Study: people eat more when food is

Study: people eat more when food is close at hand and in sight and less when its farther away and out of sight.

By Jason Kottke • Oct 20, 2005 at 02:59 pm • food health obesity

There are 14 reader comments

Morgan • Oct 20 2005 • 3:37PM

Study: Scientists continue to waste money on studies that reach obvious conclusions.

Jake of 8bitjoystick.com • Oct 20 2005 • 3:43PM

Wasn't this publish in the Scientific jornal "Duh!" ?

chris • Oct 20 2005 • 4:08PM

So they can't call us lazy AND fat. It's one or the other!

Amy • Oct 20 2005 • 4:29PM

Related study: humans have no will power. Or very little, anyway.

Seriously, a bag of candy lasts about two hours in my house. A big bag.

Dafyd • Oct 20 2005 • 4:45PM

Yup - the bag of Minstrels I had in the cupboard lasted a fortnight there. I got it out last night, and now it's all gone...

Duh.

Eric • Oct 20 2005 • 5:01PM

I gotta admit... this was pretty obvious... But I think that other primal desires are similar too (food, pr0n, attention). Like Amy said, little to no will-power.

kelly • Oct 20 2005 • 5:38PM

Study: people spend more when money it is close at hand and in sight and less when its farther away and out of sight.

i'd buy it.

This should have implications for architecture - so many houses make the kitchen the center of the social space. Basically we should put the booze at one end of the house and the kitchen at the other. We'll be jollier and thinner!

Arthur • Oct 20 2005 • 9:04PM

Obviously the question is that food was designed to be there and that it didn't come out of nothing or evolved out of apes.

Wait.

sps • Oct 21 2005 • 2:51AM

This sort of thing does have use people. Unfortunately they chose to use candy, which makes it seem stupid. But it's easy to extrapolate this to the rest of eating habits. Combine this with the study Cornell did that basically verified the "freshman 15" and university cafeterias all over the place all of the sudden seem a little more ridiculous, especially when they charge an "all you can eat" price.

While it may seem common sense, sometimes it's necessary to document "common sense" things so that people and organizations can't argue lack of proof. And trust me, you'd be surprised how many people won't believe me when I tell them they can eat half of what they do and be fine.

Maaike • Oct 21 2005 • 6:27AM

At first I also thought 'Duh, this is soooo obvious'... but then again: this is one of those things you might have known all along, but never really thought about. I agree with sps, it's good to bring these things into focus every now and again.

*moves bag of candies from desk into drawer*

Mark M. Smith • Oct 22 2005 • 2:47AM

While I've known this personally for a long time (candy left on the coffee table gets eaten, candy I leave in my room or put in drawer is found a few years later) it's one thing to state that something is obvious, but quite another to try to prove it scientifically. For every study that validates a seemingly obvious concept there are plenty that disprove the "obvious" idea. Until you put something to the test, no matter how much it seems to be true, it's just hearsay.

a friend to candy • Oct 24 2005 • 1:17AM

But what about candy that's down the back of the couch? Is it still good enough to give trick-or-treaters? or am I missing the point here?

This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.