Why”Snack Packs”Don’t Help You Lose Weight
I’ve talked about this before, in discussing the fallacious “Heart Healthy Lunchroom” of my former employer. Now there is actually proof: Snacks In Small Packages May Lead To Overeating (Abstract).
Yet new research found that people actually consume more high-calorie snacks when they are in small packages than large ones. And smaller packages make people more likely to give in to temptation in the first place.
First, these 100-calorie packs are invariably foods that you shouldn’t be eating anyway: chocolate pretzels, cookies, Cheese Nips, granola bars (i.e., candy bars), etc. These are all food products with no nutritional value. In the previous article that I linked to above, I came up with some other “100-calorie snacks”:
Now let’s consider some other 100-calorie “snack packs”. You can have a medium apple at about 75 calories. 30 grapes or 15 raw almonds or 10 oil-roasted almonds – all about 100 calories. Three cups of raw broccoli or 20 large baby carrots or…have I made my point? There are so many healthful 100-calorie options that will actually fill you up and provide some vitamins and minerals as to make the 100-calorie Snack Packs a joke.
Now let’s break down the two findings of the study:
- Calorie consumption is higher when eating from small packages.
- Small packages make people more likely to dig in in the first place.
Increased Consumption
These snacks are all high-carb and mostly high sugar. So right from the start, we’re dealing with foods that tend to cause a rise in insulin, with a subsequent drop in blood sugar, driving further consumption as the body seeks to maintain a fuel supply for the brain. You’re also dealing with the psychological aspect of “It’s only 100 calories.” Even for a small person eating, say, 1500 calories per day, that’s less than 7% of the daily caloric intake. It’s easy to write off as insignificant, though we all know that getting 5-10% of your daily calories from junk food isn’t insignificant.Finally, we are conditioned to eating everything that is put before us. While it’s unlikely someone reaching into a bag of Oreos is going to actually eat less than 100 calories, there is the possibility. But it’s guaranteed that they will eat that many calories when they open a 100-Calorie Pack of Oreos.
Increased Likelihood of Consumption
This isn’t mind-blowing either. It goes with the “It’s only 100 calories” mentality. While you might hesitate to open the big bag of cookies or chips because you know you won’t be able to stop, opening a small package isn’t as disconcerting. You know that you’ll only be eating what’s available in the package. Until sugar and insulin surge through your bloodstream, throwing off the balance of blood sugar and causing you to rip open another package.It seems that the larger packages, for instance a regular sized bag of potato chips, prove to the person that they are eating junk food. On the other hand, these small packages are marketed as diet food, so even though the eater knows that the food in the package is junk, there is a conflicting message in the subconscious: “diet food” vs “junk food”.
The Bottom Line
I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir here, but smaller packages are not designed to keep you from eating as much. They are designed with the main purpose of increasing the “value add” of the food in the package, enabling the manufacturers to charge more than twice as much for the same product. In fact, food manufacturers have the express goal of increasing your consumption. The more you consume, the more you pay.Actually, here’s an interesting fact: it’s not even the same food. The Oreo packs for instance aren’t even real Oreos. They are filled with just the wafer cookies with no cream. If you’re going to splurge and eat an Oreo, at least eat a real Oreo complete with the cream. Make your cheats worth it and eat a diet of real foods such that you keep hunger at bay.Do you know people that use these snack packs as a way of supposedly reducing their caloric intake?
About Scott
Scott Kustes loves to cook and loves to eat. He started Real Food University to help you get maximum enjoyment out of the meals that you eat. To find out more about how he has rebelled against the fast food culture and counting calories or carbs, join the Real Food Revolution.
15 Reader Comments
Feel free to leave a comment below... and as always please keep it in good taste. Comment spamming ONLY to promote your website is NOT allowed. So please use your real name in the field below otherwise it may be edited or removed. Constructive discussion is always welcome, personal attacks or useless bickering is not. Not all comments may be answered directly by editors/writers.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Scott,The companies know how much someone typically eats at one sitting. You can be pretty sure the package size is just under that threshold such that one is tempted (and will usually give in to such temptation since appetite was increased from the carbs in the first package) to open a second or third package and eat the ENTIRE CONTENTS of that “small” package as well. So not only do they higher margins from the packaging, they sell more product as well.The consumer feels no “guilt” since he/she only ate a small package or two or three or four…and gets fatter and fatter while still starving for the protein and good fats their body was probably seeking in the first place.Dave
“we are conditioned to eating everything that is put before us”So true! I constantly find myself finishing a large meal even though I’m already full well before. Throughout childhood, my mom insisted I eat everything on my plate (or else I wouldn’t get any desert) and in my family, the portions were robust. Then there were the “starving children in (you pick the country)” comparisons always thrown in as a lesson. No wonder all we kids were 50 pounds overweight.
