Beware of 100-Calorie Packs, especially if you diet!

You can’t help noticing the plethora of portion-controlled packages in the supermarket these days.  Kraft introduced mini-packs, called 100-Calorie Packs, in 2004 to appeal to the demands of dieters.  Now it seems that all major food manufacturers have their own version of mini-packs.

 

How do consumers react to mini-packs?  The answer is not a straightforward one.  A new study published in the Journal of Consumer Research investigated whether consumers would eat more when the food was offered in several mini-packs as opposed to one regular size package.  It turns out that each person’s response hinged on his or her relationship with body weight and food. 

 

To appreciate the results, it is helpful to be familiar with what is meant by the terms “restrained eater” and “unrestrained eater.”

• Restrained eaters combat physiological urges to eat in order to lose weight or maintain a reduced weight.  A restrained eater categorizes food as good or bad and prefers to know the calorie content of a food before eating it.
• Unrestrained eaters tend to focus on internal signals that enough has been eaten.  They are able to find a balance between a feeling of satiety and an appealing appearance of food. 

 

In the study both groups, restrained and unrestrained eaters, thought of the mini-packs as “diet food.”  Both groups predicted they would want to eat less if the food in the mini-packs as opposed to normal-size packs.  But when actually eating the food, the restrained eaters ate more from the mini-packs than the unrestrained eaters.  More often than not, the restrained eaters ate all of the mini-packs presented to them whereas the unrestrained eaters ate some and left some.

 

Mini-packs underscore a lack of self-trust when it comes to food.  Restrained eaters may gravitate to this type of packaging, especially for “bad” or forbidden foods, in their ongoing effort to eat less overall and to control their intake of desirable food. 

 

This study shows us that food packaged in mini-packs doesn’t help anyone.  Nor does it fool anyone.  A person’s most basic need regarding food is to feel there is enough.  Feeling there is enough food cannot happen with a mini-pack.  Food security comes from having a plentiful amount of normal food offered at predictable times throughout the day. This approach to eating allows you to pay attention, eat as much as you want, and enjoy it.

 

References:

Scott ML, Nowlis SM, Mandel N, Morales A.: The effects of reduced food size and package size on the consumption behavior of restrained and unrestrained eaters. J Consumer Research.October, 2008;35 (electronically published July 16, 2008).

Satter EM. Hierarchy of food needs. J Nutr Educ Behav, 2007;39 (suppl):S187-188.

Original Post by cptbunny:

Now I feel extremely guilty. I changed my light bulbs, toilet paper, no longer use plastic bags when shopping etc. Yet I never noticed how much waste I make with the little things. I'm actually glad I read this post because it will change how I shop/what I buy from now on. Actually, thank you. :)

I still have trouble getting baggers at some supermarkets to bag my stuff in the bags I give them... they always start to bag and then they have to unbag... silly people.

yay, bunny!  yeah, when you start thinking about all the little bits and pieces (and i worry about the water i use cleaning my cans and jars for recycling) it can get pretty mind-bending.

the baggers at my grocery store have gotten almost too adept with the cloth bags.  for awhile, i had to tell them not to put the meat in plastic; but now, some of them don't understand the raw meat probably shouldn't go in the same bag as the fresh produce (which also, of course, isn't in plastic).

most of them are children, so i don't mind doing a little educating in the check-out line ;)

Original Post by moodymomma1977:

#19  you know what I do about the bag thing? 

Before I place ANY food on that little register thingy that moves (geez, I can't remember what it's called)  anyway, before I put any food on it, I place one of my empty cloth bags in front so the clerk sees it and knows to hand it to the bagger.  

I started to do that because by the time I'd finished placing the food on the counter, half my crap was already bagged in plastic.

:)

moody, me too!  the bags are the first thing i put on the conveyer (along with my keys so i can get my little discounts and collect my points with the little barcode thingy that lets someone somewhere track every freaken thing i buy, ever).

CONVEYER!!!  thanks pg.  I couldn't remember what it was called, hehe.  I almost called it the 'treadmill-register-counter-thingy'

had a brain fart... too much studying :/

hmmm, I do not think this was a question of waste, but more a question of restrained and unrestrined eaters.  I think it should be a question of trained and retrained eaters.  I was overweight because I could not conceive what it meant to eat a balanced diet.  I didn't know of portion control either.  I had to retrain my eating to be balanced and portion controlled.  100 cal packs are excellent for retraing people who never understood how to eat well from the beginning.  Those platic containers to hold out a portion controlled portion, the baggies to to hold a portion contolled are all extras and have a price tag.

As for being happy it also means being reasonable.   Wearing no shoes in the winter because it makes one happy is unreasonable.  Waste (trash), there are containers for trash; trash bags, trash compactors.  Is it truely unreasonable to be retrained to eat ? Is it unreasonable to eat how it makes you happy - well balanced ?  Portion controlled, convenience.  I pay a price for a convenience, a cash value for convenience.  In todays run about world, there comes a balance between being reasonable, convenient and in the end happy.

Ya know, I'm going to have to disagree. Not with the study as a whole, but as ME for as an individual.

I enjoy 100 calories packs. Many of them are not worth the calories they present, but for people who have a problem going back for more, the amount of food consumed is less.

I am a Restrained Eater by this definition. And if I have a whole bag of m&m's in the cabinet, I'm going to eat them. If I buy smaller portioned bags, I will eat less and enjoy the amount given to me.

So I guess this is different for everyone. I've learned after spending hundreds upon hundreds of dollars in 'mini packs' that most are NOT worth the quantity dished, I am a avid buyer of 100 cal popcorn :) And sourpatch kids, and sweedish fish! AND PRETZELS! Gotta love all those.

I thought about putting the bags on there, I was just afraid they'd charge me for them, even though they are already bought and are mine. >:| I will try this next time and see what happens. I think the baggers get confused... "Someone actually uses those things!?" look on their faces.  The bags are awesome (mine are maroon and black with little flowers =D)..and they don't tear and you can put more in them than plastic and they're much easier to carry and no fear of the bottom giving out like plastic. Ahh I love them, I use them when I buy books too.

i like the 100-calorie packs.  and, in fact, it's the "wasteful" packaging that makes me like them.  for the most part, i don't eat junk food, so, on the few occasions that i really am craving something bad for me, i can open up ONE tiny pack, eat that, and be satisfied.  if i opened up a whole bag, i would have to eat it within a reasonable period of time, so it didn't go stale.  so i'd either eat more than i really needed/wanted to (over the next week or two or even more, depending on the type of treat), or i would end up throwing away the entire bag - which is MORE packaging, plus wasting food.  whether or not the packs are a good idea really depends on how you use them.