Smaller Snacks—Bigger Bellies? by Jean Jitomir

Despite a new food guide pyramid and an explosion of weight loss products, there is no sign of obesity relief.  In fact, America’s weight gain is a growing concern—the problem may even be accelerating.  According to the CDC, obesity rates grew from 19.8% in 2000 to 23.9% in 2005, which is an increase of about 0.82% per year; obesity grew from 23.9% in 2005 to 25.6% in 2007, which is 0.9 per year.
To facilitate weight loss efforts, many consumers turn to diet products.  Americans are trading value-based “super-sized” portions for mini versions of junk-food favorites.  But are dwarfed Chips Ahoy and Oreo Cookies really the answer?
Ask Rita Coelho Do Vale and her crew at Tilburg University in the Netherlands—you’ll probably get a big and giant “NO!”  This research group decided to test the logic of small portioned snack packs; does having access to several little bags of snacks really make a weight-conscious person able to control his or her intake better?  In order to find out, the researchers first “pre-treated” half of the participants by weighing them in front of a mirror—sounds like fun, right?  Well, it probably wasn’t.  Anyway, the other half didn’t have to do this part.  After that the “weight-conscious” volunteers were either plopped in front of a TV with many small packages of chips (synonymous to 100 calorie packs) and two large of bags of chips and asked to “rate advertising.”  The same TV protocol was done with those who were spared the pre-snack weight-in.
The people who did not get weighed, and were not prepped to be weight conscious, ate the same amount of chips, independent of whether they cracked in to the small or large bags.  The participants subjected to the sadistic weighing protocol, however, ate significantly more chips if they chose to start munching on the nine small bags, instead of two large bags.
But what does it all mean?  Essentially, the study suggests that people who are weight conscious and digging in to tiny bags are less inhibited to overeat.  The smaller portions may subconsciously make a eating-restricted person more okay with eating a greater amount of snack food overall.
Several 100 calorie packs will quickly add up to the same amount of calorie damage as an ice cream sundae, with only a fraction of the satisfaction.  Further, including any junk food as part of a daily food regiment is a poor health choice.  Does this mean that manufacturers of mini cookie bites are pure evil?  Probably not.  There may be a way to include 100 calorie packs, if you really enjoy them.  Most importantly, do not go for the variety packs, which include an assortment of treats in one package.  Having several small portions of a variety of junk foods is disastrous for the same reasons as belt-busting buffets.  Variety is the spice of life; unfortunately, junk-food variety is a nutrition nightmare.  Research, dating as far back as the 70s and 80s, shows that increased food variety also adds up to more overall calorie intake.  In 1981 Barbara Rolls and pals showed that different sandwich fillings caused people to eat more sandwiches—even boring food will be eaten in excess if there is a lot of variety and easy access.  As such, if you choose to buy 100 calorie packs, go for only one kind of treat.  Also, keep the foods stashed away in the cupboards.  Out of sight… 
On the other hand, nothing beats a truly healthy 100 calorie snack; try some of the suggestions in the table below when you’re tempted to munch.

Back to Issues