Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, Apr-01-17, 10:03
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,219
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default Sugar; they still don't get it department

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...70331120352.htm

Quote:
Time delays in vending machines prompt healthier snack choices
Researchers develop new vending machine technology to help improve snack habits

Preventive medicine experts at Rush University Medical Center have discovered that delaying access to tempting, high-calorie foods and snacks in vending machines potentially can shift people's choices to purchase less desired, but healthier snack options.

"Having to wait for something makes it less desirable," said Brad Appelhans, PhD, clinical psychologist at the Rush University Prevention Center and lead investigator of the study. "Research shows that humans strongly prefer immediate gratification, and this preference influences choices and behavior in daily life.

"We wanted to see if we could use this preference for immediate gratification to improve people's vending machine snack choices," said Appelhans.

"Junk food is often immediately available and convenient," Appelhans continued.

Vending machines are the most prevalent source of high-calorie snacks in the U.S. There are 1.3 million snack vending machines across the U.S.

In an NIH-funded, ecological study, Appelhans and other researchers at Rush developed a new vending machine system and created a technology called the DISC system (Delays to Improve Snack Choices). The DISC vending machine system employs a "delay" bar that separates the healthier snacks from the less nutritious options.

When an individual selects a less nutritious snack, the system begins a 25-second time delay before the machine releases the snack from the vending machine.

The vending machine with the DISC vending machine system also has an LED screen, which displays the delay times for less healthy snack items, and a delivery countdown, which allows an individual to change their snack choice to a healthier option.

"This delay yielded a 2 percent to 5 percent increase in the proportion of total purchases from healthy snacks," said Appelhans. "Also, we found that the delay did not harm total sales volume or vending revenue, which is important to vending machine operators."

Prior vending machine interventions have focused on complete removal of unhealthy snacks or the machines altogether. However, these restriction-based strategies have proven to be undesirable, because they limit the options available and reduce the vending machine profits that schools, workplaces and other organizations count on.

The study of the DISC vending machine system looked at the following six vending machine interventions in three locations between June 2015 and August 2016:

No intervention
25-second time delay on less healthy snacks
25-cent discount on healthy snacks
25-cent tax on less healthy snacks
25-second time delay on less healthy snacks and 25-cent discount on healthier snacks
25-second time delay and 25-cent tax on less healthy snacks
Healthy snack purchasing increased during the time delay condition, as well as when the machines were set to 25-cent discounts for healthier options or with a 25-cent additional tax on unhealthy snacks.

"Our findings with the DISC vending machine system suggests that relatively brief time delays can nudge people to purchase healthier snacks at least some of the time. The beneficial effect on snack choice is about as large as that seen with discounts, but unlike discounts, time delays do not harm the total revenue of vending machines," said Appelhans. "This could be a viable option for vending machine owners to offer good, healthy snack options while keeping their sales and avoiding out-of-pocket costs."

The study had a total of 32,662 vending machine snack sales.

The DISC system also color coded and labeled the healthy snacks from the regular, less healthy snack options. The machines also had clear signs indicating that regular, less healthy snacks would vend after a 25-second time delay. There was a touchscreen menu explaining the system delay mechanism and a countdown timer.

The researchers also had specific criteria for healthy snacks vs. regular snacks. Healthy snacks must meet 5 of 7 criteria which included:

Less than 250 calories per serving
35 percent or fewer calories from fat
Less than 350 milligrams of sodium per serving
No trans fats
Less than 5 percent of daily value of saturated fat per serving
More than 1 gram of dietary fiber per serving
Less than 10 grams of added sugar per serving

"There is a major need for new dietary intervention strategies that combat obesity-promoting factors in the environment," said Appelhans. "Obesity and poor diet are strong risk factors for heart disease, stroke and diabetes."

"Vending machines are conveniently located, have a broad reach and are the most prevalent source of high-calorie, nutrient-poor foods in the U.S.," said Appelhans. "They are not going anywhere any time soon, so this new vending machine system could be an effective and financially viable strategy that can shift individuals' choices towards healthier options."

This technology is protected by a PCT patent application.

Results of this study will be presented Friday, March 31st from 3:00 to 4:30 p.m. ET during a Paper Session at the Society of Behavioral Medicine's Annual Meeting & Scientific Sessions, being held in San Diego, California.


The red....

35 percent fat is pretty much average consumption of fat. So this limit doesn't really do much. There's some evidence for therapeutic value of a much lower fat diet, or as we know here of a much higher fat diet, not much for the sort of moderate-to-non-existent fat restriction advocated here. And sugar, less than 10 grams, less than 250 calories, that's up to 16 percent sugar, still kind of high. I realize they're trying to ask as little of people as possible, to increase compliance, and that's just exactly the problem. People argue about whether we got fatter while following the guidelines, or while not following the guidelines, but the guidelines are so anemic--whether you fall into the low carb or the low fat paradigm--as to be useless no matter which side is right. And more than one gram of dietary fiber per serving? People who eat 80 grams of fiber a day seem to have some advantages vs the SAD--so what happens? If your vending machine food doesn't have at least 1 gram per 250 calories, that works out to at least 15 grams if you decided to visit the machine ten times and get all your food from it on a 2500 calorie diet. Good luck finding anything showing that a 2500 calorie refined carb diet that includes 15 grams of fiber or so is somehow therapeutic. This is like doing a drug study, finding the effective doses, and then prescribing homeopathic doses that haven't actually been shown to do anything. Almost like our various dietary recommendations were put together by committees of bureaucrats and lobbyists.

Last edited by teaser : Sat, Apr-01-17 at 10:08.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Apr-01-17, 10:20
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 1,842
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...70331120352.htm



The red....

35 percent fat is pretty much average consumption of fat. So this limit doesn't really do much. There's some evidence for therapeutic value of a much lower fat diet, or as we know here of a much higher fat diet, not much for the sort of moderate-to-non-existent fat restriction advocated here. And sugar, less than 10 grams, less than 250 calories, that's up to 16 percent sugar, still kind of high. I realize they're trying to ask as little of people as possible, to increase compliance, and that's just exactly the problem. People argue about whether we got fatter while following the guidelines, or while not following the guidelines, but the guidelines are so anemic--whether you fall into the low carb or the low fat paradigm--as to be useless no matter which side is right.
.
.
.
Good luck finding anything showing that a 2500 calorie refined carb diet that includes 15 grams of fiber or so is somehow therapeutic. This is like doing a drug study, finding the effective doses, and then prescribing homeopathic doses that haven't actually been shown to do anything. Almost like our various dietary recommendations were put together by committees of bureaucrats and lobbyists.

Good points, and yes, another useless study focusing on the wrong things. How to delay immediate gratification of a potential addict. An addict will find another source if it's a problem, or she/he will become conditioned to the delay.

The criteria for what constitutes a healthy choice is the problem, as this study is based on the weak presumption that some of the choices available are in fact healthy. We haven't even begun to agree on that! In the world of processed foods, choosing the healthy ones becomes an exercise in futility. Seems like a study likely funded by food vending machine manufacturers looking for a competitive edge . . .
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Apr-01-17, 10:44
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,910
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
The criteria for what constitutes a healthy choice is the problem


My own thinking, too. What the vending machine codes as "healthy" could have as much wrong with it in other ways.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, Apr-01-17, 11:31
bevangel's Avatar
bevangel bevangel is offline
Posts: 1,493
 
Plan: modified adkins (sort of)
Stats: 265/176/167 Female 68.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 91%
Location: Austin, TX
Default

I can't think of very many foods that I consider healthy that COULD even be packaged reasonably safely to put into a vending machine. If the machine is chilled and any unpurchased foods were removed and thrown away before they went bad, one could maybe stock a vending machine with hardboiled eggs, cheese, nuts, guacamole dip with celery sticks, and precooked sausage links. REAL healthy foods tho just don't have the shelf life necessary to go into vending machines.

So, slowing folks down from getting their candy bars and salty deep fried corn chips so that they'll maybe choose a fig newton cookie or a granola bar instead? Just swapping one kind of carbage for another kind of carbage... and a FALSE sense that one had made a better food choice. But how many people who choose the granola bar from the vending machine at lunch time will then allow themselves a candy bar when they stop for gas on the way home because, after all, they were good and DIDN'T have one at lunch time so DESERVE one now?
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sat, Apr-01-17, 14:10
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,694
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bevangel
I can't think of very many foods that I consider healthy that COULD even be packaged reasonably safely to put into a vending machine. If the machine is chilled and any unpurchased foods were removed and thrown away before they went bad, one could maybe stock a vending machine with hardboiled eggs, cheese, nuts, guacamole dip with celery sticks, and precooked sausage links. REAL healthy foods tho just don't have the shelf life necessary to go into vending machines.
In the 1960s and in movies from that era, you often saw "Automats" in large companies, airports etc. before the days of fast foods. They had hot and cold real foods on rotating shelves viewed through glass. You stopped it at the shelf you wanted, put your coins in the slot and the door opened. It was supposed to be the next big thing - centrally prepared real food distributed to the masses. It was cheaper to run than multiple cafeterias (fewer employees), but I suspect the spoilage made them less profitable than originally imagined. At University in the mid-1970s we did have a couple of vending machines where you could buy an overpriced apple or orange, but I only ever bought one mealy Delicious apple - ugh. Over time all the fruit disappeared as candy & chips were more profitable due to their long shelf lives. And of course the advertizing of the "fast energy" of a Snickers bar sounded better than a large apple with a similar amount of fast energy (sugar).

There are some nice pics dating back to 1897 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat

Last edited by deirdra : Sat, Apr-01-17 at 14:24.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, Apr-02-17, 08:36
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,248
 
Plan: Paleoish
Stats: 225/175/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 100%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

The need for snacks is the problem. If a person is adequately nourished during meals, then there is no reason to have a snack.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sun, Apr-02-17, 09:03
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,219
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

I'd add something to that--adequately nourished, and adequately entertained. I think we're supposed to be nourished, enjoy food, and then be relatively disinterested for a while. Remove salt from "healthy" snacks--what happens? It makes "healthy" snacks even less popular. Food that's actually good for you should be rewarding. Eating more potato chips, partly because the saltiness appeals to you? Probably not the best. Salt enhancing a pork chop, some buttery broccoli or spinach? Not so cut and dry, I'd say if there's no side of french fries etc., probably a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sun, Apr-02-17, 09:28
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,694
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

A craving for potato chips may be signalling a need for salt. When I have one, I'll make some mashed cauliflower or other vegs with butter and plenty of salt, or have some salty bone broth or jicama/diakon fries, and voila, I'm satisfied and have no desire for chips.

Last edited by deirdra : Sun, Apr-02-17 at 09:42.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sun, Apr-02-17, 12:15
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,910
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodger
The need for snacks is the problem. If a person is adequately nourished during meals, then there is no reason to have a snack.


This thread:

The Case Against Snacking

is about me deciding against snacks. If I'm hungry, it's a meal. If I don't want a meal, I'm not hungry enough!
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Sun, Apr-02-17, 13:22
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,230
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

I'd like to write something smart, it's not easy. Let's see.

The entire premise is the assumption that people are fat and sick now because they haven't been following the official guidelines for the past 40 years, and this system is intended to incentivize people to follow the official guidelines with the firm belief that doing so will make them less fat and less sick.

For the past 8 or so years of reading countless articles and essays and blog posts and opinions and research papers and a few good related books, let alone my own personal experience, it's become more and more obvious that people have been following the official guidelines and that's precisely why they're now fat and sick today.

Take my favorite butcher for example. The very first time I asked to not cut off the fat, the man looked at me as if I'd asked him to stab me or something. The very idea of eating fat has been deeply and widely stigmatized for many years, nay decades, before that incident at the butcher's. Nobody wakes up with the fear of fat in the eyes. It's taught, ingrained, hammered, over years and decades. The official guidelines have been doing just that for 40 years. Fear of fat isn't just ever present, it's also a central part of certain diets which are said to be even better than the official guidelines, as if the guidelines weren't strict enough about fat, and people believe it, hook line and sinker.

So, I guess the smart thing I'm going to write is that the premise is wrong and the system is bound to fail, or if we prefer, bound to a resounding success at deepening the on-going effects of the official guidelines. I'm thinking of investing in Big Pharma at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Sun, Apr-02-17, 13:50
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,910
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
it's become more and more obvious that people have been following the official guidelines and that's precisely why they're now fat and sick today.


Yes. They just want to blame the victims.

This beautiful theory! YOU PEOPLE must be doing something wrong!

It's like Dogma now, not science.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Sun, Apr-02-17, 17:48
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,008
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodger
The need for snacks is the problem. If a person is adequately nourished during meals, then there is no reason to have a snack.


Yes & yes! People I know casually (meaning I haven't told them how I eat) seem surprised that I don't snack (well, to be honest, I rarely snack ).

I also don't see many vending machines. The last time I rode Greyhound I found myself getting very bored. Because of motion sickness I can't read & that was before I had a smart phone to play with. At one of the stops we were stuck for about 30 minutes. I remember walking in circles in the terminal, peering at all the vending machine offerings - they were awful! Not even a package of plain nuts.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Sat, Apr-15-17, 07:50
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Maintaining
Posts: 2,606
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 62 inches
BF:22%
Progress: 100%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA
Default


Amsterdam's solution to the obesity crisis: no fruit juice and enough sleep.
I attribute much of the positive strides our WOE make to the success of the Diet Doctor. He is bringing us into the mainstream.

There's hope.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Sat, Apr-15-17, 12:30
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 1,842
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesinger

Amsterdam's solution to the obesity crisis: no fruit juice and enough sleep.
I attribute much of the positive strides our WOE make to the success of the Diet Doctor. He is bringing us into the mainstream.

There's hope.

Good point. Andreas has developed a global reach and is influencing many.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Sat, Apr-15-17, 19:18
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,694
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

When I was in kindergarden (1959) we had a snack (juice & graham cracker), but I don't remember any between-meal snacks after that. We all got a subsidized half-pint of WHOLE milk to drink with cafeteria or brought-from-home lunches and ran around for recess. And there were only a few "husky" kids in the whole K-5, but no obese or morbidly obese kids. It was the ultra skinny that got songs:

"Alice, where are you going?"
"Upstairs, to take a bath."
Alice, with legs like toothpicks
And a neck like a giraffe!
Ba-da-da-da-da-da-da!

Alice got in the bathtub,
Alice pulled out the plug.
Oh, my gracious! Oh, my soul!
There goes Alice down the hole!
"Alice, where are you going?"
Blub! Blub! Blub!

Last edited by deirdra : Sat, Apr-15-17 at 20:11.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:13.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.