Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Ghrelin levels affected by food beliefs? Veggie consumption increased with better adjectives?
AnnPT77
Posts: 34,213 Member
Science Friday radio program report on two related studies by the same researcher:
One was a small (n = 46) study in which it was found that ghrelin response to a milkshake differed depending on whether the person drinking it was told it was indulgent vs. healthy.
The other was a larger dining hall study that found veggie consumption materially increased when the veggies were labeled in more 'tantalizing' terms. (Maybe those upscale restaurants with too many adjectives on the menu are onto something ("farm-fresh, crisp carpaccio of rainbow beets . . . .")?
Link below to a summary with a link to stream the 9 minute radio story; links to the abstract for #1 and JAMA article for #2 are in the summary.
Your thoughts? I'm pretty amused - but not particularly surprised - at the conclusions. I haven't dug in enough to assess the research quality.
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/the-mindset-for-a-milkshake/
One was a small (n = 46) study in which it was found that ghrelin response to a milkshake differed depending on whether the person drinking it was told it was indulgent vs. healthy.
The other was a larger dining hall study that found veggie consumption materially increased when the veggies were labeled in more 'tantalizing' terms. (Maybe those upscale restaurants with too many adjectives on the menu are onto something ("farm-fresh, crisp carpaccio of rainbow beets . . . .")?
Link below to a summary with a link to stream the 9 minute radio story; links to the abstract for #1 and JAMA article for #2 are in the summary.
Your thoughts? I'm pretty amused - but not particularly surprised - at the conclusions. I haven't dug in enough to assess the research quality.
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/the-mindset-for-a-milkshake/
4
Replies
-
Makes sense. Placebo effects can manifest physically. The mind is powerful and can be fooled easily.2
-
Appetite is a mind game.Geocitiesuser wrote: »Makes sense. Placebo effects can manifest physically. The mind is powerful and can be fooled easily.
I have noticed this paradox so many times that I'm starting to believe this is the way it is.4 -
Haven't looked at this particular study, but this reminds me of work I saw by Brian Wansink. I wish I could lay my hands on it, but I can't find the particular study. Participants were told that the beverage they were consuming would expand within their stomachs forming a gel or something to give a feeling of fullness. They had appropriate hormonal responses even though no such thing happened. The mere belief and anticipation of fullness was enough to trigger the response.6
-
Science Friday radio program report on two related studies by the same researcher:
One was a small (n = 46) study in which it was found that ghrelin response to a milkshake differed depending on whether the person drinking it was told it was indulgent vs. healthy.
The other was a larger dining hall study that found veggie consumption materially increased when the veggies were labeled in more 'tantalizing' terms. (Maybe those upscale restaurants with too many adjectives on the menu are onto something ("farm-fresh, crisp carpaccio of rainbow beets . . . .")?
Link below to a summary with a link to stream the 9 minute radio story; links to the abstract for #1 and JAMA article for #2 are in the summary.
Your thoughts? I'm pretty amused - but not particularly surprised - at the conclusions. I haven't dug in enough to assess the research quality.
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/the-mindset-for-a-milkshake/
Amused, but not surprised at all.
This is actually why one of my pieces of advice for people who say they dislike vegetables is to try well-cooked vegetable dishes at restaurants and going to a farmer's market with new kinds of varieties of things (to them) and everyone being excited about various things coming into season, as I think those kinds of things can be helpful for some.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The mere belief and anticipation of fullness was enough to trigger the response.
Yes -- I think this may be why diet soda makes some people hungry often too, who read about it and assume it happens.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Science Friday radio program report on two related studies by the same researcher:
One was a small (n = 46) study in which it was found that ghrelin response to a milkshake differed depending on whether the person drinking it was told it was indulgent vs. healthy.
The other was a larger dining hall study that found veggie consumption materially increased when the veggies were labeled in more 'tantalizing' terms. (Maybe those upscale restaurants with too many adjectives on the menu are onto something ("farm-fresh, crisp carpaccio of rainbow beets . . . .")?
Link below to a summary with a link to stream the 9 minute radio story; links to the abstract for #1 and JAMA article for #2 are in the summary.
Your thoughts? I'm pretty amused - but not particularly surprised - at the conclusions. I haven't dug in enough to assess the research quality.
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/the-mindset-for-a-milkshake/
Amused, but not surprised at all.
This is actually why one of my pieces of advice for people who say they dislike vegetables is to try well-cooked vegetable dishes at restaurants and going to a farmer's market with new kinds of varieties of things (to them) and everyone being excited about various things coming into season, as I think those kinds of things can be helpful for some.
Yep.
I think that's why I've found eggplants to be so unusually tasty this year. I'm growing them, so am excited to pick and taste my own produce
Though, admittedly, they are much less bitter than what I usually get at the grocery and that helps.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Haven't looked at this particular study, but this reminds me of work I saw by Brian Wansink. I wish I could lay my hands on it, but I can't find the particular study. Participants were told that the beverage they were consuming would expand within their stomachs forming a gel or something to give a feeling of fullness. They had appropriate hormonal responses even though no such thing happened. The mere belief and anticipation of fullness was enough to trigger the response.lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The mere belief and anticipation of fullness was enough to trigger the response.
Yes -- I think this may be why diet soda makes some people hungry often too, who read about it and assume it happens.
These two comments above highlight the kinds of speculations that occurred to me when I heard the radio piece:
What might this imply about "sugar addiction"? About "hyperpalatable" foods (which I don't mostly find even slightly tasty, so I'm prejudiced
)?
Can these kinds of effects reach/affect insulin resistance? Food sensitivities?
Does the perception that they're "healthy" interfere with some people enjoying pretty much any vegetable, despite the very diverse flavors and textures among them?
Does ACV suppress appetite if you belieeeeeve? If so, how should we skeptics think about that?
Side story, mentioned on another thread: I gave my cousin a glass of water with red food coloring in it, and asked him what flavor it was. He said "cherry", then looked thoughtful and re-tasted, adding "maybe raspberry". He never appeared to consider that it was just water, and was mad when I told him.
Are things like "diet soda makes people hungry" true for some/many people without priming?
These are mostly rhetorical questions; I'm not expecting answers. I just find therm interesting to consider.
I knew that placebo response was strong, and could be physical. I knew that opinion biasing perception was a real thing. I hadn't really thought too much about how this might apply to food preferences and weight loss.
4 -
This reminds me of a study I'd found a while back, and had posted, which indicated that in mice, mere palatability of food was enough to stimulate weight gain, even when all the mice had consumed the same number of calories. This research was performed using a group of mice who had been bred not to taste sugar vs a normal control group, and a variety of diets that the various groups would and would not find to be delicious.
It appeared that unpalatable food did not indicate to the mice's bodies that what they consumed was worth much, and therefore not worth the effort to store as fat.1 -
The power of the mind reminded me of this show i once watched. The host lined up 10 people, they were made to pass a scolding hot rock down the line to each other. The 10th person was the only one who got a blister on their hand. We found out afterward that it was a regular cold rock, the first 9 people knew this, but the 10th person who was not told, anticipated this burning rock touching their hand would result in a burn..
Sorry, off topic, but reading this thread reminded me of that show.3 -
This reminds me of a study I'd found a while back, and had posted, which indicated that in mice, mere palatability of food was enough to stimulate weight gain, even when all the mice had consumed the same number of calories. This research was performed using a group of mice who had been bred not to taste sugar vs a normal control group, and a variety of diets that the various groups would and would not find to be delicious.
It appeared that unpalatable food did not indicate to the mice's bodies that what they consumed was worth much, and therefore not worth the effort to store as fat.
I'd want to know if they checked to be certain that the mice:
1) Chewed the palatable and unpalatable food equivalently - mouse food requires thorough chewing to extract nutrients. Food that isn't thoroughly chewed would not be equivalently digested as food that had been thoroughly chewed, which leads to ...
2) If they ate their own scat to the same degree (apologize for TMI). Mice eat their own poop to recover nutrients that weren't absorbed on the first trip through their digestive tract. If unpalatable food leads to unpalatable poop, that might also be affected.
Either 1) or 2) would explain differences in weight in mice fed equivalent calorie diets.4 -
This reminds me of a study I'd found a while back, and had posted, which indicated that in mice, mere palatability of food was enough to stimulate weight gain, even when all the mice had consumed the same number of calories. This research was performed using a group of mice who had been bred not to taste sugar vs a normal control group, and a variety of diets that the various groups would and would not find to be delicious.
It appeared that unpalatable food did not indicate to the mice's bodies that what they consumed was worth much, and therefore not worth the effort to store as fat.
I'd want to know if they checked to be certain that the mice:
1) Chewed the palatable and unpalatable food equivalently - mouse food requires thorough chewing to extract nutrients. Food that isn't thoroughly chewed would not be equivalently digested as food that had been thoroughly chewed, which leads to ...
2) If they ate their own scat to the same degree (apologize for TMI). Mice eat their own poop to recover nutrients that weren't absorbed on the first trip through their digestive tract. If unpalatable food leads to unpalatable poop, that might also be affected.
Either 1) or 2) would explain differences in weight in mice fed equivalent calorie diets.
I would also wonder if the palatability of the food would make any differences in mood and activity level of the animal, and if that was controlled for.1 -
This reminds me of a study I'd found a while back, and had posted, which indicated that in mice, mere palatability of food was enough to stimulate weight gain, even when all the mice had consumed the same number of calories. This research was performed using a group of mice who had been bred not to taste sugar vs a normal control group, and a variety of diets that the various groups would and would not find to be delicious.
It appeared that unpalatable food did not indicate to the mice's bodies that what they consumed was worth much, and therefore not worth the effort to store as fat.
I'd want to know if they checked to be certain that the mice:
1) Chewed the palatable and unpalatable food equivalently - mouse food requires thorough chewing to extract nutrients. Food that isn't thoroughly chewed would not be equivalently digested as food that had been thoroughly chewed, which leads to ...
2) If they ate their own scat to the same degree (apologize for TMI). Mice eat their own poop to recover nutrients that weren't absorbed on the first trip through their digestive tract. If unpalatable food leads to unpalatable poop, that might also be affected.
Either 1) or 2) would explain differences in weight in mice fed equivalent calorie diets.
My apologies that I don't have the time to find the study right now. For what it's worth, my recollection is that the mice were fed a liquid diet for their calories. The diets chosen:
Water flavored with sugar
- This food would have no taste for the mice who were bred not to taste sugar
Water flavored with a fatty emulsion
- This food would have a pleasant taste for all the mice in the study
I don't recall whether the study measured activity levels at all. I do wonder whether a liquid diet would remove the potential for scat, however.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions