Don't let the "health halo" fool you!
I've blogged before on the topic of "virtuous junk food." People often fall into a trap of thinking that just because something is organic, or vegan, or gluten-free (or whatever), it's good for you and/or can be consumed in unlimited quantities. But the truth is that whole food grocery stores are just as full of over-processed, empty calories as any other grocery store.
So, I was interested to see this story in the Times. A couple of wise guys showed people photographs of a meal from a chain restaurant and had them estimate the calories. Then, they showed a similar group of people THE SAME MEAL with the addition of two crackers which were prominently labelled "trans fat free." Now get this: Folks estimated that the meal with the crackers contained about 200 FEWER calories than the meal without the crackers.
Sure, trans fat free crackers are good. But they sure as heck don't subtract calories from other foods you eat them with. It's a brilliant demonstration of the "health halo" effect, in which fattening foods seem less fattening if they are organic or trans fat free.
Here's the kicker: When they tried the same experiment on non-American tourists, none fell into the health halo trap. So, Americans, it's time to search your conscience and your trans-fat-free snack cupboards. Are you underestimating the dietary impact of virtuous junk food?
Posted by: theoddbody | Dec 19, 2008 11:51:39 PM
it's so much easier to be told what to eat and do though, especially if it's "good" for me,haha
Posted by: Megan | Dec 11, 2008 4:55:10 PM
I read that article in the Times and I thought it was fascinating, especially the part about the tourists not making the same assumptions.
Posted by: sarah | Dec 4, 2008 9:23:16 AM
great point. as a person who's gluten-free by necessity and vegan by choice, i still have to be very careful not to overeat and be careful not to eat junk--especially since there are so many gf vegan goodies popping up all over the place!
Posted by: Dave | Dec 4, 2008 9:09:53 AM
That people are bad at estimating calories is yet another point indicating that we shouldn't HAVE to estimate calories. No other animal even has the capability, much less the necessity, and given their evolutionarily defined diet will maintain health and leanness (unless they're programmed to get fat, e.g. for hibernation). It is very difficult to believe that this would not be the case for humans as well, who only even knew about the caloric content of food in the last couple of centuries.
If you have to count calories, you're eating the wrong stuff.







