Now on ScienceBlogs: The Galaxy's Biggest Valentine

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Retrospectacle: A Neuroscience Blog

The trials, tribulations, and joys of a Neuroscience gradute student writing her thesis in the postmodern, post-Y2K world.

Profile

me%20and%20pep.jpg Shelley Batts is a Neuroscience PhD candidate at the University of Michigan. She studies hair cell regeneration in the cochlea, and is just embarking on that quixotic quest called 'thesis.' She lies awake at night pondering how science intersects with politics, culture, policy, money, medicine, and religion in an attempt to be more than just a niche scientist sitting in the oh-so-lovely ivory tower. Follow me and my parrot on the quest to get funded, get a PhD, and stay sane.
for%20blog%20cropped.JPG

Those who dwell, as scientists or laymen, among the beauties and mysteries of the earth, are never alone or weary of life. ~Rachel Carson

Search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Highlights from Retrospectacle

Cochlear Hair Cell Regeneration

Interview With Dr. Irene Pepperberg

My Travels

Chemistry of Red Bull

On Religion and Taking the 'Red Pill'

Fibonacci Poems

Neuroscience of Cocaine Addiction

Basic Concepts: Hearing

Basic Concepts: Prions

Parrots Have Object Permanance

Video Game Addiction

Nicotine Makes You Sober

Buzz on Honeybee Cognition

Help Out A Grad Student (Me!)

My Amazon.com Wish List

Serotonin Jewelry

Alex Foundation Store

Technorati

Be My Friend on

MySpace

Commenter Policy

I love constructive comments! However, I reserve the right to delete comments that abuse this forum. Voicing your opinions is great, just be respectful. :D

Other Information

blogging_winner_2nd.jpg Openlab 2007 intel.jpg Badge.jpg thinking-blogger.jpg bloggeroftheday1.jpg bloggers%20rights.gif
I am a hard bloggin' scientist. Read the Manifesto.

liberty_waits_badge.bmp B-List Blogger
synapse.jpg

th_elogo1.jpg


My blog is worth $164,845.68.
How much is your blog worth?

Joost™

Retrospectacle is now Of Two Minds!

« Scuba Divers, Breathe An (Artificial) Sigh of Relief | Main | Bling in the Brain: Platinum Coils Reduce Aneurysm Deaths »

The Office Candy Dish: We Eat It Because Its There

Category: RepostTastes Like Neuroscience
Posted on: July 17, 2006 8:50 AM, by Shelley Batts

A short communication in the International Journal of Obesity caught my eye this morning. A research group from Cornell explored some seemingly-obvious questions: Do people eat food just because its there, and will they eat more if the food is close in proximity and unlimited in supply? And one not so obvious: Do we underestimate how much we eat when the food is closer (the idle munching effect)? (More below the fold!)


The team recorded the chocolate consuption of 40 adult secretaries for 4 weeks. They manipulated proximity by placing the chocolates on the desk of the participant or 2 meters away, and visibility was manipulated by making the dish either transparent or opaque. The supply of chocolate was unlimited; it was filled every evening.

The results showed that both placement and visibility mattered.

candy.bmp

According to their results, the secretaries ate the most chocolates when the bowl was on their desk and clear and ate the least chocolates when the bowl was far and opaque. In addition, there was a significant difference between their ability to estimate how many candies they had eaten when the dish was on their desk, opaque or not. Subjects had a tendancy to overestimate candies eaten when the dish was far, and to underestimate when the dish was near.

"This has important implications for people who are trying to be accurate in monitoring and controlling their intake of food. These results underscore that people need to take a food's visibility and proximity into account when they try and estimate their prior consumption of it. In general, a food that is less proximate to consume - say cookies in the cupboard vs those on the counter - may be over-consumed relative to what one might think (or recall)."

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/16249

Comments

1

It's worth checking out Stanley Schacter's classic paper "Some extraordinary facts about obese humans and rats" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=5541215&dopt=Citation) on the same subject, not the least because it is possibly the funniest serious paper I have had the pleasure to read. He indicates that obese and normal-weight people (and rats) in fact behave differently, with obese individuals eating more than normal-weight individuals when the food (roast-beef sandwiches) is clearly visible and close at hand, but eat _less_ than normal-weight individuals when the food is out of sight.

Posted by: Janne | July 17, 2006 10:47 AM

2

"....with obese individuals eating more than normal-weight individuals when the food (roast-beef sandwiches) is clearly visible and close at hand, but eat _less_ than normal-weight individuals when the food is out of sight."

so, given this piece of information and the insights made in the new research, we can pretty much dispel the myth of hot secretaries.

Gentlemen, disintegrate your fantasies.

Posted by: jaysonb | July 17, 2006 10:52 AM

3

So hiding the chocolate in your desk is a dieting technique.

Posted by: Lab Cat | July 17, 2006 10:54 AM

4

Janne- thanks for the hilarious paper! A serious topic, but the idea of hiding the roast beef is funny on many levels. :)

JaysonB- To maintain a hot secretary, cleearly you must have no candy in sight.

Lab Cat- I imagine the best dieting tip is to have no candy at all, but that seems to be the next best thing. And not to open your desk.

Posted by: Shelley Batts | July 17, 2006 12:18 PM

5

That is cool. Almost as exciting as my study on refrigerator-opening behaviour in male Homo sapiens, where I showed that it really doesn't matter if the subject knows the refrigerator is empty, he will still open it 2.6 times within the first half-hour of arriving home from work, and stare into it expectantly. Nature kicked it back for low sample numbers. Bastards. Those error bars were tight.

Posted by: incitatus | July 17, 2006 1:44 PM

6

As an Obese american, I completely agree.

If I leave my oatmeal raisen bars (the only sweet I allow myself to buy in bulk) in the car trunk, I eat 1 every day or so.

In the house, and I've been known to eat 6-7 in a day.

Hence I no longer buy sweets of any sort. Even "good sweets" like frozen yoghurt tend to disseappear too quickely. I do better buying the high fat, high calorie individual serve sweets when I really want something. A high calorie sweet a few times per month is better than a whole bunch of medium calorie sweets.

Posted by: Dan R. | July 17, 2006 6:33 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.