Study: people eat more when food is  OCT 20 2005

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

Read more posts on about:
food   health   obesity

There are 14 reader comments

Morgan37 20 2005 3:37PM

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

Jake of 8bitjoystick.com43 20 2005 3:43PM

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

chris08 20 2005 4:08PM

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

Amy29 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.

Dafyd45 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...


Eric01 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.

kelly38 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.

kelly39 20 2005 5:39PM

it is? neat.

barlow23 20 2005 6:23PM

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!

Arthur04 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.


sps51 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.

Maaike27 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. Smith47 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 candy17 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.

this is

   Front page
   About + contact
   Site archives

You can follow on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Feedly, or RSS.

Ad from The Deck

We Work Remotely


Hosting provided by