Great post. The concluding paragraph is awesome, had no idea the snack pack oreo’s aren’t even the real deal thats a joke! I think the 100 calorie thing is nothing more than good marketing to a confused audience. Personally I would rather grab an Apple and a handful of Almonds for a snack pack!!
Serving size is a tricky subject.Here is a good study about snack packs. It basically says, in their tests, people who are concerned about their weight went for smaller packs but yet ate more in total. That pretty much says it allhttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/589564However, it can be really hard to ignore the callings of an open Oreo pack, so I guess the best thing is to train yourself to snack healthier. Apples are my favorite.
I seem to recall a similar study or damn lying statistic about people eating more calories at “healthy” restaurants. Many a “healthy” smoothie tip the scales and nearly a 1k calories, but you can’t get fat eating good food, even if you’re drinking it in excess, right? Right?
Best,Skyler
Totally agree with you here. Whilst food such as this are OK for an occassional treat, they are not very good for snacking because they often don’t satisfy your appetite. I think fruit is a much more suitable snack with bananas being one of my favourites. The soluble fibre found in fruit really helps fend off hunger and keep you full for longer.
I have notice the same thing about the snack pack not having the same cookie as the bigger packages. There is such a surplus of food in this country, this is just another ploy by the food industries to “add value” to an existing product.
The snack packs are invariably higher in carb and lower in fat than the real thing, this is so they can add more quantity of food for the same calorie value.This is the real reason people eat more calories: diet foods are always high in carb and low in fat.If you eat 100 calorie sncak pack of “oreos” it’s almost all carbohydrate, but if you eat an oreo cookie (80 calories) you get a lot of fat with just a little bit of carb. Even if you eat 3 oreos (240 cals), at the end of the day you will eat a lot less food because a lot of those 240 cals were fat; this cannot be said if you ate 2 snack packs, which is almost all carb, and thus makes you hungrier.BTW 15 oil roasted almonds are only slightly more calories than 15 raw almonds; the difference is negligible calorie-wise but people think it is a lot
I just looked it up online:1 oreo snack pack: 100 cals, 22 carbs, 2g fat1 oreo cookie: 80 cals, 12 carbs, 4 g fat.Duh, of course you’re going to eat more when you eat the snack packs. More starch & sugar, less fat.When I eat junk food I always go for cookies, chocolate, ya know things that are fatty with just a small amount of sugar. It’s not calories that make you fat, it’s not fat that makes you fat… it’s starch and sugar, as long as you never eat too much of that, weight control is possible.
Great post and right on. Manufacturers don’t care about us –they want us to eat more/buy more. The 100 Calorie packs are just gimmicks…unfortunately, they work. people love those things and end up eating more of them.
So we agree? Marketers are geniuses and consumers are gullible for just about anything that sounds good.I have a have a hard time eating too much of anything that comes with no packaging at all. Someone needs to market that for a weight loss idea, but damned if I know who could make money on it.The only snack packs I have ever tried were Trader Joe’s 70% Belgian chocolate bars. I can eat only one half of a 72% bar from their little three-bar packs without an overindulgence problem, but I can’t eat just one of the 70% snack bars, which is almost the same amount. I go for two (and once, even three). They’re too thin and seem skimpy compared to one half of the other one. Go figure. Like I said, the marketers are geniuses. So I didn’t buy any more of the TJ 70% Belgian chocolate snack sizes. Too much packaging anyway and I hated feeling so gullible.
Great post! I have anecdotally suspected this portion control data might come to light. I call it the ‘just one won’t hurt syndrome’. Calories do add up regardless of how small the increments are when you choose them.
The title doesn’t really work as a question. Sorry to nitpick.
Tom, definitely. Even the highest sugar fruit is a better bet than any processed food. Caloric density is the key…a 75 calorie apple is significantly bulkier than a 100-Calorie Snack Pack.Anna and Blake, marketing is an interesting case study in psychology. How does one trick a consumer into purchasing something that they know they don’t need and often don’t want?Woo, very interesting information there. It’s probably not a quality source of fat, but it will nonetheless slow down the rate of sugar entry into the bloodstream.Brian, typo…fixed. ThanksCheersScott
[...] Grocery Store Beef Peperonata The Corn Lobby Is REALLY Desperate. Do People Believe This Stuff? Why Snack Packs Don’t Help You Lose Weight What Food Cravings Mean And How To Control Them Eight Ways To Lower Your Testosterone [...]