Numbers often play a crucial role in health messaging, aiming to guide behavior and spark motivation. Yet, not every statistic that gains traction is grounded in solid science. One such claim suggests that individuals make over 200 food-related decisions daily without realizing it. This assertion, however, is now being challenged by experts who argue that it paints a misleading picture of our decision-making processes.
According to Maria Almudena Claassen, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Adaptive Rationality at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, the notion of making hundreds of unconscious food decisions daily is flawed. “This number paints a distorted picture of how people make decisions about their food intake and how much control they have over it,” she asserts.
The Origin of the 200 Food Decisions Claim
The widely cited estimate of 200 daily food decisions can be traced back to a 2007 study by U.S. scientists Brian Wansink and Jeffery Sobal. In their research, 154 participants were initially asked to estimate the number of decisions they made each day regarding eating and drinking. On average, they reported 14.4 decisions.
Participants were then prompted to estimate their choices during a typical meal across several categories, such as “when,” “what,” “how much,” “where,” and “with whom.” These estimates were multiplied by the number of meals, snacks, and beverages consumed in a typical day, resulting in an average of 226.7 decisions per day. The researchers interpreted the gap between the two estimates, a difference of 212.3 decisions, as evidence that most food decisions are unconscious or “mindless.”
Why Researchers Say the Number Is Misleading
Claassen and her colleagues argue that this conclusion does not hold up under scrutiny. They highlight both methodological and conceptual weaknesses in the study’s design, attributing the discrepancy to a cognitive bias known as the subadditivity effect.
This effect occurs when people provide higher numerical estimates after breaking a broad question into smaller parts. Essentially, asking about food decisions piece by piece naturally inflates the total. According to the researchers, the large number of supposed “mindless” decisions reflects this bias rather than an observed reality.
The team also warns that perpetuating such simplified claims can negatively influence how people perceive their own behavior. “Such a perception can undermine feelings of self-efficacy,” says Claassen. “Simplified messages like this distract from the fact that people are perfectly capable of making conscious and informed food decisions.”
Rethinking How Food Decisions Are Defined
The researchers advocate for defining meaningful food decisions in specific, real-world terms. Important considerations include what is being eaten, how much, what is avoided, when the choice happens, and the social or emotional context surrounding it.
Food decisions do not occur in isolation; they are tied to concrete situations, such as choosing between salad and pasta or deciding whether to skip a serving. The most significant decisions are those that align directly with personal goals. For instance, someone aiming to lose weight may focus on lighter dinner options, while another individual striving for sustainable eating may prioritize plant-based meals.
Why Multiple Research Methods Matter
To gain a comprehensive understanding of everyday eating behavior, the researchers call for methodological pluralism. This approach involves using a mix of methods rather than relying on a single counting strategy. Suggested tools include qualitative observations, digital tracking, diary studies, and cross-cultural research.
Ralph Hertwig, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, emphasizes that eye-catching figures can distract from what truly matters. “Magic numbers such as the alleged 200 food decisions do not tell us much about the psychology of eating decisions, even more so if these numbers turn out to be themselves distorted,” he states.
“To get a better understanding of eating behavior, we need to get a better grasp of how exactly decisions are made and what influences them.” – Ralph Hertwig
How Self-Nudging Can Support Healthier Choices
Understanding the true nature of food decisions can empower individuals to cultivate healthier habits. One practical strategy highlighted by the researchers is self-nudging, which involves arranging one’s environment to facilitate better choices.
Simple changes can have a significant impact. For example, keeping pre-cut fruit within easy reach in the refrigerator or placing sweets out of sight can support long-term goals without requiring constant willpower. Self-nudging is part of the boosting approach, which focuses on strengthening personal decision-making skills rather than relying on external cues.
In summary, the long-held belief that people make over 200 unconscious food decisions daily is based on methodologically flawed research and provides a distorted view of human decision-making. Oversimplified claims like this can undermine self-efficacy and wrongly suggest that food choices are beyond conscious control. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute advocate for methodological pluralism in studying food decisions and highlight strategies such as self-nudging to help individuals make informed, health-promoting choices.
