food choices essay

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 06 December 2017

Healthy food choices are happy food choices: Evidence from a real life sample using smartphone based assessments

• Deborah R. Wahl 1   na1 ,
• Karoline Villinger 1   na1 ,
• Laura M. König   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3655-8842 1 ,
• Katrin Ziesemer 1 ,
• Harald T. Schupp 1 &
• Britta Renner 1  

Scientific Reports volume  7 , Article number:  17069 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

135k Accesses

57 Citations

269 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Health sciences
• Human behaviour

Research suggests that “healthy” food choices such as eating fruits and vegetables have not only physical but also mental health benefits and might be a long-term investment in future well-being. This view contrasts with the belief that high-caloric foods taste better, make us happy, and alleviate a negative mood. To provide a more comprehensive assessment of food choice and well-being, we investigated in-the-moment eating happiness by assessing complete, real life dietary behaviour across eight days using smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment. Three main findings emerged: First, of 14 different main food categories, vegetables consumption contributed the largest share to eating happiness measured across eight days. Second, sweets on average provided comparable induced eating happiness to “healthy” food choices such as fruits or vegetables. Third, dinner elicited comparable eating happiness to snacking. These findings are discussed within the “food as health” and “food as well-being” perspectives on eating behaviour.

Similar content being viewed by others

Effects of single plant-based vs. animal-based meals on satiety and mood in real-world smartphone-embedded studies

Eating Style and the Frequency, Size and Timing of Eating Occasions: A cross-sectional analysis using 7-day weighed dietary records

Interindividual variability in appetitive sensations and relationships between appetitive sensations and energy intake

Introduction.

When it comes to eating, researchers, the media, and policy makers mainly focus on negative aspects of eating behaviour, like restricting certain foods, counting calories, and dieting. Likewise, health intervention efforts, including primary prevention campaigns, typically encourage consumers to trade off the expected enjoyment of hedonic and comfort foods against health benefits 1 . However, research has shown that diets and restrained eating are often counterproductive and may even enhance the risk of long-term weight gain and eating disorders 2 , 3 . A promising new perspective entails a shift from food as pure nourishment towards a more positive and well-being centred perspective of human eating behaviour 1 , 4 , 5 . In this context, Block et al . 4 have advocated a paradigm shift from “food as health” to “food as well-being” (p. 848).

Supporting this perspective of “food as well-being”, recent research suggests that “healthy” food choices, such as eating more fruits and vegetables, have not only physical but also mental health benefits 6 , 7 and might be a long-term investment in future well-being 8 . For example, in a nationally representative panel survey of over 12,000 adults from Australia, Mujcic and Oswald 8 showed that fruit and vegetable consumption predicted increases in happiness, life satisfaction, and well-being over two years. Similarly, using lagged analyses, White and colleagues 9 showed that fruit and vegetable consumption predicted improvements in positive affect on the subsequent day but not vice versa. Also, cross-sectional evidence reported by Blanchflower et al . 10 shows that eating fruits and vegetables is positively associated with well-being after adjusting for demographic variables including age, sex, or race 11 . Of note, previous research includes a wide range of time lags between actual eating occasion and well-being assessment, ranging from 24 hours 9 , 12 to 14 days 6 , to 24 months 8 . Thus, the findings support the notion that fruit and vegetable consumption has beneficial effects on different indicators of well-being, such as happiness or general life satisfaction, across a broad range of time spans.

The contention that healthy food choices such as a higher fruit and vegetable consumption is associated with greater happiness and well-being clearly contrasts with the common belief that in particular high-fat, high-sugar, or high-caloric foods taste better and make us happy while we are eating them. When it comes to eating, people usually have a spontaneous “unhealthy = tasty” association 13 and assume that chocolate is a better mood booster than an apple. According to this in-the-moment well-being perspective, consumers have to trade off the expected enjoyment of eating against the health costs of eating unhealthy foods 1 , 4 .

A wealth of research shows that the experience of negative emotions and stress leads to increased consumption in a substantial number of individuals (“emotional eating”) of unhealthy food (“comfort food”) 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 . However, this research stream focuses on emotional eating to “smooth” unpleasant experiences in response to stress or negative mood states, and the mood-boosting effect of eating is typically not assessed 18 . One of the few studies testing the effectiveness of comfort food in improving mood showed that the consumption of “unhealthy” comfort food had a mood boosting effect after a negative mood induction but not to a greater extent than non-comfort or neutral food 19 . Hence, even though people may believe that snacking on “unhealthy” foods like ice cream or chocolate provides greater pleasure and psychological benefits, the consumption of “unhealthy” foods might not actually be more psychologically beneficial than other foods.

However, both streams of research have either focused on a single food category (fruit and vegetable consumption), a single type of meal (snacking), or a single eating occasion (after negative/neutral mood induction). Accordingly, it is unknown whether the boosting effect of eating is specific to certain types of food choices and categories or whether eating has a more general boosting effect that is observable after the consumption of both “healthy” and “unhealthy” foods and across eating occasions. Accordingly, in the present study, we investigated the psychological benefits of eating that varied by food categories and meal types by assessing complete dietary behaviour across eight days in real life.

Furthermore, previous research on the impact of eating on well-being tended to rely on retrospective assessments such as food frequency questionnaires 8 , 10 and written food diaries 9 . Such retrospective self-report methods rely on the challenging task of accurately estimating average intake or remembering individual eating episodes and may lead to under-reporting food intake, particularly unhealthy food choices such as snacks 7 , 20 . To avoid memory and bias problems in the present study we used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) 21 to obtain ecologically valid and comprehensive real life data on eating behaviour and happiness as experienced in-the-moment.

In the present study, we examined the eating happiness and satisfaction experienced in-the-moment, in real time and in real life, using a smartphone based EMA approach. Specifically, healthy participants were asked to record each eating occasion, including main meals and snacks, for eight consecutive days and rate how tasty their meal/snack was, how much they enjoyed it, and how pleased they were with their meal/snack immediately after each eating episode. This intense recording of every eating episode allows assessing eating behaviour on the level of different meal types and food categories to compare experienced eating happiness across meals and categories. Following the two different research streams, we expected on a food category level that not only “unhealthy” foods like sweets would be associated with high experienced eating happiness but also “healthy” food choices such as fruits and vegetables. On a meal type level, we hypothesised that the happiness of meals differs as a function of meal type. According to previous contention, snacking in particular should be accompanied by greater happiness.

Eating episodes

Overall, during the study period, a total of 1,044 completed eating episodes were reported (see also Table  1 ). On average, participants rated their eating happiness with M  = 77.59 which suggests that overall eating occasions were generally positive. However, experienced eating happiness also varied considerably between eating occasions as indicated by a range from 7.00 to 100.00 and a standard deviation of SD  = 16.41.

Food categories and experienced eating happiness

All eating episodes were categorised according to their food category based on the German Nutrient Database (German: Bundeslebensmittelschlüssel), which covers the average nutritional values of approximately 10,000 foods available on the German market and is a validated standard instrument for the assessment of nutritional surveys in Germany. As shown in Table  1 , eating happiness differed significantly across all 14 food categories, F (13, 2131) = 1.78, p  = 0.04. On average, experienced eating happiness varied from 71.82 ( SD  = 18.65) for fish to 83.62 ( SD  = 11.61) for meat substitutes. Post hoc analysis, however, did not yield significant differences in experienced eating happiness between food categories, p  ≥ 0.22. Hence, on average, “unhealthy” food choices such as sweets ( M  = 78.93, SD  = 15.27) did not differ in experienced happiness from “healthy” food choices such as fruits ( M  = 78.29, SD  = 16.13) or vegetables ( M  = 77.57, SD  = 17.17). In addition, an intraclass correlation (ICC) of ρ = 0.22 for happiness indicated that less than a quarter of the observed variation in experienced eating happiness was due to differences between food categories, while 78% of the variation was due to differences within food categories.

However, as Figure  1 (left side) depicts, consumption frequency differed greatly across food categories. Frequently consumed food categories encompassed vegetables which were consumed at 38% of all eating occasions ( n  = 400), followed by dairy products with 35% ( n  = 366), and sweets with 34% ( n  = 356). Conversely, rarely consumed food categories included meat substitutes, which were consumed in 2.2% of all eating occasions ( n  = 23), salty extras (1.5%, n  = 16), and pastries (1.3%, n  = 14).

Left side: Average experienced eating happiness (colour intensity: darker colours indicate greater happiness) and consumption frequency (size of the cycle) for the 14 food categories. Right side: Absolute share of the 14 food categories in total experienced eating happiness.

Amount of experienced eating happiness by food category

To account for the frequency of consumption, we calculated and scaled the absolute experienced eating happiness according to the total sum score. As shown in Figure  1 (right side), vegetables contributed the biggest share to the total happiness followed by sweets, dairy products, and bread. Clustering food categories shows that fruits and vegetables accounted for nearly one quarter of total eating happiness score and thus, contributed to a large part of eating related happiness. Grain products such as bread, pasta, and cereals, which are main sources of carbohydrates including starch and fibre, were the second main source for eating happiness. However, “unhealthy” snacks including sweets, salty extras, and pastries represented the third biggest source of eating related happiness.

Experienced eating happiness by meal type

To further elucidate the contribution of snacks to eating happiness, analysis on the meal type level was conducted. Experienced in-the-moment eating happiness significantly varied by meal type consumed, F (4, 1039) = 11.75, p  < 0.001. Frequencies of meal type consumption ranged from snacks being the most frequently logged meal type ( n  = 332; see also Table  1 ) to afternoon tea being the least logged meal type ( n  = 27). Figure  2 illustrates the wide dispersion within as well as between different meal types. Afternoon tea ( M  = 82.41, SD  = 15.26), dinner ( M  = 81.47, SD  = 14.73), and snacks ( M  = 79.45, SD  = 14.94) showed eating happiness values above the grand mean, whereas breakfast ( M  = 74.28, SD  = 16.35) and lunch ( M  = 73.09, SD  = 18.99) were below the eating happiness mean. Comparisons between meal types showed that eating happiness for snacks was significantly higher than for lunch t (533) = −4.44, p  = 0.001, d  = −0.38 and breakfast, t (567) = −3.78, p  = 0.001, d  = −0.33. However, this was also true for dinner, which induced greater eating happiness than lunch t (446) = −5.48, p  < 0.001, d  = −0.50 and breakfast, t (480) = −4.90, p  < 0.001, d  = −0.46. Finally, eating happiness for afternoon tea was greater than for lunch t (228) = −2.83, p  = 0.047, d  = −0.50. All other comparisons did not reach significance, t  ≤ 2.49, p  ≥ 0.093.

Experienced eating happiness per meal type. Small dots represent single eating events, big circles indicate average eating happiness, and the horizontal line indicates the grand mean. Boxes indicate the middle 50% (interquartile range) and median (darker/lighter shade). The whiskers above and below represent 1.5 of the interquartile range.

Control Analyses

In order to test for a potential confounding effect between experienced eating happiness, food categories, and meal type, additional control analyses within meal types were conducted. Comparing experienced eating happiness for dinner and lunch suggested that dinner did not trigger a happiness spill-over effect specific to vegetables since the foods consumed at dinner were generally associated with greater happiness than those consumed at other eating occasions (Supplementary Table  S1 ). Moreover, the relative frequency of vegetables consumed at dinner (73%, n  = 180 out of 245) and at lunch were comparable (69%, n  = 140 out of 203), indicating that the observed happiness-vegetables link does not seem to be mainly a meal type confounding effect.

Since the present study focuses on “food effects” (Level 1) rather than “person effects” (Level 2), we analysed the data at the food item level. However, participants who were generally overall happier with their eating could have inflated the observed happiness scores for certain food categories. In order to account for person-level effects, happiness scores were person-mean centred and thereby adjusted for mean level differences in happiness. The person-mean centred happiness scores ( M cwc ) represent the difference between the individual’s average happiness score (across all single in-the-moment happiness scores per food category) and the single happiness scores of the individual within the respective food category. The centred scores indicate whether the single in-the-moment happiness score was above (indicated by positive values) or below (indicated by negative values) the individual person-mean. As Table  1 depicts, the control analyses with centred values yielded highly similar results. Vegetables were again associated on average with more happiness than other food categories (although people might differ in their general eating happiness). An additional conducted ANOVA with person-centred happiness values as dependent variables and food categories as independent variables provided also a highly similar pattern of results. Replicating the previously reported analysis, eating happiness differed significantly across all 14 food categories, F (13, 2129) = 1.94, p  = 0.023, and post hoc analysis did not yield significant differences in experienced eating happiness between food categories, p  ≥ 0.14. Moreover, fruits and vegetables were associated with high happiness values, and “unhealthy” food choices such as sweets did not differ in experienced happiness from “healthy” food choices such as fruits or vegetables. The only difference between the previous and control analysis was that vegetables ( M cwc  = 1.16, SD  = 15.14) gained slightly in importance for eating-related happiness, whereas fruits ( M cwc  = −0.65, SD  = 13.21), salty extras ( M cwc  = −0.07, SD  = 8.01), and pastries ( M cwc  = −2.39, SD  = 18.26) became slightly less important.

This study is the first, to our knowledge, that investigated in-the-moment experienced eating happiness in real time and real life using EMA based self-report and imagery covering the complete diversity of food intake. The present results add to and extend previous findings by suggesting that fruit and vegetable consumption has immediate beneficial psychological effects. Overall, of 14 different main food categories, vegetables consumption contributed the largest share to eating happiness measured across eight days. Thus, in addition to the investment in future well-being indicated by previous research 8 , “healthy” food choices seem to be an investment in the in-the moment well-being.

Importantly, although many cultures convey the belief that eating certain foods has a greater hedonic and mood boosting effect, the present results suggest that this might not reflect actual in-the-moment experiences accurately. Even though people often have a spontaneous “unhealthy = tasty” intuition 13 , thus indicating that a stronger happiness boosting effect of “unhealthy” food is to be expected, the induced eating happiness of sweets did not differ on average from “healthy” food choices such as fruits or vegetables. This was also true for other stereotypically “unhealthy” foods such as pastries and salty extras, which did not show the expected greater boosting effect on happiness. Moreover, analyses on the meal type level support this notion, since snacks, despite their overall positive effect, were not the most psychologically beneficial meal type, i.e., dinner had a comparable “happiness” signature to snacking. Taken together, “healthy choices” seem to be also “happy choices” and at least comparable to or even higher in their hedonic value as compared to stereotypical “unhealthy” food choices.

In general, eating happiness was high, which concurs with previous research from field studies with generally healthy participants. De Castro, Bellisle, and Dalix 22 examined weekly food diaries from 54 French subjects and found that most of the meals were rated as appealing. Also, the observed differences in average eating happiness for the 14 different food categories, albeit statistically significant, were comparable small. One could argue that this simply indicates that participants avoided selecting bad food 22 . Alternatively, this might suggest that the type of food or food categories are less decisive for experienced eating happiness than often assumed. This relates to recent findings in the field of comfort and emotional eating. Many people believe that specific types of food have greater comforting value. Also in research, the foods eaten as response to negative emotional strain, are typically characterised as being high-caloric because such foods are assumed to provide immediate psycho-physical benefits 18 . However, comparing different food types did not provide evidence for the notion that they differed in their provided comfort; rather, eating in general led to significant improvements in mood 19 . This is mirrored in the present findings. Comparing the eating happiness of “healthy” food choices such as fruits and vegetables to that of “unhealthy” food choices such as sweets shows remarkably similar patterns as, on average, they were associated with high eating happiness and their range of experiences ranged from very negative to very positive.

This raises the question of why the idea that we can eat indulgent food to compensate for life’s mishaps is so prevailing. In an innovative experimental study, Adriaanse, Prinsen, de Witt Huberts, de Ridder, and Evers 23 led participants believe that they overate. Those who characterised themselves as emotional eaters falsely attributed their over-consumption to negative emotions, demonstrating a “confabulation”-effect. This indicates that people might have restricted self-knowledge and that recalled eating episodes suffer from systematic recall biases 24 . Moreover, Boelsma, Brink, Stafleu, and Hendriks 25 examined postprandial subjective wellness and objective parameters (e.g., ghrelin, insulin, glucose) after standardised breakfast intakes and did not find direct correlations. This suggests that the impact of different food categories on wellness might not be directly related to biological effects but rather due to conditioning as food is often paired with other positive experienced situations (e.g., social interactions) or to placebo effects 18 . Moreover, experimental and field studies indicate that not only negative, but also positive, emotions trigger eating 15 , 26 . One may speculate that selective attention might contribute to the “myth” of comfort food 19 in that people attend to the consumption effect of “comfort” food in negative situation but neglect the effect in positive ones.

The present data also show that eating behaviour in the real world is a complex behaviour with many different aspects. People make more than 200 food decisions a day 27 which poses a great challenge for the measurement of eating behaviour. Studies often assess specific food categories such as fruit and vegetable consumption using Food Frequency Questionnaires, which has clear advantages in terms of cost-effectiveness. However, focusing on selective aspects of eating and food choices might provide only a selective part of the picture 15 , 17 , 22 . It is important to note that focusing solely on the “unhealthy” food choices such as sweets would have led to the conclusion that they have a high “indulgent” value. To be able to draw conclusions about which foods make people happy, the relation of different food categories needs to be considered. The more comprehensive view, considering the whole dietary behaviour across eating occasions, reveals that “healthy” food choices actually contributed the biggest share to the total experienced eating happiness. Thus, for a more comprehensive understanding of how eating behaviours are regulated, more complete and sensitive measures of the behaviour are necessary. Developments in mobile technologies hold great promise for feasible dietary assessment based on image-assisted methods 28 .

As fruits and vegetables evoked high in-the-moment happiness experiences, one could speculate that these cumulate and have spill-over effects on subsequent general well-being, including life satisfaction across time. Combing in-the-moment measures with longitudinal perspectives might be a promising avenue for future studies for understanding the pathways from eating certain food types to subjective well-being. In the literature different pathways are discussed, including physiological and biochemical aspects of specific food elements or nutrients 7 .

The present EMA based data also revealed that eating happiness varied greatly within the 14 food categories and meal types. As within food category variance represented more than two third of the total observed variance, happiness varied according to nutritional characteristics and meal type; however, a myriad of factors present in the natural environment can affect each and every meal. Thus, widening the “nourishment” perspective by including how much, when, where, how long, and with whom people eat might tell us more about experienced eating happiness. Again, mobile, in-the-moment assessment opens the possibility of assessing the behavioural signature of eating in real life. Moreover, individual factors such as eating motives, habitual eating styles, convenience, and social norms are likely to contribute to eating happiness variance 5 , 29 .

A key strength of this study is that it was the first to examine experienced eating happiness in non-clinical participants using EMA technology and imagery to assess food intake. Despite this strength, there are some limitations to this study that affect the interpretation of the results. In the present study, eating happiness was examined on a food based level. This neglects differences on the individual level and might be examined in future multilevel studies. Furthermore, as a main aim of this study was to assess real life eating behaviour, the “natural” observation level is the meal, the psychological/ecological unit of eating 30 , rather than food categories or nutrients. Therefore, we cannot exclude that specific food categories may have had a comparably higher impact on the experienced happiness of the whole meal. Sample size and therefore Type I and Type II error rates are of concern. Although the total number of observations was higher than in previous studies (see for example, Boushey et al . 28 for a review), the number of participants was small but comparable to previous studies in this field 20 , 31 , 32 , 33 . Small sample sizes can increase error rates because the number of persons is more decisive than the number of nested observations 34 . Specially, nested data can seriously increase Type I error rates, which is rather unlikely to be the case in the present study. Concerning Type II error rates, Aarts et al . 35 illustrated for lower ICCs that adding extra observations per participant also increases power, particularly in the lower observation range. Considering the ICC and the number of observations per participant, one could argue that the power in the present study is likely to be sufficient to render the observed null-differences meaningful. Finally, the predominately white and well-educated sample does limit the degree to which the results can be generalised to the wider community; these results warrant replication with a more representative sample.

Despite these limitations, we think that our study has implications for both theory and practice. The cumulative evidence of psychological benefits from healthy food choices might offer new perspectives for health promotion and public-policy programs 8 . Making people aware of the “healthy = happy” association supported by empirical evidence provides a distinct and novel perspective to the prevailing “unhealthy = tasty” folk intuition and could foster eating choices that increase both in-the-moment happiness and future well-being. Furthermore, the present research lends support to the advocated paradigm shift from “food as health” to “food as well-being” which entails a supporting and encouraging rather constraining and limiting view on eating behaviour.

The study conformed with the Declaration of Helsinki. All study protocols were approved by University of Konstanz’s Institutional Review Board and were conducted in accordance with guidelines and regulations. Upon arrival, all participants signed a written informed consent.

Participants

Thirty-eight participants (28 females: average age = 24.47, SD  = 5.88, range = 18–48 years) from the University of Konstanz assessed their eating behaviour in close to real time and in their natural environment using an event-based ambulatory assessment method (EMA). No participant dropped out or had to be excluded. Thirty-three participants were students, with 52.6% studying psychology. As compensation, participants could choose between taking part in a lottery (4 × 25€) or receiving course credits (2 hours).

