilled chicken Chicken Parmesan Chocolate Pudding Zucchini cookies Traditional Cajun Red beans & rice Succulent Italian Seafood filet Tender Grilled chicken Home-style Chicken Parmesan Satin Dutch Chocolate Pudding Grandma’s Zucchini cookies

33. “Well, I know what I like” --> Maybe Not People evaluate descriptive foods as more favorable 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PlainDescriptive Taste Texture Calories

34. Results: Effects are Less Strong with Desserts Taste No Label Label Desserts Main & Side Dishes

35. Fine as North Dakota Wine Wansink, B., Payne, C. R., & North, J. (2007). Fine as north dakota wine: Sensory expectations and the intake of companion foods. Physiology & Behavior, 90(5), 712-716. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.12.010

36. V. VISUAL CUES Soup Study

37. Fifty-four participants (72% male) ½ were give a normal bowl ½ were give a refillable bowl Details were not provided about the study But bowls used in the study were different colors Subjects were guessing the purpose of the study.

38. Refillable Soup Bowls Increase Consumption, but Not Perception of Consumption 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Normal Soup Bowls Refillable Soup Bowls Calories Actual Calories Consumed Estimated Calories Consumed Wansink, B., Painter, JE., North, J. 2005. Bottomless Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence Intake. Obesity Research, 13,1, 93-100.

39. Overall Solution Self monitoring Know what you are eating Track what you are eating

40. Efficacy Self monitoring 38 subjects Sample was split into four quartiles (based on participants’ self-monitoring consistency During holiday (3 weeks) and non-holiday weeks (7 weeks). Baker and Kirschenbaum 1998, Health Psych

41. Efficacy of self monitoring

42. Efficacy Self monitoring 57 subjects Over the holiday season Intervention (adding self-monitoring) 2 weeks pre holiday During a 2-week holiday period And 2 weeks post holiday. Boutelle et al. 1999, Health Psych

43. Efficacy of self monitoring

47. Conclusion Self monitoring helps control consumption. Smaller package size decreases consumption Out of sight out of mind. Visibility influences consumption. Inconvenience decreases consumption. Food labels influence consumption. Visual cues to satiation influence consumption Food guides guide consumption.

48. Implications Monitor food intake Educate on portion size Educate on serving size Encourage clients to order smaller items avoid “super-sizing”, etc. Education-control of portion at home. Make healthy foods convenient. Use food guides.

49. Thank You!

50. THANK YOU!! This Presentation Made possible by: