Trained against "diet"

Scientists at the University of Alberta recently published results of an animal-based designed to test the efficacy of diet foods. "Animals have the ability to sense the caloric value of food they take in," says David Pierce, lead researcher. "We found out that an animal can learn to use flavors to predict calories in an attempt to achieve energy balance." Pierce fed his rats diet foods and full calorie foods, and then gave them full calorie foods that had a diet flavor. The animals' bodies responded by assuming a calorie deprivation, so they overate at the next feeding to make up for it. The relevance to humans is a growing belief that, the more "diet" foods one consumes, the more the body grasps at the next opportunity to make up for calories lost.

However, another study may provide the solution.


Kids who were given food, even healthy food like carrots, said they preferred its taste to plain bag foods when it was wrapped in a McDonald's container, according to a paper published by the Stanford University.

Could we as marketers encourage kids (backhandedly, albeit) to eat healthier by tricking them with the brands they already associate with good taste? If the body can train itself to categorize tastes as diet or not, as well as train itself to prefer foods that are visually associated with good flavor, then wouldn't it work to leverage brand equities to help kids eat better and override that taste association?

Might be a particularly salient issue for the cereal industry, whose brands kids know and love, but are now faced with strapped sugar, fat and sodium content regulation.

Burger? Salad? Maybe the Sustainably Raised Chicken?

I read a few months ago an editorial from Gourmet magazine’s editor in chief, Ruth Reichl, wherein she discussed the idea of “Occasional Vegitarianism.” “Isn’t it time we realized that eating vegetarian meals is neither penance nor virtue, but simply another mealtime option?”, she asks. As part of her case, Reichl pointed out that we now consume more meat than any other society in history, and that our grazing and feed production uses 30% of the surface of the planet.




Makes me wonder if she’s correct in her assumption that it’s not a penance nor virtue to consume wisely. It’s becoming just duty. This week, the NYT reported on the popularity of certain varieties of fish and its impact on sushi consumption; US consumers believe salmon and tuna rolls are the end all be all, and the rise in sushi’s popularity has placed a strain on these species. The article suggests that sushi lovers expand their orders into a wider range of sushi options.

When Americans sit down at a restaurant—from the sushi bar to Applebee’s—their method of evaluating menu choices has changed. We have become more conscientious of what we want to eat versus what we should be eating. We saw it in the tiny salad selection growing into an array of main dish options for patrons interested in a tasty dining experience without three days’ worth of fat and calories. Menus developed further with the proliferation of a rainbow of symbols to tell us exactly what made food healthy—low fat, low carbs, lactose-free. Today, as demonstrated in the Times, Americans are becoming more aware of their food’s origins—an organic farm locally grown, or from a sustainable resource? So should we be thinking one step beyond ourselves when we sit down at the diner, to consider what we should be consuming? And should restaurants be pushing this agenda by clearly labeling menus with a revised edition of the symbols to help customers make the right choice?

Neo-Health: Antioxidant backfire?

Antioxidants are everywhere, and most people believe they’re good for us (although they can’t say exactly why). They let us indulge in chocolate with less guilt. But a new study shows that taking an antioxidant supplement might actually lead to a shorter life! This week, news spread of a cumulative analysis done in the Netherlands that found studies on various antioxidants (like vitamin E or beta carotene) showed a 5% increased death rate. Here's a webmd recap.

People who get antioxidants from their fruit and vegetables do tend to live longer, but taking the pill version might be harmful. In a New York Times article earlier this year, Marion Nestle, a nutritionist, put it well, “ The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of food, the food out of the context of diet and the diet out of the context of lifestyle.”

Still leaves Hershey’s in question….cocoa is a natural source of antioxidants, but recently The House of Chocolate announced expansion in its so-called ‘goodness chocolate portfolio’ Hershey’s Antioxidant Milk Chocolate and Whole Bean Chocolate. So which is it? Supplement or natural cocoa ingredient?