Everyone – every single one of us – eats how much we eat largely because of what\u2019s around us. We overeat not because of hunger but because of family and friends, packages and plates, names and numbers, labels and lights, colors and candles, shapes and smells, distractions and distances, cupboards and containers. This list is almost as endless as it\u2019s invisible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Invisible?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Most of us are blissfully unaware of what influences how much we eat. This book focuses on dozens of studies involving thousands of people who – like most of us – believe that how much they eat is mainly determined by how hungry they are, how much they like the food, and what mood they\u2019re in. We all think we\u2019re too smart to be tricked by packages, lighting, or plates. We might acknowledge that others<\/em> could be tricked, but not us. That is what makes mindless eating so dangerous. We are almost never aware that it is happening to us. Consider the physics of French fries. The Argonne National Laboratory helped McDonald\u2019s discover how to speed up the time it took to cook French fries. A team headed by physicist Tuncer Kuzay put sensors inside the frozen French fries to best determine how to deal with the steam that was created by melting ice crystals. They then designed special frying baskets that cut 30 to 40 seconds off the frying time for each batch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We overeat because there are signals and cues around us that tell us to eat. It\u2019s simply not in our nature to pause after every bite and contemplate whether we\u2019re full. As we eat, we unknowingly – mindlessly – look for signals or cues that we\u2019ve had enough. For instance, if there\u2019s nothing remaining on the table, that\u2019s a cue that it\u2019s time to stop. If everyone else has left the table, turned off the lights, and we\u2019re sitting alone in the dark, that\u2019s another cue. For many of us, as long as there are still a few milk-soaked Froot Loops left in the bottom of the cereal bowl, there is still work to be done. It doesn\u2019t matter if we\u2019re full, and it doesn\u2019t matter if we don\u2019t even really like Froot Loops. We eat as if it is our mission to finish them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stale Popcorn and Frail Willpower<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Weighing the buckets told us that the big-bucket group ate an average of 173 more calories of popcorn. That is roughly equivalent to 21 more dips into the bucket. Clearly the quality of food is not what led them to eat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even though some of them had just had lunch, people who were given the big buckets ate an average of 53 percent more than those given medium-size buckets. Give them a lot, and they eat a lot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Does this mean we can avoid mindless eating simply by replacing large bowls with smaller bowls? That\u2019s one piece of the puzzle, but there are a lot more cues that can be engineered out of our lives. As you will see, these hidden persuaders can even take the form of a tasty description on a menu or a classy name on a wine bottle. Simply thinking <\/em>that a meal will taste good can lead you to eat more. You won\u2019t even know it happened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As Fine as North Dakota Wine<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Exact same meals, exact same wine. Different labels, different reactions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They didn\u2019t (eat the same amount & enjoy it the same). They mindlessly ate<\/em>. That is, once they were given a free glass of \u201cCalifornia\u201d wine, they said to themselves, \u201cThis is going to be good.\u201d Once they concluded it was going to be good, their experience lined up to confirm their expectations. They no longer had to stop and think about whether the food and wine were really as good as they thought. They had already decided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, the same thing happened to the diners who were given the \u201cNorth Dakota\u201d wine. Once they saw the label, they set themselves up for disappointment. ;;There was no halo; there was a shadow. And not only was the wine bad, the entire meal fell short.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even when we do <\/em>pay close attentyion we are suggestible – and even when it comes to cold, hard numbers. Take the concept of anchoring. If you ask people if there are more or less than 50 calories in an apple, most will say more. When you ask them how many, the average person will say, \u201c66.\u201d If you had instead asked if there were more or less than 150 calories in an apple, mom st would say less. When you ask them how many, the average person would say, \u201c114.\u201d People unknowingly anchor or focus on the number they first hear and let that bias them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A while back, I teamed up with two professor friends of mine – Steve Hoch and Bob Kent – to see if anchoring influences how much food we buy in grocery stores. We believed that grocery shoppers who saw numerical signs such as \u201cLimit 12 Per Person\u201d would buy much more than those who saw signs such as \u201cNo Limit Per Person.\u201d To nail down the psychology behind this, we repeated this study in different forms, using different numbers, different promotions (like \u201c2 for $2\u201d versus \u201c1 for $1\u201d), and in different supermarkets and convenience stores. By the time we finished, we knew that almost any<\/em> sign with a number promotion leads us to buy 30 to 100 percent more than we normally would.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Dieter\u2019s Dilemma<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/u><\/strong>Now for our brains. If we consciously deny ourselves something again and again, we\u2019re likely to end up craving it more and more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We lovingly leave latchkey snacks on the table for our children (and ourselves). eWe use the nice, platter-size dinner plates that we can pile with food. We heat up a slice of apple pie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But on most days we have very little idea whether we\u2019ve eaten 50 calories too much or 50 calories too little. In fact, most of us wouldn\u2019t know if we ate 200 or 300 calories more or less than the day before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the mindless margin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is, the difference between 1,900 calories and 2,000 calories is one we cannot detect, nor can we detect the difference between 2,000 and 2,100 calories. But over the course of a year, this mindless margin would either cause us to lose ten pounds or to gain ten pounds. It takes 3,500 extra calories to equal one pound. It doesn\u2019t matter if we eat these calories in one week or gradually over the entire year. They\u2019ll add up to one pound.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Mindless Margin<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the danger of creeping calories. Just 10 extra calories a day – one stick of Doublemint gum or three small Jelly Belly beans – will make you a pound more portly one year from today. Only three jelly beans a day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cOh yeah,\u201d she said, \u201cand because I gave up caffeine, I also stopped drinking Coke.\u201d She had been drinking about seix cans a week – far from a serious habit – but the 139 calories in each Coke translated into 12 pounds a year. She wasn\u2019t even aware of why she\u2019d lost weight. In her mind all she\u2019d done was cut out caffeine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a classic article in Science<\/em>, Drs. James O. Hill and John C. Peters suggested that cutting only 100 calories a day from our diets would prevent weight gain in more of the U.S. population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cutting our our favorite foods is a bad idea. Cutting down on how much<\/em> of them we eat is mindlessly do-able.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How Much Will I Lose In A Year?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If you make a change, there\u2019s an easy way to estimate how much weight you\u2019ll lose in a year. You simply divide the calories by 10. That\u2019s roughly the number of pounds you\u2019ll lose if you\u2019re otherwise in energy balance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One less 270 calorie candy bar each day = 27 fewer pounds a year<\/p>\n\n\n\n One less 140 calorie soft drink each day = 14 fewer pounds a year<\/p>\n\n\n\n One less 420 calorie bagel or donut each day = 42 fewer pounds a year<\/p>\n\n\n\n The same thing works with burning calories: walking one extra mile a day is 100 calories and 10 pounds a year. Exercise is good, but for most people it\u2019s a lot easier to give up a candy bar than walk 2.7 miles to a vending machine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reengineering Strategy #1: Think 20 Percent-More or Less<\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Five minutes after dinner, 31 percent of the people leaving an Italian restaurant couldn\u2019t even remember how much bread they ate, and 12 percent of the bread eaters denied having eaten any bread at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sometimes it even surprises us how predictable people are. If our guests had their tables continually bussed, they continually ate. Clean plate, clean table, get more, eat more. Their stomachs could not count, so the clear-table group kept eating until they thought they were full. They ate an average of seven chicken wings apiece.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The people at the bone-pile tables were less of a threat to the chicken population. After the Super Bowl was over, they had eaten an average of two fewer chicken wings per person – 28 percent less than those whose tables had been bussed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Prison Pounds Mystery<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The food served in county jails is not typically awarded any Michelin stars. In fact, complaining about the food is one of the great inmate pastimes. This is why a sheriff at one Midwestern jail was puzzled when he noticed an odd trend: the inmates, with an average sentence of six months, were mysteriously gaining 20-25 \u201cprison pounds\u201d during the course of their \u201cvisit.\u201d It wasn\u2019t because the food was great. Nor did it seem to be because they hadn\u2019t exercised or because they were lonely and bored. They generally had access to exercise facilities and to daily visitors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, upon release, no inmate blamed the food, the exercise machines, or the visitation hours for their weight gain. They blamed their jailhouse fat on the baggy orange jumpsuits they had to wear for six months. Because these orange coveralls were so loose-fitting, most of them didn\u2019t realize they had progressively gained weight – about a pound a week – until they were released and had to try and squeeze back into their own clothes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Eye It, Dish It, Eat It<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n What does seem to be the cause is that the faster we wolf down our food, the more we eat, because this combination of cues doesn\u2019t get the chance to tell us we\u2019re no longer hungry. Many research studies show that it takes up to 20 minutes for our body and brain to signal satiation, so that we realize we are full.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Think of a jogger. If she decides to jog on a treadmill until she\u2019s tired, she constantly has to ask herself, \u201cAm I tired yet, am I tired yet, am I tired yet?\u201d But if she says, \u201cI\u2019m going to jog down to the school and back,\u201d she doesn\u2019t have to constantly monitor how tired she is. She sets the target, and jogs until she\u2019s done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bottomless Soup Bowl<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n People eating out of the normal soup bowls ate about 9 ounces of soup. This is just a little less than the size of a nondiluted Campbell\u2019s soup can (10.5 ounces). They thought they had eaten about 123 calories\u2019 worth of soup, but, in fact, they had eaten 155. People eating out of the bottomless soup bowls ate and ate and ate. Most were still eating when we stopped them, 20 minutes after they began. The typical person ate around 15 ounces, but others ate more than a quart – more than a quart<\/em>. When one of these people was asked to comment on the soup, his reply was, \u201cIt\u2019s pretty good, and it\u2019s pretty filling.\u201d Sure it is. He had eaten almost three times as much as the guy sitting next to him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Surely diners realized that they ate more from the refillable bowl? Absolutely not. With a couple of exceptions, such as Mr. Quart Man, people didn\u2019t comment about feeling full. Even though they ate 73 percent more, they rated themselves the same as the others – after all, they only had about half a bowl of soup. Or so they thought. When asked how many calories of soup they ate, the 127 calories they estimate was nearly the same as that estimated by those people eating from the normal bowls. In reality, they had eaten an average of 268 calories. This was 113 calories more than their tablemates with the normal bowls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not knowing when to stop turns Thanksgiving dinners, buffets, and dim sum restaurants into diet dangers. And what if we earnestly try to guesstimate how many calories we\u2019re eating? Sorry, it still won\u2019t help much.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why French Women Don\u2019t Get Fat<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Why don\u2019t French women get fat – even though they consume cheese, baguettes, wine, pastries, and pate? As Mireille Guiliano proposed in her bestselling book, it is because they know when to stop eating. Our own research suggests that they pay more attention to internal cues, such as whether they feel full, land less attention to the external clues (like the level of soup in a bowl) that can lead us to overeat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To see if this was true, we had 282 Parisians and Chicagoans fill out questionnaires asking them how they decided it was time to stop eating a meal. Parisians reported that they usually stopped eating when they no longer felt hungry. Not our Chicagoans. They stopped when they ran out of a beverage, or when their plate was empty, or when the television show they were watching was over. Yet the heavier a person was – American or French – the more they relied on external cues to tell them when to stop eating and the less they relied on whether they felt full.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And yet the tablescape you were asked to visualize is filled with hidden persuaders. Each of the innocuous-looking items on the table – packages, dishes, glasses, and the variety of foods – can increase how much we eat by well over 20 percent. They can also be used to decrease how much we eat. Either way – up or down – the impact they have on us will be mindless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n King-Size Packages and the Power of Norms<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Americans are often shocked when they check out the typical kitchen in Europe or Asia. Where is the island in the middle, where are the rows of cabinets, the pantry, the refrigerator the size of a Subaru? The micro-size of most foreign kitchens and refrigerators would render an American home nearly unsellable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The danger of our huge American kitchens is that they give us lots of space to fill up with huge American packages. We can buy bigger boxes of pasta, restaurant-size jars of spaghetti sauce, and chunker packages of ground beef. Some of us even buy an extra refrigerator or deep freezer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We\u2019ve done dozens of similar studies with dozens of different foods. With spaghetti, for instance, we found that the people who were given the large package of pasta, sauce, and meat typically prepared 23 percent more – around 150 extra calories – than those given the medium packages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Did they eat it all? Yes. We find over and over that if people serve themselves, they tend to eat most – 92 percent – of what they serve. For many of the breakfast, lunch, and dinner foods we have studied, the result is about the same – people eat 20 to 25 percent more on average from the larger packages. For snack foods, it\u2019s even worse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The results were dramatic. Those who were given a half-pound bag ate an average of 71 M&M\u2019s. Those who were given the one-pound bag l;ate an average of 137 M&M\u2019s, almost twice as many – 264 calories more. Sure, a person saves some money by buying the big bag, but if he decides to watch a hundred videos in the next year, it will also cost him nine pounds of extra weight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bottom line: We all consume more from big packages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As all of our studies suggest, we can eat about 20 percent more or 20 percent less without really being aware of it. Because of this, we look for cues and signals that tell us how much to eat. One of these signals is the size of the package. When we bring a big package into our kitchen, we think it\u2019s typical, normal, and appropriate to mix and to serve more than if the package were smaller.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Drinking Glass Illusions<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n You may remember the Horizontal-Vertical illusion from a brain-teasers book you had as a kid. This common illusion looks like an upside-down capital \u201cT.\u201d The horizontal and vertical lines are exactly the same length, but virtually everyone thinks the vertical line is longer: 18 to 20 percent longer, on average.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Horizontal-Vertical Illusion: Which Line is Longer?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Our brains have a basic tendency to overfocus on the height of objects at the expense of their width. Take the Gateway Arch in St. Louis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The arch is America\u2019s tallest man-made monument. It is also exactly the same height as width – 630 feet tall and 630 feet wide. Despite this, none of the 11,000 tourists who visit the arch on an average day says, \u201cWow\u2026 look how wide it is.\u201d No way, we all stare at the height.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The campers who\u2019d been given the tall, thin glasses poured about 5.5 ounces. But for those campers given the short, wide glasses, it was a different story. They poured an average of 9.6 ounces – 74 percent more than their tall-glass buddies. The real surprise: They estimated that they had poured only 7 ounces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even though they were older and wiser, they still got fatter if they used the short glasses. The people given a short, wide glass poured an average of 19 percent more juice or soft drink than those given the tall, thin glass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What happened? Those who were given the tall, skinny glasses were almost exactly on target. They poured 1.6 ounces. Those who had been given the short, fat glasses were a different story. Even though they had poured drinks for over five years, and even though they always poured the same amount, they poured an average of 2.1 ounces: 37 percent more than their target. We even asked an additional 41 bartenders to \u201cPlease take your time when pouring.\u201d They still overpoured. So much for experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After seeing that even expert pourers get fooled, most of us from the Lab replaced the short, wide juice glasses in our kitchens and kept the taller ones. One of our researchers even replaced his large, wide re-wine glasses with smaller, slender glasses intended for white wine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big Plates, Big Spoons, Big Servings<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Essentially, we use background objects as a benchmark for estimating size. For instance, if we set a photo of a six-foot man standing next to a tricycle, we think he is taller than if he were shown next to a cement truck.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now translate this to the tablescape. If you spoon four ounces of mashed potatoes onto a 12-inch plate, it will look like a lot less than if you had spooned it onto an 8-inch plate. Even if you intended to limit your portion size, the larger plate would likely influence you to serve more. And since we all tend to finish what we serve ourselves, we would probably end up eating it all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n None of that mattered. Those who were given the huge bowls dished out huge amounts. In fact, they dished about 31 percent more – 127 more calories\u2019 worth of ice cream. It only makes things worse if you give them a big scoop. People with a large bowl and a three-ounce scoop dished out 57 percent more ice cream than those given a smaller bowl and smaller scoop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big dishes and big spoons are big trouble. As the size of our dishes increases, so does the amount we scoop onto them. They cause us to serve ourselves more because they make the food look so small.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Super Bowl Intelligentsia<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n What did our size-bias experts do? The students who served themselves from the gallon bowls took 53 percent more Chex Mix than those serving themselves from half-gallon bowls. An hour later we cleared away their plates, which had identification codes on the bottom. Not only did those who served themselves from the large bowls take 53 percent more, they also ate more (59 percent more).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the end, setting the table with the wrong dinner plates or serving bowls – the big ones – sets the stage for overeating. And there are heavyweight consequences, especially when you\u2019re sitting in front of a wide variety of food.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Temptation of Variety<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Increasing the variety of a food increases how much everyone eats. To demonstrate this, Dr. Barbara Rolls\u2019 team at Penn State has showed that if people are offered an assortment with three different flavors of yogurt, they\u2019re likely to consume an average of 23 percent more than if offered only one flavor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sensory specific satiety also affects our taste buds. The first bit of anything is almost always the best. The second a little less, the third less again. At some point, we\u2019re tired of the yogurt or cake. But if we add two more types of yogurt, or if we add ice cream to the cake, our taste buds are back to the races.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is why we eat more when there is variety. It\u2019s a simple idea, but it has a lot of implications. If you\u2019re trying to control your weight, one obvious implication is not to eat every meal at the Kung Pao Garden\u2019s 2,000-item buffet. You can also stop thinking that every meal should consist of four or five different foods. And what about the reception or party where you\u2019re tempted with dozens of merciless morself? A smart strategy is never to have more than two items on your plate at any one time. You can go back if you\u2019re still hungry, but the lack of variety slows you down, and you end up eating less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The other half of the moviegoers were offered the same six flavors of jelly beans, but instead of being neatly organized by color, they were all mixed together. Who do you think took more, the person eating from the organized tray or the person eating from the disorganized tray? The grad students faced with the organized tray took about 12 jelly beans and headed off to enjoy the movie. But those people presented with the disorganized assortment took an average of 23 jelly beans, nearly twice as many. In both cases, the number and flavors of jelly beans are identical, yet mixing them up nearly doubles how many a person takes and eats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most people know that all M&M\u2019s taste alike. The color is just added to the coating. There\u2019s no way they should eat different amounts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But they do. The person with 10 colors will eat 43 dmore M&M\u2019s (99 versus 56) than his friend with 7 colors. He does so because he thinks there\u2019s more variety, which increases how much he thinks he\u2019ll like the M&M\u2019s and how much he thinks is normal to eat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instead of having three really large bowls of chips, peanuts, and candy, these shrewd, cost-conscious hosts and hostesses might put the chips in four small bowls, the peanuts in four small bowls, and the candy in four small bowls. It makes people think there\u2019s a lot more food – and a lot more variety. Exact same variety, but very different perceptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At which party is the average person likely to eat more – the 12-bowl party or the 3-bowl party? Even though the amount of food was the same, putting the food in 12 bowls increased how much people ate by 18 percent. When we asked our guests to rate the variety, sure enough, they gave higher scores to the party with 12 bowls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reengineering Strategy #3: Be Your Own Tablescaper<\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u201cSee-Food\u201d Trap<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Secretaries who had been given candies in clear desktop dishes were caught with their hand in the candy dish 71 percent more often (7.7 versus 4.6 times) as those given white dishes. Every day that dish was on their desk they ate 77 more calories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why does this happen? We eat more of these visible \u201csee-foods\u201d because we think about them more. Every time we see the candy jar we have to decide whether we want a Hershey\u2019s Kiss; or whether we don\u2019t. Every time we see it, we have to say no to something that is tasty and tempting. If we see that temptress of a candy jar every five minutes, it means needing to say no 12 times the first hour, 12 times the second hour, and so on. Eventually some of those no\u2019s turn into yes\u2019s. Usually in the form of, \u201cWell, okay, just this once\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Out of sight, out of mind. In sight, in mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Simply thinking of food can make you hungry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When we hear, see, or smell something we associate with food, like a shiny foil-wrapped piece of milk chocolate. Even though we haven\u2019t touched the chocolate, our pancreas may begin to secrete insulin, a chemical used to metabolize the upcoming sugar rush we\u2019re planning. This insulin lowers our blood sugar level, which makes us feel hungry. While drooling has never hurt anyone, the more actively you salivate, the more likely you are to be impulsive and to overeat. Studies have even shown that the more we like the food the faster we\u2019ll chew and swallow it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Take two guys in side-by-side cubicles – Will and George – and two dozen stale donuts in the mail room. George saw the donuts when he first got to work and has been thinking about them all morning. Every five minutes he thinks of them, and every five minutes he says no. Eventually, however, the no\u2019s are more difficult, so he gets up from h is desk to go get a donut. Will, on the other hand, doesn\u2019t know the donuts are there, but he decides to go down and pick up his mail. Both arrive there at the same time. Who will eat more?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The more you think of something, the more of it you\u2019ll eat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u201cHide the See-Food\u201d Diet<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Make healthy foods easy to see, and less healthy foods hard to see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I am invariably hungry when I come home at the end of the day. For the longest time, I would enter the house through a door that led me through the kitchen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The solution? He changed his route and came in the front door instead of the back door.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The more hassle it is to eat, the less we eat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Inconvenient foods that take a lot of effort to obtain and prepare seem to have an even greater influence on people who are obese.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By now you can predict what happened. The typical secretary ate about nine chocolates a day if they were sitting on her desk staring right at her. That\u2019s about 225 extra calories a day. If she had to go to the effort of opening the desk drawer, she did so only six times a day. If she had to get up and walk six feet to get chocolate, she ate only four. In the same way that it\u2019s not worth the effort for an Eskimo to locate and overeat mangos, it\u2019s not always worth the effort for us to walk six feet for a chocolate. The basic principle is convenience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, something else might be going on here, as well. When we talked to the secretaries after the study, many of them mentioned having six feet between them and the candy gave them enough time to think twice whether they really wanted it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Take the Chinese Buffet Chopstick Test<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Eating with chopsticks can be a hassle. People eat slower and eat less per bite. This is why dieters are often told to eat with chopsticks. So who do you suppose is more likely to use a fork when eating in a Chinese resturaunt – a normal-weight person or an obese person?<\/p>\n\n\n\n We decided to find out. We observed 100 normal-weight diners and 1020 obese diners at Chinese buffets in California, Minnesota, and New York, and we noted whether they were eating with chopsticks or silverware.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our of 33 people eating with chopsticks, 26 were normal weight and only 7 were obese.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Take the Chinese Buffet Chopstick test. Next time you find yourself at a Chinese restaurant, check out who\u2019s eating with the chopsticks and who has a fork in their hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cafeteria studies show this in a way that does not involve rats (we hope). In a cafeteria, as in our home, the convenience of food pretty much determines whether we will eat it or not. If people have to go to a separate lunch line to pay for candy and potato chips, they buy less. If the salad bar is farther away from the table, they will eat less salad. That\u2019s not surprising.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The power of convenience even applies to milk and water. In the military, dehydration can have deadly results. Studies are continually being done to determine how to increase fluid intake. In one mess-hall study, soldiers drank almost twice as much water (81 percent more) when water pitchers were put on each dining table than when they were put on a side table. They drank 42 percent more milk when the milk machine was 12 feet away than when it was 25 feet away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Curse of the Warehouse Club<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Now take those multi-pack containers. Having 48 packages of almost anything in your house affects consumption in two ways. The first is what we call \u201cthe salience principle\u201d – these 48 packages tend to get in the way. You seem to see them everywhere, they fall out of the cupboard when you open it, they pile up on the counter, and they hide other foods. As a result of their salience, you end up eating them much more frequently than you normally would, particularly if the food is convenient to eat. There they are\u2026 every time you want a snack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second reason we eat these foods so fast brings us back to the idea of \u201cnorms.\u201d Suppose you usually have two or three boxes of breakfast cereal in your cupboard. If you find yourself with only one box, it\u2019s a signal you need to buy more. But if one day you find yourself with twelve boxes, you will tend to eat them up so the \u201cright\u201d number will be in your cupboard, and so you\u2019ll have room for other foods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Get a Better Deal from Your Wholesale Club<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Reengineering Strategy #4: Make Overeating a Hassle, Not a Habit<\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, a better idea yet is to not bring impulse foods in the house to begin with. Eat before you shop, use a list, and stick to the perimeter of the store. That\u2019s where the fresh foods hang out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When we eat, we often follow eating scripts<\/em>. We encounter some food situations so frequently that we develop automatic patterns or habitual behaviors to navigate them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Family, Friends, and Fat<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n We forget whether we ate two bread rolls or three, or whether we had seconds or thirds of the pasta. We\u2019re so involved with our friends or family, that the whole idea of monitoring what\u2019s going into our mouths is strange. We know we ate, but we don\u2019t know how much.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rescripting Your Dinner<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On average, if you eat with one other person, you\u2019ll eat about 35 percent more than you otherwise would. If you eat with a group of seven or more, you\u2019ll eat nearly twice as much – 96 percent more – than you would if you were eating alone at the Thanksgiving card table in the other room.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Birds of a feather eat together. This may be one contributing reason why couples and families tend to be similar sizes. That is, some families are skinny and some families are not. If there\u2019s a majority of overweight people in a family, the frequency, quantity, and time spent eating puts more pressure on a person who\u2019s trying to lose weight. Weight can be inherited, but it can also be contagious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All-You-Can-Eat Television<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s about as close to an established fact as things get in the social sciences: People who watch a lot of TV are more likely to be overweight than people who don\u2019t. The less TV people watch, the skinnier they are. It doesn\u2019t matter if they\u2019re 14 or 44. It doesn\u2019t matter if they watch network TV, cable TV, the Food Network, or the NASCAR network. As TV viewing goes up, weight goes up, and there are good reasons why.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Slow Italian and Fast Chinese<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Owners, waiters, diners, lend me your ears. With pleasant, slow, semi-familiar music playing in the restaurant, diners stuck around 11 minutes longer (56 minutes total) than did diners on the fast-music nights. While they did not spend more money on food, the average slow-music table spent over $30 on drinks, far more than the $21.62 spent by the fast-music group. What was the soft music worth? An extra 41 percent in drink revenues per table.