Mind Over Milkshake - Interesting Study

Cortelli

Interesting report from NPR on a recent study by a Columbia clinical psychologist (among others) on the power of the human mind and its impact on one's body's physiological responses.

Link: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/04/14/299179468/mind-over-milkshake-how-your-thoughts-fool-your-stomach?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=npr&utm_campaign=nprnews&utm_content=03032014

Study Abstract (no free full access): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=crum+ghrelin

Key excerpts from NPR report for your enjoyment:

"Labels are not just labels; they evoke a set of beliefs," says Alia Crum, a clinical psychologist who does research at the Columbia Business School in New York.

A couple of years ago, Crum found herself considering what seems like a pretty strange question. She wanted to know whether the information conveyed by a nutritional label could physically change what happens to you — "whether these labels get under the skin literally," she says, "and actually affect the body's physiological processing of the nutrients that are consumed."

[. . .]

Crum created a huge batch of French vanilla milkshake, then divided it into two batches that were labeled in two very different ways.

Half the stuff was put into bottles labeled as a low-calorie drink called Sensishake — advertised as having zero percent fat, zero added sugar and only 140 calories.

The other half was put into bottles that were labeled as containing an incredibly rich treat called Indulgence. According to the label, Indulgence had all kinds of things that wouldn't benefit your upper thighs — including enough sugar and fat to account for 620 calories. In truth, the shakes had 300 calories each.

Both before and after the people in the study drank their shakes, nurses measured their levels of a hormone called ghrelin.

[. . .]

For a long time scientists thought ghrelin levels fluctuated in response to nutrients that the ghrelin met in the stomach. So put in a big meal, ghrelin responds one way; put in a small snack and it responds another way.

But that's not what Crum found in her milkshake study.

If you believed you were drinking the indulgent shake, she says, your body responded as if you had consumed much more.

"The ghrelin levels dropped about three times more when people were consuming the indulgent shake (or thought they were consuming the indulgent shake)," she says, compared to the people who drank the sensible shake (or thought that's what they were drinking).

And the snippet that might give this thread some legs:

Does that mean the facts don't matter, that it's what we think of the facts that matters?

"I don't think I would go that far yet," Crum says. More tests need to be done, she says, to figure out exactly how much influence comes from food and mindset.

But she does think the usual metabolic model — calories in and calories out — might need some rethinking, because it doesn't account in any way for our beliefs about our food.

"Our beliefs matter in virtually every domain, in everything we do," Crum says. "How much is a mystery, but I don't think we've given enough credit to the role of our beliefs in determining our physiology, our reality. We have this very simple metabolic science: calories in, calories out."

People don't want to think that our beliefs have influence, too, she says. "But they do!"

_Zardoz_

It's impossible to know how good a study is just from an abstract. There are so many variables that can effect the bias of a study which are never mentioned in an abstract.

Cortelli

It's impossible to know how good a study is just from an abstract. There are so many variables that can effect the bias of a study which are never mentioned in an abstract.

True. But still nonetheless seems interesting. We're not talking the tracking of "feeling" sated, or anything else -- if the study is not truly FUBAR, it seems to have produced a clear difference in measured physiological response.

And FWIW, I think the whole CICO discussion at the end of the article is just link-bait / trolling -- the study only tracked ghrelin levels (not weightloss, etc.) and ghrelin is basically assumed to be a proxy for appetite (which I don't think is necessarily as clear cut as presented for this general pruposes report).

But again, I still think this is pretty darn interesting if not FUBAR.

Charlottesometimes23

I read the complete article. It's available through the Rudd Centre at Yale.

It's interesting but IMO, it's a real stretch to suggest any impact on metabolism/CICO.

A couple of things.

Their results were barely significant from a statistical perspective at p= 0.04

They didn't measure speed of consumption.

As well as the stomach and pancreas, ghrelin is also produced in the accurate nucleus (reward centre) of the hypothalamus so it makes sense that food indulgence perception could influence levels of ghrelin. However the study showed that there was no significant difference in hunger in the two groups indicating other factors apart from ghrelin that impact hunger. All it showed in my opinion, is that there was a greater hedonic value to the perceived indulgent shake, but in reality it had little effect on hunger in the long run and ghrelin levels were similar after 90 minutes in both groups. The impact on metabolic processes wasn't tested and nothing can be implied there.

