New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Eaters Assume Crunchy Foods Have Fewer Calories

Food’s texture in your mouth—also called “mouthfeel” or “oral haptics”—influences estimates of calorie counts. And people might eat more crunchy stuff assuming (often incorrectly) it has fewer calories than softer fare. Christie Nicholson reports

 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


When food is gooey, we assume it’s more fattening than harder foods. For instance, most people guess that a soft, warm cookie has more calories than a cooled-down, crunchier version.
 
New research confirms that food’s texture in your mouth—also called “mouthfeel” or “oral haptics”—influences estimates of calorie counts. And thus affects total food consumption. The study is in the Journal of Consumer Research. [Dipayan Biswas et al, Something to Chew On: The Effects of Oral Haptics on Mastication, Orosensory Perception and Calorie Estimation]
 
Scientists offered brownies to volunteers. Half got hard brownies. The other half got softer ones. They all had to guess the number of calories in each sample. And the group that ate the softer brownies produced estimates for their caloric value 55 percent higher than the estimates for the hard brownies by the subjects who ate them. The hard brownie group also ate more brownies. Probably because they thought they were getting a caloric bargain due to mouth feel.
 
The researchers also offered brownies to a second group of volunteers. Again, half received hard brownies, the other half got soft ones. But this time participants were not asked to estimate calories. This group gobbled up significantly more of the softer brownies. Presumably because they were considered tastier.  
 
So remember: the cookie might be crunchy…but the calories are still gooey.
 
—Christie Nicholson
 
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe