Monday, July 07, 2025

  

The myth of 200 daily food decisions



How a methodological bias has shaped perceptions of eating behavior—and why more sophisticated measurement approaches are needed




Max Planck Institute for Human Development

Food decisions 

image: 

Do we really make more than 200 food decisions per day? Such simplistic statements can undermine people's feelings of self-efficacy.

view more 

Credit: MPI for Human Development





Numbers play a central role in health communication, providing guidance and motivation. However, the benchmarks used are not always scientifically sound or meaningful. In health research, the claim that people make more than 200 decisions about food every day without even noticing has been around for years. "This number paints a distorted picture of how people make decisions about their food intake and how much control they have over it," says Maria Almudena Claassen, postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Adaptive Rationality at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. Together with Director Ralph Hertwig and Jutta Mata, an associate research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Professor for Health Psychology at the University of Mannheim, Claassen has published an article that shows how flawed measurements can lead to misleading ideas about eating behavior. 

Where the figure of 200 food decisions per day comes from 

The figure of 200 food decisions examined in the article comes from a 2007 study by U.S. scientists Brian Wansink1 and Jeffery Sobal. They asked 154 participants to first estimate how many decisions they made per day about eating and drinking—an average of 14.4. Next, participants estimated the number of "when," "what," "how much," "where," and "with whom" decisions they made for a typical meal. These estimations were multiplied by the number of meals, snacks, and beverages they reported consuming in a typical day and summed, giving an average of 226.7 decisions made per day. The authors interpreted the difference of 212.3 between the two estimates as an indicator of unconscious or "mindless" decisions. 

Why this number is problematic 

Claassen and her colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development challenge this conclusion. They identify methodological and conceptual shortcomings inherent in the study’s design and argue that the discrepancy in the estimated number of decisions can be explained by a well-known cognitive effect called the subadditivity effect. This effect describes people's tendency to provide higher frequency estimates when asked to assess several specific aspects of a general question separately. The researchers conclude that the high number of "mindless" food decisions is not an empirically observed reality but rather the result of the subadditivity effect.  

The research team also warns of the consequences that such simplistic statements can have on our understanding of eating behavior. "Such a perception can undermine feelings of self-efficacy," says Claassen. "Simplified messages like this distract from the fact that people are perfectly capable of making conscious and informed food decisions." 

Why a methodological pluralism in researching food decisions is needed 

So how can decisions about food be meaningfully defined and empirically investigated? The researchers propose defining food-related decisions in concrete, context-specific terms. What is being eaten? How much? What is being avoided? When? In what social or emotional context? These decisions can only be understood within the context in which they are made. They are based on specific, concrete situations—such as choosing between salad and pasta, or deciding whether to skip a serving. What matters most is focusing on the key decisions that align with one's personal goals: for someone aiming to lose weight, it might be opting for a light salad over pasta at dinner; for someone striving to eat more sustainably, it could mean choosing a vegetarian meal instead of a meat-based one. 

To empirically map this perspective, the researchers advocate methodological pluralism, combining qualitative observations, digital tracking tools, diary studies, and cross-cultural research to gain a differentiated and realistic picture of people's everyday food decisions. 

"Magic numbers such as the alleged 200 food decisions do not tell us much about the psychology of eating decisions, even more so if these numbers turn out to be themselves distorted," says Ralph Hertwig, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. 

"To get a better understanding of eating behavior, we need to get a better grasp of how exactly decisions are made and what influences them.”

Self-nudging can strengthen informed, health-promoting decisions 

Armed with this knowledge and understanding of their food choices, people are in a better position to adopt healthy eating habits in their everyday lives. One useful strategy for everyday use is self-nudging. It involves designing one's environment so that healthier choices are easier to make. For example, placing pre-cut pieces of fruit within easy reach in the refrigerator or keeping sweets out of sight can help people stick to their goals without constantly having to rely on conscious control. Self-nudging is part of the boosting approach, which, unlike nudging, strengthens individual decision-making competences rather than relying on external environment-driven cues (Reijula & Hertwig, 2022). 

In brief: 

  • For years, the idea that people make over 200 unconscious food choices per day has been widely circulated. However, this figure is based on a methodologically problematic study and paints a distorted picture of human decision-making. 
  • Such simplistic statements can undermine people's feelings of self-efficacy and falsely suggest that their food decisions are beyond their conscious control. 
  • Researchers at the MPI advocate methodological pluralism in studying food decisions 
  • Strategies such as self-nudging can strengthen informed, health-promoting decisions. 

Footnote:

1 While Brian Wansink was removed from his academic position and had 18 of his articles retracted, the study discussed here has not been retracted. Our critique focuses not on misconduct but on methodological and conceptual shortcomings inherent in the study’s design. 

Original publications:

Claassen, M. A., Mata, J., & Hertwig, R. (2025). The (mis-)measurement of food decisions. Appetite, 209, Article 107928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2025.107928

The preprint is publicly available: Claassen, M. A., Mata, J., & Hertwig, R. (2025, July 4). The (mis-)measurement of food decisions. Retrieved from osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/df2wr_v2  

Reijula, S., & Hertwig, R. (2022). Self-nudging and the citizen choice architect. Behavioural Public Policy, 6(1), 119–149. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.5 


What counts as a food decision? Food decisions only make sense when you know the context in which they were made. 

Credit

Pietro Nickl

Study finds Mediterranean or plant-based diets may help reduce risk of chronic constipation in middle- and older-age adults




Mass General Brigham





The incidence of chronic constipation increases as we age. A new study from Mass General Brigham researchers compares five common diets to determine the effectiveness of preventing chronic constipation in middle- and older-age adults. The team studied over 96,000 adults for several years to understand how different eating habits affect the risk of developing the chronic gastrointestinal condition. They found people who followed a Mediterranean or plant-based diet were less likely to develop constipation. Their results are published in Gastroenterology.

“Chronic constipation affects millions of people and can significantly impact a patient’s quality of life,” said senior author Kyle Staller, MD, MPH, of the Division of Gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital, a founding member of the Mass General Brigham healthcare system. “Our findings suggest that as we age, certain healthy diets may provide benefits to our gut beyond the known cardiovascular benefits.”

It’s been established that healthy diets can improve constipation symptoms, but this is the first study to show that certain diets can prevent people from developing chronic constipation. “We have always assumed that the benefits of eating a healthy diet would be driven by fiber, but our analyses showed the benefit of these healthy diets on constipation were independent of fiber intake,” said Staller.

Using data from the Nurses’ Health Study, Nurses’ Health Study II and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, the researchers tracked dietary patterns in middle- and older-age adults and examined who developed chronic constipation, which was defined as having symptoms for at least 12 weeks in a year. Diets included in the analysis were the Mediterranean diet, plant-based diet, low-carb diet, Western diet and inflammatory diet. Individuals who adhered to a Western or inflammatory diet were more likely to develop chronic constipation. In addition, participants who ate a low-carb diet didn’t show a strong effect.

“Our findings suggest a diet rich in vegetables, nuts and healthy fats may help prevent chronic constipation in middle- and older-age adults,” said Staller.

Authorship: In addition to Staller, Mass General Brigham authors include Braden Kuo, Madeline Berschback and Andrew T. Chan.

Disclosures: Andrew T. Chan served as a consultant for Pfizer Inc., and Boehringer Ingelheim. Kyle Staller has received research funding from Ardelyx and ReStalsis and has served as a consultant to Ardelyx, Gemelli Biotech, Laborie, Mahana, ReStalsis, Salix, and Takeda. Braden Kuo has been a consultant to Ironwood, Takeda, Atmo, Restalsis, Pahthom. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (U01 CA167552, UM1 CA186107, P01 CA87969, U01 CA176726, K23DK120945).

Paper cited: Wang Y., et. al. “Dietary Patterns and Incident Chronic Constipation in Three Prospective Cohorts of Middle- and Older-aged Adults” Gastroenterology. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.06.020

About Mass General Brigham

Mass General Brigham is an integrated academic health care system, uniting great minds to solve the hardest problems in medicine for our communities and the world. Mass General Brigham connects a full continuum of care across a system of academic medical centers, community and specialty hospitals, a health insurance plan, physician networks, community health centers, home care, and long-term care services. Mass General Brigham is a nonprofit organization committed to patient care, research, teaching, and service to the community. In addition, Mass General Brigham is one of the nation’s leading biomedical research organizations with several Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals. For more information, please visit massgeneralbrigham.org.

No comments: