Image: Flicker/thom.michaelj
Dieters take note: thinking in detail about eating can reduce actual food consumption, according to a study in the December 10, 2010, issue of Science. Imagining an experience is known to evoke the same physiological responses as the real experience, so researchers at Carnegie Mellon University tested whether imagining chowing down could simulate the experience enough to satisfy people’s cravings. Study participants thought about eating a food—M&M’s or cubes of cheese—one morsel at a time and then afterward were offered the same food to eat. Those who imagined eating 30 M&M’s ate half as many candies as those who pictured putting 30 quarters into a laundry machine. The effect was specific to the type of food imagined, with those thinking about eating cheese consuming about half the amount of cheese eaten by those who had thought about eating M&M’s.
Although these findings seem counterintuitive given that the sight of a candy machine can set off an intense craving for chocolate, the key difference is in how people think about food, says Carey Morewedge, the psychologist who led the study. “When people are normally thinking about eating food, they’re not imagining the actual consumption,” he says. Indeed, when subjects thought about placing 30 M&M’s into a bowl, they ate 1.6 times more than those who only thought about eating them. But when people engaged in the mental imagery that would accompany actual eating, it wore down their desire to eat. Morewedge plans next to explore whether this kind of mental simulation can help smokers reduce their craving for cigarettes.
This article was originally published with the title A Thinking Person's Diet.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add Commentinteresting to see that someone studied this idea further. i blogged this concept in July of 2009, here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://hyperlexian.blogspot.com/2009/07/good-news-healthwise.html
Come on; how can you possibly conclude anything from a ridiculous study such as M&M vs.Laundromat? This should have gone out on April 1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, how can you possibly verify what they "thought"? Did they all do 30 M&Ms or do you think some did 2 and then just said they actually imagined eating 30 M&Ms (I assume one at a time) or maybe some guy just imagined all 30 at once, or just 12. As the for quarters, who have ever put 30 quarters into a laundromat washer? This is a Schrodinger's Cat experiment and should be in the Quantum Physics Humor Section. Patently ridiculous; now can I have my M&Ms, please? OK, then I'll take the $7.50!
I recall a study of students separated into two groups. Group one practiced shooting baskets 30 min/day and group two imagined shooting baskets for 30 min/day....when put to the test the students who "imagined" shooting baskets did better than those who actually practiced. Same thing with food?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you are being overly harsh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue we can not tell that they really did think about eating 30 M&Ms- but at very least it says people who are TOLD to imagine eating 30 M&Ms ate less. (regardless of whether they actually thought about eating M&Ms or eating rabbit droppings)
Perhaps the same would be true about smokers and smoking as suggested... perhaps not. With smokers it is an addiction... imagining smoking 30 cigs would probably frustrate them and make them want to smoke MORE.
Also- it is hard to jump to conclusions about long term affect. Sure- on one sitting they ate less- but if they were told to do the same thing every day for a month- at the end of the month would they still eat less than a control group?
Our brains are adaptable organs I imagine they won't let themselves be fooled consistently over time.
It was really interesting;;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are mistaken but not by much. The study had 3 groups of basketball players. The first group practiced, the second group imagined practicing and the last group played a different sport. When the groups were compared at the end on the study, the ones that practiced performed basketball best. The ones that imagined practicing performed at about 75% of the level of the actual practicers. The ones that focused on a different sport performed somewhere between 30% to 40% of the level of the actual practicers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would entirely depend on how the imagining was guided. Studies of thoughts have been done for decades and various ways of determining accuracy have been developed. It is much the same as with electron microscopes - we can't actually see what they are observing but the computer creates an image based on the results that allows us to see a representation that can then be used. These representations lead to very productive advances. There is no reason why the same can't be done with imagining studies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm curious as to why you think they got the results they did if you think it is impossible to tell. Do you have a theory that better fits the observed results?