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even though most people were on their lunch break and needed to return to work, those in the relaxing atmosphere lingered and ate for 11 minutes longer than those in the main eating area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Restaurant Rules: Enjoy More and Eat Less<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Follow Your Nose<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Successful marketing is about positive associations and memory, and smell is hardwired to memory. Cinnabon has this nailed. Cinnabon stores are positioned besides stores that don\u2019t sell food, so there\u2019s no smell competition. As a result, you can walk through the mall feeling perfectly fine, but once you catch that first whiff of Cinnabon goodness wafting through the air, you\u2019re hooked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Smell is big business. There are companies that exist solely because they can infuse (the word they oddly use is \u201cimpregnate\u201d) odors into plastics. This is because odor can\u2019t reliable be infused into food. Sometimes it doesn\u2019t last; at other times it changes the shelf stability of the food itself. But if you infuse the odor into packaging, it\u2019s a different story. Some day you might heat up your frozen microwavable apple pie and smell the rich apple pie aroma. Even if it\u2019s the container that you\u2019re smelling, you\u2019re primed to enjoy that apple pie even before you put your fork in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What we found was that smell made a big difference. Adding a nice cinnamon-and-raisin smell to our plain tasting oatmeal led people to eat more. Adding an inconsistent odor – macaroni and cheese – got them to eat notably less. Even though it didn\u2019t change the taste of their food, the sensory confusion put a real damper on their appetite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The power of smell-appetite connection has not been lost on the supermodel world. If a smell can help make you feel full or sated or satisfied, it can also be used to curb cravings until they pass. It\u2019s not uncommon for supermodels to buy a candy bar, take a bite, chew it, and spit it out. Some even keep the wrapper, so they can smell it for a fix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Check the Weather Forecast<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n dIn the middle of a cold January night, we need more energy to warm and maintain our core body temperature, so our body tells us to eat more, and it even speeds up our digestion so we\u2019ll feel hungry sooner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reengineering Strategy #5: Create Distraction-Free Eating Scripts<\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Eating in the Dark<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Then we turned out the lights in the lab.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And we did not give them strawberry yogurt. We gave them chocolate yogurt. It didn\u2019t seem to matter very much. The mere suggestion that they were eating strawberry yogurt led 19 to 32 people to rate it has having a good strawberry taste. One even said that the strawberry yogurt was her favorite yogurt and this would be her new favorite brand. Soldiers, just like us, use all sorts of cues or signals to help taste food. One of these is our eyesight. If it doesn\u2019t look like strawberry, it doesn\u2019t taste like strawberry. But another important cue is the name of the food. If we can\u2019t see the food, and someone tells us we\u2019re going to taste strawberry, we taste strawberry, even if it\u2019s really chocolate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A rose may be a rose by any other name. But this isn\u2019t true with food. Except in extreme cases, we taste what we think we will taste.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Menu Magic<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet if these menu names and descriptions seem so ridiculous out of context, why are they so common?<\/p>\n\n\n\n They are common because they work<\/em>. They work in two ways. First, they entice us to buy the food. Second, they lead us to expect it will taste good, which pretty much pre-programs our taste buds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consider two pieces of day-old chocolate cake. If one is named \u201cchocolate cake,\u201d and the other is named \u201cBelgian Black Forest Double Chocolate Cake,\u201d people will buy the second. That\u2019s no surprise. What\u2019s more interesting is that after trying it, people will rate it as tasting better than an identical piece of \u201cplain old cake.\u201d It doesn\u2019t even matter that the Black Forest is not in Belgium.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Margin note: Kid Schools<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Back to the Bevier Cafeteria. Cafeteria food, like school hot lunches, has its share of image problems. This particular cafeteria was trying to enhance its image while also encouraging people to buy more of their vegetable side dishes and healthier foods. How could this be done? By changing the names of the foods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We took six different foods – vegetables, main dishes, and low-fat desserts – and offered them on different days. Sometimes they had their boring, basic name and sometimes they had a slightly more descriptive name. Every day for six weeks we rotated these foods on and off the menu so no one would become suspicious. One day Red Beans and Rice would be offered, and two weeks later it would reappear as Traditional Cajun<\/em> Red Beans with Rice. One week you could buy the Succulent Italian <\/em>Seafood Filet for $2.90; the next week the Seafood Filet was available at the same price. Exact same food; slightly different names.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anybody who bought one of the six foods – either labeled or unlabeled – was discreetly observed while they ate. When they were close to being finished, they were given a half-page survey that asked them to rate the food and the cafeteria. There were a number of interesting discoveries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, the foods with descriptive names sold 27 percent more. And even though they were priced exactly the same, the customers who ate them consistently rated them at a better value than did the people who ate the same dishes with the boring old names.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But what about the taste? A nice name might lead to raving expectations, abut can\u2019t it also lead to a backlash? \u201cSucculent Italian Seafood Filey\u2026 no way, this tastes more like a dry fishstick!\u201d After all, truth be told, the food was nothing special.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not so. The foods with descriptive names were rated as more appealing and tastier than the identical foods with the less attractive labels. Furthermore, when asked what they thought about the foods, the diners eating the descriptive foods tended to claim that they were \u201cfantastic\u201d or \u201cgreat recipes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Margin note: Take to school board<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet something else was found that was of particular interest to the cafeteria. The customers who ate the food with descriptive names had more favorable attitudes toward the cafeteria as a whole. Some commented that it was trendy and up-to-date. Others thought the chef was probably classically trained, perhaps in Europe. Again, the foods were exactly alike. The only difference was the addition of one or two descriptive words. These one or two words changed sales, tastses, and attitudes toward the restaurant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do Sweetbreads Taste Like Coffeecake?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Still other perceptions were based on non-soy-related events. A number of people mentioned that whenever they heard the word \u201csoy,\u201d they thought of a 1973 Charlton Heston movie – the guilty-pleasure classic Soylent Green<\/em>. In this futuristic world, the only food source is a mysterious green substance called \u201csoylent green.\u201d In the closing moments of the movie, Charlton Heston discovers that the source of soylent green is reconstituted humans. He stretches his arms skyward, falls to his knees, and bellows, \u201cSoylent green is peeeoople.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thirty years ago, almost none of us would\u2019ve eaten something called an \u201cunflavored bioactive dairy-based culture.\u201d But if we stirred in some fruit, sugar, flavoring, innovation, and marketing, our tastes would change. In fact, a silky lemon yogurt sounds pretty good right now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reengineering Strategy #6: Create Expectations That Make You a Better Cook<\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Comfort Foods and Comfort Moods<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Moods, however, do seem to influence what <\/em>we choose to eat. People in happy moods tended to prefer healthier foods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If we want to repair a bad mood, a quick (but temporary) way to do it might be to eat something indulgent that tastes great and gives us that bump of euphoria. It\u2019s different when we\u2019re in a good mood. If we want to maintain or extend that happy feeling, we can do so by eating a food that scores higher on nutrition and lower on guilt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do You Save the Best for Last?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n At dinnertime do you eat your favorite foods first or do you tend to save the best for last? The world is divided in half on this issue. We discovered why, but quite accidentally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When we looked again at the questionnaires they had completed, we discovered that people who ate the best one first often shared one of two characteristics: they either grew up as a youngest child or came from large families.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The people most likely to save the best for last, on the other hand, had grown up as an only child or as the oldest. They could afford to save their favorite foods as a reward knowing it would still be waiting for them at the end of the meal. It\u2019s different for children in big families, particularly if they\u2019re not the oldest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the end, our childhood eating habits can follow us for years. If a child becomes conditioned to eat their favorite foods first, they might develop the long-term eating habit of filling up on the high-calorie goodies at the expense of the healthier salads, fruits, and vegetables. That is a recipe for obesity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reengineering Strategy #7: Make Comfort Foods More Comforting<\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Just like the Chinese graduate student who developed American comfort-food favorites in her 20s, we can rewire our comfort foods. The key is to start pairing healthier foods with positive events. Instead of celebrating a personal victory or defeat with the \u201cdeath by chocolate\u201d ice cream sundae, try a smaller bowl of ice cream with fresh strawberries. It\u2019s not a big sacrifice, and before long it will start to inch up your \u201cfavorites\u201d list.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you struggle with your own food heritage, here is where you get your second chance – as a nutritional gatekeeper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The biggest food influence in our life is the nutritional gatekeeper. This is the person in our home who does most of the food shopping and meal preparation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Nutritional Gatekeeper and the Good Cook Next Door<\/u><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In most households, decisions about what to eat for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks are determined by what foods the grocery shopper – the nutritional gatekeeper – brings into the house. Although they don\u2019t always realize it, gatekeepers powerfully shape what food gets eaten both inside and outside the home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Suppose a teenager wants to eat Pop-Tarts, but there aren\u2019t any in the cupboard? The gatekeeper has de facto decided they won\u2019t be on the menu. This poor Pop-Tart hungry teenager either has to make a special trip to the grocery store, or pressure Mom or Dad to put them at the top of the next shopping list.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They estimated that the gatekeeper controlled 72 percent of the food decisions of their children and spouse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ; All of these cooks – except one – appeared to help their families eat healthier. They did this largely through the wide variety of food they served. A varied menu makes eating more pleasurable and can lead family members to expand their tastes beyond the standard fatty, salty, sweet foods for which we have a natural hankering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Which good cook seemed to have the least positive impact on adult eating habits? Interestingly enough, it was the most common one – the giving cook. Although giving cooks put the stamp of variety on their meals, it was mostly in the form of high-carb entrees, baked goodies, and desserts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Food Inheritance – Like Mother, Like Daughter<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Escalona\u2019s accidental discovery has aged well. Watching someone grimace when eating scares elementary children away from an otherwise tasty food. Smiles and friendliness work in reverse – you can attract more children to new foods with honey than with vinegar. When a friendly adult repeatedly gave children either canned unsweetened pineapple or cashews, they quickly learned to like the new food more than when it was given to them by a less friendly adult.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Is it Baby Fat or Real Fat?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/u><\/strong>The answer partly depends on the parents. A study of 854 Washington State children under<\/p>\n\n\n\n three years old showed that a child is nearly three times as likelyi to grow up obese if one of his<\/p>\n\n\n\n parents is obese. If you\u2019re overweight, your child has a 65-75 percent chance l;of growing up to<\/p>\n\n\n\n be overweight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, is that little paunch on your fourth grader baby fat?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not if you\u2019re sporting the same paunch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Margin note: me be healthy (?) (illegible, p172)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Food Conditioning and the Popeye Project<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n My Lab tried to leverage this with a vacation Bible School group a short time ago. The children could choose what they wanted from a lunch buffet, but each day we would rename foods to give them better associations. For instance, when we renamed peas \u201cpower peas,\u201d the number of children taking them nearly doubled. The most embarrassing poetic license we took was with a V8-like vegetable juice. We ran out of it on the days we renamed it \u201cRainforest Smoothie.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Setting Serving Size Habits for Life<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Almost exactly the same thing happens to adults. We let the size of a serving influence how much we eat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is a healthy-size snack? Children tend to think that a serving size is open-ended and up for negotiation – it is pretty much whatever food is available and whatever they can weasel out of their parents. If a candy bar comes in a two-ounce package, two ounces must be the correct serving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you buy in bulk to save money, you can use the Baggie trick. Remember that none of us really seem to know the amount of a \u201ccorrect\u201d serving size. We typically look at whatever is wrapped or served and we assume that must be one serving. We can use this notion with our children by giving them their snacks not on a plate, but by putting them in a Biggie (or even in a small Tupperware container).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Like adults, children use external cues to determine whether they want more to eat. If they think more is available, they can easily think they\u2019re still hungry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reengineering Strategy #8: Crown Yourself as the Official Gatekeeper<\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n For better or for worse, the nutritional gatekeeper controls around 72 percent of what your family eats. Children eat what tastes good and what\u2019s convenient and what portion size they see as appropriate. You can use this to help create positive lifetime food patterns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u201c10-20\u201d Rule and the Ice Water Diet<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n No big deal? If you drink the recommended eight 8-ounce glasses of water a day, and if you fill those 64 ounces with ice, you\u2019ll burn an extra 70 calories a day. That\u2019s<\/em> approaching the mindless margin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n De-Marketing Obesity and De-Supersizing<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Recent surveys of all foods ordered in restaurants show that burgers, French fries, pizza, and Mexican food comprise almost 50 percent of all <\/em>food purchases. sWe order these foods five<\/em> times more frequently than we order vegetables or side salads. Burger King offers a side salad that costs less than medium fries. But as my local Burger King manager told me, the fries win out 30 to 1. It\u2019s the burgers and fries that keep people coming back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But while some of us want supersized values, others want smaller packages. We call these the \u201cPortion Prone Segment.\u201d For instance, we found that half of the loyal users of one popular snack food said they would pay 15 percent more for a new package that helped them better control how much they ate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Remember when we moved the candy dish six feet away from the secretaries and they ate half as many?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stopping points can take other forms. We showed this in one of our Lab\u2019s Red Chip studies. We took cans of Pringles (potato chips in a tube) and dyed every seventh chip red; in other cans, we dyed every fourteenth chip red; a last group of cans was left plain – no red chips. We then set up a video and invited people in to enjoy some Pringles. Those who ate from the cans where every seventh chip was red ate an average of 10. Those who ate from the cans where every fourteenth chip was red ate an average of 15 chips. Those with no red chips at 23. Having something, almost anything, to interrupt our eating gives us the chance to decide if we want to continue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 21st-Century Marketing<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n I believe the 21st century will be the Century of Behavior Change. Medicine is still making fundamental discoveries that can fight disease, but changing everyday, long-term behavior is the key to adding years and quality to our lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here are two more techniques for putting these principles to work: food trade-offs and food policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Food Trade-Offs<\/strong> – Food trade-offs state, \u201cI can eat x if I do y.\u201d For example, I can eat dessert if I\u2019ve worked out; I can have chips if I don\u2019t have a morning snack; I can have movie popcorn if I have only a salad for dinner; I can have a second soft drink if I use the stairs all day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Food trade-offs are great because we don\u2019t have to deny ourselves a food we love. We just have to make a small concession in the name of good health. Food trade-offs also put us back in charge of our food decisions by raising the \u201cprice we pay\u201d for overeating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Food Policies<\/strong> – The low-carb diet was initially successful because people didn\u2019t have to make repeated decisions in the face of temptation. Many summarized the diet in one sentence: \u201cEat meat and vegetables, but nothing else.\u201d This was a food policy. No need for \u201cjust this once\u201d decision making, it was a personal rule. No exceptions.d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Food policies are great because you can personalize them to your situation. They come in many different forms: serve myself 20 percent less than I usually would; no second helpings of any styarch; never eat at my desk; only eat snacks that don\u2019t come in wrappers; no bagels on weekdays; only half-size desserts. Food policies don\u2019t involve any trade-offs, they just eliminate one or two habits that have mindlessly encroached on our lifestyle. We don\u2019t have to commit to big sacrifices, we only have to pick up the habits we can easily forgo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Power of Three<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n What three 100-calorie changes in your daily food routine would be easiest for you to turn into mindlessly positive<\/em> eating habits?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Three small changes is reasonable. If we make three small, 100-calorie changes, by the end of the year we\u2019ll be as much as 30 pounds lighter than if we didn\u2019t make them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is where the Power of Three checklist comes in. This is simply a piece of paper that has a month\u2019s worth of days across the top (1-31) ;and your three daily 100-calorie changes written down the side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defusing Your Diet Danger Zones<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/a>Chapter 1: The Mindless Margin<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
\n
<\/a>Chapter 2: The Forgotten Food<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
<\/a>Chapter 3: Surveying the Tablescape<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.mattwkane.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/Picture1-5.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a>Chapter 4: The Hidden Persuaders Around Us<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
<\/a>Chapter 5: Mindless Eating Scripts<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/a>Chapter 6: The Name Game<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a>Chapter 7: In the Mood for Comfort Food<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/a>Chapter 8: Nutritional Gatekeepers<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a>Chapter 9: Fast-Food Fever<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
<\/a>Chapter 10: Mindlessly Eating Better<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/a>Appendix B<\/h1>\n\n\n\n