Charlottesometimes23

Lol at accurate nucleus....it's arcuate nucleus....love iPad autocorrect.

Cortelli

I read the complete article. It's available through the Rudd Centre at Yale.

It's interesting but IMO, it's a real stretch to suggest any impact on metabolism/CICO.

A couple of things.

Their results were barely significant from a statistical perspective at p= 0.04

They didn't measure speed of consumption.

As well as the stomach and pancreas, ghrelin is also produced in the accurate nucleus (reward centre) of the hypothalamus so it makes sense that food indulgence perception could influence levels of ghrelin. However the study showed that there was no significant difference in hunger in the two groups indicating other factors apart from ghrelin that impact hunger. All it showed in my opinion, is that there was a greater hedonic value to the perceived indulgent shake, but in reality it had little effect on hunger in the long run and ghrelin levels were similar after 90 minutes in both groups. The impact on metabolic processes wasn't tested and nothing can be implied there.

Thanks for looking at it and sharing the details!

ndj1979

"But she does think the usual metabolic model — calories in and calories out — might need some rethinking, because it doesn't account in any way for our beliefs about our food.

"Our beliefs matter in virtually every domain, in everything we do," Crum says. "How much is a mystery, but I don't think we've given enough credit to the role of our beliefs in determining our physiology, our reality. We have this very simple metabolic science: calories in, calories out."


so if I think i am eating less but am really eating over maintenance I would still lose because I think I am eating less???? I wish …

the rest is interesting but this part sounds like malarkey to me...

rainbowxelephant

I read the complete article. It's available through the Rudd Centre at Yale.

It's interesting but IMO, it's a real stretch to suggest any impact on metabolism/CICO.

A couple of things.

Their results were barely significant from a statistical perspective at p= 0.04

They didn't measure speed of consumption.

As well as the stomach and pancreas, ghrelin is also produced in the accurate nucleus (reward centre) of the hypothalamus so it makes sense that food indulgence perception could influence levels of ghrelin. However the study showed that there was no significant difference in hunger in the two groups indicating other factors apart from ghrelin that impact hunger. All it showed in my opinion, is that there was a greater hedonic value to the perceived indulgent shake, but in reality it had little effect on hunger in the long run and ghrelin levels were similar after 90 minutes in both groups. The impact on metabolic processes wasn't tested and nothing can be implied there.

I think that it's something worth studying in-depth. A broader study with more control and fewer variables in the test groups. I am a believer in mind over matter (to a degree), however, I also agree that the results of this study were inconclusive and the study seems to have been somewhat poorly executed.

Thanks for sharing! Interesting nonetheless. I plan on studying food science and psychology, and I find this sort of thing fascinating.

rainbowxelephant

"But she does think the usual metabolic model — calories in and calories out — might need some rethinking, because it doesn't account in any way for our beliefs about our food.

"Our beliefs matter in virtually every domain, in everything we do," Crum says. "How much is a mystery, but I don't think we've given enough credit to the role of our beliefs in determining our physiology, our reality. We have this very simple metabolic science: calories in, calories out."


so if I think i am eating less but am really eating over maintenance I would still lose because I think I am eating less???? I wish …

the rest is interesting but this part sounds like malarkey to me...

Yes and no.. Comparative to the placebo effect. It sounds like hogwash in this context, but think about the fact that placebo studies have shown that in a blind study, where the patient doesn't know which group they're in, the placebo group sometimes tests as highly as the pharma group (pain medication and the like)

Cortelli

so if I think i am eating less but am really eating over maintenance I would still lose because I think I am eating less???? I wish …

the rest is interesting but this part sounds like malarkey to me...

Nah - the study didn't even track anything associated with weight. Eat over maintenance and gain weight. Full stop.

What it did track was short term levels of the hormone gherlin (which influences perceptions of hunger). As Rainbow pointed out, it is a placebo-like effect -- but it affected more than self-reported "feelings" (i.e., "these pills are great - I feel much better since you prescribed them, doctor"), it actually affected measureable hormone levels.

What I found curious was this difference in measured hormone response based on "knowing" what was being consumed. But as Charlotte pointed out, the difference may not be terribly meaningful, the study may not have sufficiently controlled for important variables, the effect appears to be short-lived, and it may be chalked up to responses from the hypothalamus. Still interesting!