Participants were recruited through leaflets distributed at the university and postings on Facebook groups. Prior to participation, all participants gave written informed consent. Participants were invited to the laboratory for individual introductory sessions. During this first session, participants installed the application movisensXS (version 0.8.4203) on their own smartphones and downloaded the study survey (movisensXS Library v4065). In addition, they completed a short baseline questionnaire, including demographic variables like age, gender, education, and eating principles. Participants were instructed to log every eating occasion immediately before eating by using the smartphone to indicate the type of meal, take pictures of the food, and describe its main components using a free input field. Fluid intake was not assessed. Participants were asked to record their food intake on eight consecutive days. After finishing the study, participants were invited back to the laboratory for individual final interviews.

Immediately before eating participants were asked to indicate the type of meal with the following five options: breakfast, lunch, afternoon tea, dinner, snack. In Germany, “afternoon tea” is called “Kaffee & Kuchen” which directly translates as “coffee & cake”. It is similar to the idea of a traditional “afternoon tea” meal in UK. Specifically, in Germany, people have “Kaffee & Kuchen” in the afternoon (between 4–5 pm) and typically coffee (or tea) is served with some cake or cookies. Dinner in Germany is a main meal with mainly savoury food.

After each meal, participants were asked to rate their meal on three dimensions. They rated (1) how much they enjoyed the meal, (2) how pleased they were with their meal, and (3) how tasty their meal was. Ratings were given on a scale of one to 100. For reliability analysis, Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated to assess the internal consistency of the three items. Overall Cronbach’s alpha was calculated with α = 0.87. In addition, the average of the 38 Cronbach’s alpha scores calculated at the person level also yielded a satisfactory value with α = 0.83 ( SD  = 0.24). Thirty-two of 38 participants showed a Cronbach’s alpha value above 0.70 (range = 0.42–0.97). An overall score of experienced happiness of eating was computed using the average of the three questions concerning the meals’ enjoyment, pleasure, and tastiness.

Analytical procedure

The food pictures and descriptions of their main components provided by the participants were subsequently coded by independent and trained raters. Following a standardised manual, additional components displayed in the picture were added to the description by the raters. All consumed foods were categorised into 14 different food categories (see Table  1 ) derived from the food classification system designed by the German Nutrition Society (DGE) and based on the existing food categories of the German Nutrient Database (Max Rubner Institut). Liquid intake and preparation method were not assessed. Therefore, fats and additional recipe ingredients were not included in further analyses, because they do not represent main elements of food intake. Further, salty extras were added to the categorisation.

No participant dropped out or had to be excluded due to high missing rates. Missing values were below 5% for all variables. The compliance rate at the meal level cannot be directly assessed since the numbers of meals and snacks can vary between as well as within persons (between days). As a rough compliance estimate, the numbers of meals that are expected from a “normative” perspective during the eight observation days can be used as a comparison standard (8 x breakfast, 8 × lunch, 8 × dinner = 24 meals). On average, the participants reported M  = 6.3 breakfasts ( SD  = 2.3), M  = 5.3 lunches ( SD  = 1.8), and M  = 6.5 dinners ( SD  = 2.0). In comparison to the “normative” expected 24 meals, these numbers indicate a good compliance (approx. 75%) with a tendency to miss six meals during the study period (approx. 25%). However, the “normative” expected 24 meals for the study period might be too high since participants might also have skipped meals (e.g. breakfast). Also, the present compliance rates are comparable to other studies. For example, Elliston et al . 36 recorded 3.3 meal/snack reports per day in an Australian adult sample and Casperson et al . 37 recorded 2.2 meal reports per day in a sample of adolescents. In the present study, on average, M  = 3.4 ( SD  = 1.35) meals or snacks were reported per day. These data indicate overall a satisfactory compliance rate and did not indicate selective reporting of certain food items.

To graphically visualise data, Tableau (version 10.1) was used and for further statistical analyses, IBM SPSS Statistics (version 24 for Windows).

Data availability

The dataset generated and analysed during the current study is available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.

Cornil, Y. & Chandon, P. Pleasure as an ally of healthy eating? Contrasting visceral and epicurean eating pleasure and their association with portion size preferences and wellbeing. Appetite 104 , 52–59 (2016).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mann, T. et al . Medicare’s search for effective obesity treatments: Diets are not the answer. American Psychologist 62 , 220–233 (2007).

van Strien, T., Herman, C. P. & Verheijden, M. W. Dietary restraint and body mass change. A 3-year follow up study in a representative Dutch sample. Appetite 76 , 44–49 (2014).

Block, L. G. et al . From nutrients to nurturance: A conceptual introduction to food well-being. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 30 , 5–13 (2011).

Article   Google Scholar  

Renner, B., Sproesser, G., Strohbach, S. & Schupp, H. T. Why we eat what we eat. The eating motivation survey (TEMS). Appetite 59 , 117–128 (2012).

Conner, T. S., Brookie, K. L., Carr, A. C., Mainvil, L. A. & Vissers, M. C. Let them eat fruit! The effect of fruit and vegetable consumption on psychological well-being in young adults: A randomized controlled trial. PloS one 12 , e0171206 (2017).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rooney, C., McKinley, M. C. & Woodside, J. V. The potential role of fruit and vegetables in aspects of psychological well-being: a review of the literature and future directions. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 72 , 420–432 (2013).

Mujcic, R. & Oswald, A. J. Evolution of well-being and happiness after increases in consumption of fruit and vegetables. American Journal of Public Health 106 , 1504–1510 (2016).

White, B. A., Horwath, C. C. & Conner, T. S. Many apples a day keep the blues away – Daily experiences of negative and positive affect and food consumption in young adults. British Journal of Health Psychology 18 , 782–798 (2013).

Blanchflower, D. G., Oswald, A. J. & Stewart-Brown, S. Is psychological well-being linked to the consumption of fruit and vegetables? Social Indicators Research 114 , 785–801 (2013).

Grant, N., Wardle, J. & Steptoe, A. The relationship between life satisfaction and health behavior: A Cross-cultural analysis of young adults. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 16 , 259–268 (2009).

Conner, T. S., Brookie, K. L., Richardson, A. C. & Polak, M. A. On carrots and curiosity: Eating fruit and vegetables is associated with greater flourishing in daily life. British Journal of Health Psychology 20 , 413–427 (2015).

Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W. & Hoyer, W. D. The unhealthy = tasty intuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of Marketing 70 , 170–184 (2006).

Evers, C., Stok, F. M. & de Ridder, D. T. Feeding your feelings: Emotion regulation strategies and emotional eating. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36 , 792–804 (2010).

Sproesser, G., Schupp, H. T. & Renner, B. The bright side of stress-induced eating: eating more when stressed but less when pleased. Psychological Science 25 , 58–65 (2013).

Wansink, B., Cheney, M. M. & Chan, N. Exploring comfort food preferences across age and gender. Physiology & Behavior 79 , 739–747 (2003).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Taut, D., Renner, B. & Baban, A. Reappraise the situation but express your emotions: impact of emotion regulation strategies on ad libitum food intake. Frontiers in Psychology 3 , 359 (2012).

Tomiyama, J. A., Finch, L. E. & Cummings, J. R. Did that brownie do its job? Stress, eating, and the biobehavioral effects of comfort food. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource (2015).

Wagner, H. S., Ahlstrom, B., Redden, J. P., Vickers, Z. & Mann, T. The myth of comfort food. Health Psychology 33 , 1552–1557 (2014).

Schüz, B., Bower, J. & Ferguson, S. G. Stimulus control and affect in dietary behaviours. An intensive longitudinal study. Appetite 87 , 310–317 (2015).

Shiffman, S. Conceptualizing analyses of ecological momentary assessment data. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 16 , S76–S87 (2014).

de Castro, J. M., Bellisle, F. & Dalix, A.-M. Palatability and intake relationships in free-living humans: measurement and characterization in the French. Physiology & Behavior 68 , 271–277 (2000).

Adriaanse, M. A., Prinsen, S., de Witt Huberts, J. C., de Ridder, D. T. & Evers, C. ‘I ate too much so I must have been sad’: Emotions as a confabulated reason for overeating. Appetite 103 , 318–323 (2016).

Robinson, E. Relationships between expected, online and remembered enjoyment for food products. Appetite 74 , 55–60 (2014).

Boelsma, E., Brink, E. J., Stafleu, A. & Hendriks, H. F. Measures of postprandial wellness after single intake of two protein–carbohydrate meals. Appetite 54 , 456–464 (2010).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Boh, B. et al . Indulgent thinking? Ecological momentary assessment of overweight and healthy-weight participants’ cognitions and emotions. Behaviour Research and Therapy 87 , 196–206 (2016).

Wansink, B. & Sobal, J. Mindless eating: The 200 daily food decisions we overlook. Environment and Behavior 39 , 106–123 (2007).

Boushey, C., Spoden, M., Zhu, F., Delp, E. & Kerr, D. New mobile methods for dietary assessment: review of image-assisted and image-based dietary assessment methods. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , 1–12 (2016).

Stok, F. M. et al . The DONE framework: Creation, evaluation, and updating of an interdisciplinary, dynamic framework 2.0 of determinants of nutrition and eating. PLoS ONE 12 , e0171077 (2017).

Pliner, P. & Rozin, P. In Dimensions of the meal: The science, culture, business, and art of eating (ed H Meiselman) 19–46 (Aspen Publishers, 2000).

Inauen, J., Shrout, P. E., Bolger, N., Stadler, G. & Scholz, U. Mind the gap? Anintensive longitudinal study of between-person and within-person intention-behaviorrelations. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 50 , 516–522 (2016).

Zepeda, L. & Deal, D. Think before you eat: photographic food diaries asintervention tools to change dietary decision making and attitudes. InternationalJournal of Consumer Studies 32 , 692–698 (2008).

Stein, K. F. & Corte, C. M. Ecologic momentary assessment of eating‐disordered behaviors. International Journal of Eating Disorders 34 , 349–360 (2003).

Bolger, N., Stadler, G. & Laurenceau, J. P. Power analysis for intensive longitudinal studies in Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (ed . Mehl, M. R. & Conner, T. S.) 285–301 (New York: The Guilford Press, 2012).

Aarts, E., Verhage, M., Veenvliet, J. V., Dolan, C. V. & Van Der Sluis, S. A solutionto dependency: using multilevel analysis to accommodate nested data. Natureneuroscience 17 , 491–496 (2014).

Elliston, K. G., Ferguson, S. G., Schüz, N. & Schüz, B. Situational cues andmomentary food environment predict everyday eating behavior in adults withoverweight and obesity. Health Psychology 36 , 337–345 (2017).

Casperson, S. L. et al . A mobile phone food record app to digitally capture dietary intake for adolescents in afree-living environment: usability study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 3 , e30 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the project SmartAct (Grant 01EL1420A, granted to B.R. & H.S.). The funding source had no involvement in the study’s design; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; the writing of the report; or the decision to submit this article for publication. We thank Gudrun Sproesser, Helge Giese, and Angela Whale for their valuable support.

Author information

Deborah R. Wahl and Karoline Villinger contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

Deborah R. Wahl, Karoline Villinger, Laura M. König, Katrin Ziesemer, Harald T. Schupp & Britta Renner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

B.R. & H.S. developed the study concept. All authors participated in the generation of the study design. D.W., K.V., L.K. & K.Z. conducted the study, including participant recruitment and data collection, under the supervision of B.R. & H.S.; D.W. & K.V. conducted data analyses. D.W. & K.V. prepared the first manuscript draft, and B.R. & H.S. provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Deborah R. Wahl or Britta Renner .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary table s1, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wahl, D.R., Villinger, K., König, L.M. et al. Healthy food choices are happy food choices: Evidence from a real life sample using smartphone based assessments. Sci Rep 7 , 17069 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17262-9

Download citation

Received : 05 June 2017

Accepted : 23 November 2017

Published : 06 December 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17262-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Financial satisfaction, food security, and shared meals are foundations of happiness among older persons in thailand.

• Sirinya Phulkerd
• Rossarin Soottipong Gray
• Sasinee Thapsuwan

BMC Geriatrics (2023)

Enrichment and Conflict Between Work and Health Behaviors: New Scales for Assessing How Work Relates to Physical Exercise and Healthy Eating

• Sabine Sonnentag
• Maria U. Kottwitz
• Jette Völker

Occupational Health Science (2023)

The value of Bayesian predictive projection for variable selection: an example of selecting lifestyle predictors of young adult well-being

• A. Bartonicek
• S. R. Wickham
• T. S. Conner

BMC Public Health (2021)

Smartphone-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment of Well-Being: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Studies

• Lianne P. de Vries
• Bart M. L. Baselmans
• Meike Bartels

Journal of Happiness Studies (2021)

Exploration of nutritional, antioxidative, antibacterial and anticancer status of Russula alatoreticula: towards valorization of a traditionally preferred unique myco-food

• Somanjana Khatua
• Surashree Sen Gupta
• Krishnendu Acharya

Journal of Food Science and Technology (2021)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• healthy living

The Factors That Influence Our Food Choices

Given the priority for population dietary change there is a need for a greater understanding of the determinants that affect food choice. This review examines the major influences on food choice with a focus on those that are amenable to change and discusses some successful interventions.

1. Major determinants of food choice

The key driver for eating is of course hunger but what we choose to eat is not determined solely by physiological or nutritional needs. Some of the other factors that influence food choice include:

• Biological determinants such as hunger, appetite, and taste
• Economic determinants such as cost, income, availability
• Physical determinants such as access, education, skills (e.g. cooking) and time
• Social determinants such as culture, family, peers and meal patterns
• Psychological determinants such as mood, stress and guilt
• Attitudes, beliefs and knowledge about food

The complexity of food choice is obvious from the list above, which is in itself not exhaustive. Food choice factors also vary according to life stage and the power of one factor will vary from one individual or group of people to the next. Thus, one type of intervention to modify food choice behaviour will not suit all population groups. Rather, interventions need to be geared towards different groups of the population with consideration to the many factors influencing their decisions on food choice.

1.1 Biological determinants of food choice

Hunger and satiety.

Our physiological needs provide the basic determinants of food choice. Humans need energy and nutrients in order to survive and will respond to the feelings of hunger and satiety (satisfaction of appetite, state of no hunger between two eating occasions). The central nervous system is involved in controlling the balance between hunger, appetite stimulation and food intake.

The macro-nutrients i.e. carbohydrates, proteins and fats generate satiety signals of varying strength. The balance of evidence suggests that fat has the lowest satiating power, carbohydrates have an intermediate effect and protein has been found to be the most satiating 49 .

The energy density of diets has been shown to exert potent effects on satiety; low energy density diets generate greater satiety than high energy density diets. The high energy density of high-fat and/or high-sugar foods can also lead to ‘passive overconsumption’, where excess energy is ingested unintentionally and without the consumption of additional bulk.

An important satiety signal may be the volume of food or portion size consumed. Many people are unaware of what constitutes appropriate portion sizes and thus inadvertently consume excess energy.

Palatability

Palatability is proportional to the pleasure someone experiences when eating a particular food. It is dependent on the sensory properties of the food such as taste, smell, texture and appearance. Sweet and high-fat foods have an undeniable sensory appeal. It is not surprising then that food is not solely regarded as a source of nourishment but is often consumed for the pleasure value it imparts.

The influence of palatability on appetite and food intake in humans has been investigated in several studies. There is an increase in food intake as palatability increases, but the effect of palatability on appetite in the period following consumption is unclear. Increasing food variety can also increase food and energy intake and in the short term alter energy balance 45 . However, effects on long-term energy regulation are unknown.

Sensory aspects

‘Taste’ is consistently reported as a major influence on food behaviour. In reality ‘taste’ is the sum of all sensory stimulation that is produced by the ingestion of a food. This includes not only taste per se but also smell, appearance and texture of food. These sensory aspects are thought to influence, in particular, spontaneous food choice.

From an early age, taste and familiarity influence behaviour towards food. A liking for sweetness and a dislike for bitterness are considered innate human traits, present from birth 48 . Taste preferences and food aversions develop through experiences and are influenced by our attitudes, beliefs and expectations 9 .

1.2 Economic and physical determinants of food choice

Cost and accessibility.

There is no doubt that the cost of food is a primary determinant of food choice. Whether cost is prohibitive depends fundamentally on a person's income and socio-economic status. Low-income groups have a greater tendency to consume unbalanced diets and in particular have low intakes of fruit and vegetables 14 . However, access to more money does not automatically equate to a better quality diet but the range of foods from which one can choose should increase.

Accessibility to shops is another important physical factor influencing food choice, which is dependent on resources such as transport and geographical location. Healthy food tends to be more expensive when available within towns and cities compared to supermarkets on the outskirts 19 . However, improving access alone does not increase purchase of additional fruit and vegetables, which are still regarded as prohibitively expensive 18 .

Education and Knowledge

Studies indicate that the level of education can influence dietary behaviour during adulthood 30 . In contrast, nutrition knowledge and good dietary habits are not strongly correlated. This is because knowledge about health does not lead to direct action when individuals are unsure how to apply their knowledge. Furthermore, information disseminated on nutrition comes from a variety of sources and is viewed as conflicting or is mistrusted, which discourages motivation to change 15 . Thus, it is important to convey accurate and consistent messages through various media, on food packages and of course via health professionals.

1.3 Social determinants of food choice

Influence of social class.

What people eat is formed and constrained by circumstances that are essentially social and cultural. Population studies show there are clear differences in social classes with regard to food and nutrient intakes. Poor diets can result in under- (micronutrients deficiency) and over-nutrition (energy over consumption resulting in overweight and obesity); problems that face different sectors of society, requiring different levels of expertise and methods of intervention.

Cultural influences

Cultural influences lead to the difference in the habitual consumption of certain foods and in traditions of preparation, and in certain cases can lead to restrictions such as exclusion of meat and milk from the diet. Cultural influences are however amenable to change: when moving to a new country individuals often adopt particular food habits of the local culture.

Social context

Social influences on food intake refer to the impact that one or more persons have on the eating behaviour of others, either direct (buying food) or indirect (learn from peer's behaviour), either conscious (transfer of beliefs) or subconscious. Even when eating alone, food choice is influenced by social factors because attitudes and habits develop through the interaction with others. However, quantifying the social influences on food intake is difficult because the influences that people have on the eating behaviour of others are not limited to one type and people are not necessarily aware of the social influences that are exerted on their eating behaviour 23 .

Social support can have a beneficial effect on food choices and healthful dietary change 16 . For example, social support has been found to be a strong predictor for fruit and vegetable consumption among adults. 46  Social support may enhance health promotion through fostering a sense of group belonging and helping people to be more competent and self-efficacious 8 .

The family is widely recognised as being significant in food decisions. Research shows the shaping of food choices taking place in the home. Because family and friends can be a source of encouragement in making and sustaining dietary change, adopting dietary strategies which are acceptable to them may benefit the individual whilst also having an effect on the eating habits of others 3 .

Social setting

Although the majority of food is eaten in the home, an increasing proportion is eaten outside the home, e.g. in schools, at work and in restaurants. The venue in which food is eaten can affect food choice, particularly in terms of what foods are on offer. The availability of healthy food at home and 'away from home' increases the consumption of such foods. However, access to healthy food options is limited in many work/school environments. This is particularly true for those with irregular hours or with particular requirements, e.g. vegetarian 22 . With the majority of adult women and men in employment, the influence of work on health behaviours such as food choices is an important area of investigation 16 .

1.4 Meal patterns

People have many different eating occasions daily, the motivations for which will differ from one occasion to the next. Most studies investigate the factors that influence habitual food choice but it may be useful to investigate what influences food choice at different eating occasions.

The effects of snacking on health have been debated widely. Evidence shows that snacking can have effects on energy and nutrient intakes but not necessarily on body mass index 28 . However, individuals with normal weight or overweight may differ in their coping strategies when snack foods are freely available and also in their compensatory mechanisms at subsequent meals. Moreover, snack composition may be an important aspect in the ability of individuals to adjust intake to meet energy needs.

Helping young adults to choose healthy snack choices poses a challenge to many health professionals. In the home, rather than forbidding unhealthy snacks, a more positive approach may be the introduction of healthy snack options over time. Moreover, healthy food choices outside the home also need to be made more readily available.

1.5 Psychological factors

Psychological stress is a common feature of modern life and can modify behaviours that affect health, such as physical activity, smoking or food choice.

The influence of stress on food choice is complex not least because of the various types of stress one can experience. The effect of stress on food intake depends on the individual, the stressor and the circumstances. In general, some people eat more and some eat less than normal when experiencing stress 39 .

The proposed mechanisms for stress induced changes in eating and food choice are motivational differences (reduced concern about weight control), physiological (reduced appetite caused by the processes associated with stress) and practical changes in eating opportunities, food availability and meal preparation.

Studies also suggest that if work stress is prolonged or frequent, then adverse dietary changes could result, increasing the possibility of weight gain and consequently cardiovascular risk 51 .

Hippocrates was the first to suggest the healing power of food, however, it was not until the middle ages that food was considered a tool to modify temperament and mood. Today it is recognised that food influences our mood and that mood has a strong influence over our choice of food.

Interestingly, it appears that the influence of food on mood is related in part to attitudes towards particular foods. The ambivalent relationship with food – wanting to enjoy it but conscious of weight gain is a struggle experienced by many. Dieters, people with high restraint and some women report feeling guilty because of not eating what they think they should 17 . Moreover, attempts to restrict intake of certain foods can increase the desire for these particular foods, leading to what are described as food cravings.

Women more commonly report food cravings than do men. Depressed mood appears to influence the severity of these cravings. Reports of food cravings are also more common in the premenstrual phase, a time when total food intake increases and a parallel change in basal metabolic rate occurs 21 .

Thus, mood and stress can influence food choice behaviour and possibly short and long term responses to dietary intervention.

2. Eating disorders

Eating behaviour, unlike many other biological functions, is often subject to sophisticated cognitive control. One of the most widely practised forms of cognitive control over food intake is dieting.

Many individuals express a desire to lose weight or improve their body shape and thus engage in approaches to achieve their ideal body mass index. However, problems can arise when dieting and/or exercise are taken to extremes. The aetiology of eating disorders is usually a combination of factors including biological, psychological, familial and socio-cultural. The occurrence of eating disorders is often associated with a distorted self-image, low self-esteem, non-specific anxiety, obsession, stress and unhappiness 36 .

Treatment of an eating disorder generally requires weight stabilisation and one-to-one psychotherapy. Prevention is more difficult to define but suggestions include avoidance of child abuse; avoidance of magnifying diet and health issues; showing affection without over-controlling; not setting impossible standards; rewarding small attainments in the present; encouraging independence and sociability 36 .

3. Consumer attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and optimistic bias

Consumer attitudes and beliefs.

In both the areas of food safety and nutrition, our understanding of consumers’ attitudes are poorly researched 26 . A better understanding of how the public perceive their diets would help in the design and implementation of healthy eating initiatives.

The Pan-European Survey of Consumer Attitudes to Food, Nutrition and Health found that the top five influences on food choice in 15 European member states are ‘quality/freshness’ (74%), ‘price’ (43%), ‘taste’ (38%), ‘trying to eat healthy’ (32%) and ‘what my family wants to eat’ (29%). These are average figures obtained by grouping 15 European member states results, which differed significantly from country to country. In the USA the following order of factors affecting food choices has been reported: taste, cost, nutrition, convenience and weight concerns 27 .

In the Pan-European study, females, older subjects, and more educated subjects considered ‘health aspects’ to be particularly important. Males more frequently selected 'taste' and 'habit' as main determinants of their food choice. ‘Price’ seemed to be most important in unemployed and retired subjects. Interventions targeted at these groups should consider their perceived determinants of food choice.

Attitudes and beliefs can and do change; our attitude to dietary fat has changed in the last 50 years with a corresponding decrease in the absolute amount of fat eaten and a change in the ratio of saturated to unsaturated fat.

Optimistic bias

There is a low level of perceived need among European populations to alter their eating habits for health reasons, 71% surveyed believing that their diets are already adequately healthy 31 . This high level of satisfaction with current diets has been reported in Australian 52 , American 10 and English subjects 37 .

The lack of need to make dietary changes, suggest a high level of optimistic bias, which is a phenomenon where people believe that they are at less risk from a hazard compared to others. This false optimism is also reflected in studies showing how people underestimate their likelihood of having a high fat diet relative to others 25  and how some consumers with low fruit and vegetable intakes regard themselves as ‘high consumers’ 11 .

If people believe that their diets are already healthy it may be unreasonable to expect them to alter their diets, or to consider nutrition/healthy eating as a highly important factor when choosing their food. Although these consumers have a higher probability of having a healthier diet than those who recognise their diet is in need of improvement, they are still far short of the generally accepted public health nutrition goals 26 . It is also unlikely that these groups will be motivated further by dietary recommendations. Hence, future interventions may need to increase awareness among the general population that their own diet is not wholly adequate in terms of, for example fat, or fruit and vegetable consumption 13 . For those who believe their diets to be healthy it has been suggested that if their beliefs about outcomes of dietary change can be altered, their attitudes may become more favourable and they therefore may be more likely to alter their diets 40 . Thus, a perceived need to undertake change is a fundamental requirement for initiating dietary change 31 .

4. Barriers to dietary and lifestyle change

Focus on cost.

Household income and the cost of food is an important factor influencing food choice, especially for low-income consumers. The potential for food wastage leads to a reluctance to try ‘new’ foods for fear the family will reject them. In addition, a lack of knowledge and the loss of cooking skills can also inhibit buying and preparing meals from basic ingredients.

Education on how to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in an affordable way such that no further expense, in money or effort, is incurred has been proposed as a solution 18 . Efforts of governments, public health authorities, producers and retailers to promote fruit and vegetable dishes as value for money could also make a positive contribution to dietary change 12 .

Time constraints

Lack of time is frequently mentioned for not following nutritional advice, particularly by the young and well educated 33 . People living alone or cooking for one seek out convenience foods rather than cooking from basic ingredients. This need has been met with a shift in the fruit and vegetables market from loose to prepacked, prepared and ready-to-cook products. These products are more expensive than loose products but people are willing to pay the extra cost because of the convenience they bring. Developing a greater range of tasty, convenient foods with good nutritional profiles offers a route to improving the diet quality of these groups.

5. Models for changing behaviour

Health behavioural models.

Understanding how people make decisions about their health can help in planning health promotion strategies. This is where the influence of social psychology and its associated theory-based models play a role. These models help to explain human behaviour and in particular to understand how people make decisions about their health. They have also been used to predict the likelihood that dietary behaviour change will occur. This section focuses on a select few.

The Health Belief Model (HBM) and the Protection Motivation Theory

The HBM was originally proposed by Rosenstock 43 , was modified by Becker 7  and has been used to predict protective health behaviour, such as screening, vaccination uptake and compliance with medical advice. The model suggests that people considering changing their behaviour must feel personally threatened by a disease/illness and that they then engage in a cost-benefit analysis. This model also suggests that people need some kind of cue to take action to change behaviour or make a health-related decision.

The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

The Theory of Reasoned Action 4 or its extension in the form of The Theory of Planned Behaviour 5 have been used to help explain as well as to predict the intention of a certain behaviour. These models are based on the hypothesis that the best predictor of the behaviour is behavioural intention. The model proposes that an individual’s behavioural intention is jointly derived form three components; 

• attitudes, 
• perception of social pressure to perform the behaviour and 
• perceived control over the behaviour.

In dietary studies TPB/TRA enables a comparison of the strength of influences upon individuals and between sample groups and can be used to build an understanding of the determinants of food choice. The TRA has been successful in explaining behaviours such as fat, salt and milk intake. The TPB model was also used to help explain attitudes and beliefs about starchy foods in the UK 50 .

Stage classification for health-related behaviour

The Stages of Change model developed by Prochaska 42 and co-workers suggests that health related behaviour change occurs through five separate stages. These are pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action and maintenance. The model assumes that if different factors influence transitions at different stages, then individuals should respond best to interventions tailored to match their stage of change.

The Stages of Change model, in contrast to the other models discussed, has proven to be more popular for use in changing behaviour rather than in explaining current behaviour. This is probably because the model offers practical intervention guidance that can be taught to practitioners. In addition, large random samples can be tested with messages tailored to the person’s stage of readiness to change.

It has been suggested that a stage model may be more appropriate for simpler more discrete behaviours such as eating five servings of fruit and vegetables every day, or drinking low-fat milk (food-based goals) than for complex dietary changes such as low-fat eating (nutrient-based goal) 29 .

Presently, no one theory or model sufficiently explains and predicts the full range of food-choice behaviours 38 . Models in general should be viewed as a means to understanding the factors influencing individual decisions and behaviour. Despite the number of models of behaviour change, they have been employed in relatively few nutrition interventions; the Stages of Change model being the most popular. However, the best test of this model, whether stage-matched dietary interventions outperform standardised approaches, has yet to be performed.

6. Changing food behaviour: successful interventions

Dietary change is not easy because it requires alterations in habits that have been built up over a life-time. Various settings such as schools, workplaces, supermarkets, primary care and community based studies have been used in order to identify what works for particular groups of people. Although results from such trials are difficult to extrapolate to other settings or the general public, such targeted interventions have been reasonably successful, illustrating that different approaches are required for different groups of people or different aspects of the diet.

Interventions in supermarket settings are popular given this is where the majority of the people buy most of their food. Screening, shop tours and point-of-purchase interventions are ways in which information can be provided. Such interventions are successful at raising awareness and nutrition knowledge but their effectiveness of any real and long-term behaviour change is unclear at present.

Schools are another obvious intervention setting because they can reach the students, their parents and the school staff. Fruit and vegetable intake in children has been increased through the use of tuck shops, multimedia and the internet and when children get involved in growing, preparing and cooking the food they eat 1 , 6 , 35 . Moreover, covert changes to dishes to lower fat, sodium and energy content improved the nutritional profile of school dinners without losing student participation in the school lunch programme 44 .

Workplace interventions can also reach large numbers of people and can target those at risk. Increasing availability and appeal of fruit and vegetables proved successful in worksite canteens 34  and price reductions for healthier snacks in vending machines increased sales 24 . Thus, the combination of nutrition education with changes in the workplace are more likely to succeed particularly if interactive activities are employed and if such activities are sustained for long periods 41 .

Tackling several dietary factors simultaneously such as reducing dietary fat and increasing fruit and vegetables, has proved effective in the primary care setting 47 . Behavioural counselling in conjunction with nutrition counselling seems most effective in such settings although the cost implications of training primary care professionals in behaviour counselling are unclear at this time. Educational and behavioural strategies have also been used in public health/ community settings, which have been shown to increase fruit and vegetable intake 2 , 3 , 12 .

7. Conclusion

There are many influences on food choice which provide a whole set of means to intervene into and improve people's food choices. There are also a number of barriers to dietary and lifestyle change, which vary depending on life stages and the individual or group of people in question.

It is a major challenge both to health professionals and to the public themselves to effect dietary change. Different strategies are required to trigger a change in behaviour in groups with different priorities. Campaigns that incorporate tailored advice that include practical solutions as well as environmental change are likely to succeed in facilitating dietary change.

Reviewed by Dr France Bellisle, INRA, France

• Anderson A, et al. (2003). The development of and evaluation of a novel school based intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intake in children (Five a Day The Bash Street Way), N09003. Report for the FSA, London.
• Anderson A & Cox D (2000). Five a day - challenges and achievements. Nutrition and Food Science 30(1):30-34.
• Anderson AS, et al. (1998). Take Five, a nutrition education intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intakes: impact on attitudes towards dietary change. British Journal of Nutrition 80:133-140.
• Ajzen I & Fishbein M (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. E
• Ajzen I (1988). Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
• Baranowski T, et al. (2003). Squire's Quest! Dietary outcome evaluation of a multimedia game. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 24:52-61.
• Becker MH (1974). The health belief model and sick role behavior. Health Education Monographs 2, 409-419.
• Berkman LF (1995). The role of social relations in health promotion. Psychosomatic Medicine 57(3):245-254.
• Clarke JE (1998). Taste and flavour: their importance in food choice and acceptance. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 57:639-643.
• Cotugna N, et al. (1992). Nutrition and cancer prevention knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and practices: the 1987 National Health Interview Survey. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 92(8):963-968.
• Cox DN, et al. (1998a). Take Five, a nutrition education intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intakes: impact on consumer choice and nutrient intakes. British Journal of Nutrition 80:123-131.
• Cox DN, et al. (1998b). UK consumer attitudes, beliefs and barriers to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption. Public Health Nutrition 1:61-68.
• Cox RH, et al. (1996). Impact of a cancer intervention on diet-related cardiovascular disease risks of white and African-American EFNEP clients. Journal of Nutrition Education 28:209-218.
• De Irala-Estevez J, et al. (2000). A systematic review of socioeconomic differences in food habits in Europe: consumption of fruit and vegetables. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 54:706-714.
• De Almeida MDV, et al. (1997). Sources used and trusted by nationally-representative adults in the European Union for information on healthy eating. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 51:S8-15.
• Devine CM, et al. (2003) Sandwiching it in: spillover of work onto food choices and family roles in low- and moderate-income urban households. Social Science and Medicine 56:617-630.
• Dewberry C & Ussher JM (1994). Restraint and perception of body weight among British adults. Journal of Social Psychology 134(5):609-619.
• Dibsdall LA, et al. (2003). Low-income consumers' attitudes and behaviour towards access, availability and motivation to eat fruit and vegetables. Public Health Nutrition 6(2):159-168.
• Donkin AJ, et al. (2000). Mapping access to food in a deprived area: the development of price and availability indices. Public Health Nutrition 3(1):31-38.
• Drummond S, Crombie N & Kirk T (1996). A critique of the effects of snacking on body weight status. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50(12):779-783.
• Dye L & Blundell JE (1997). Menstrual cycle and appetite control: implications for weight regulation. Human Reproduction 12(6):1142-1151.
• Faugier J, et al. (2001) Barriers to healthy eating in the nursing profession: Part 2. Nursing Standard 15(37):33-35.
• Feunekes GIJ, et al. (1998). Food choice and fat intake of adolescents and adults: associations of intakes within social networks. Preventive Medicine 27:645-656.
• French SA, et al. (2001). Pricing and promotion effects on low-fat vending snack purchases: the CHIPS Study. American Journal of Public Health 91:112-117.
• Gatenby S (1996). Healthy eating: consumer attitudes, beliefs and behaviour. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 9:384-385.
• Gibney MJ (2004). European consumers’ attitudes and beliefs about safe and nutritious foods: concepts, barriers and benefits. In Proceedings of the International Food Conference: ‘Thinking beyond tomorrow’ held in Dublin June ’04.
• Glanz K, et al. (1998). Psychosocial correlates of healthful diets among male auto workers. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 7:119-126.
• Hampl JS, Heaton CL & Taylor CA (2003). Snacking patterns influence energy and nutrient intakes but not body mass index. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 16(1):3-11.
• Horwath CC (1999). Applying the transtheoretical model to eating behaviour change: challenges and opportunities. Nutrition Research Reviews 12:281-317.
• Kearney M, et al. (2000). Sociodemographic determinants of perceived influences on food choice in a nationally representative sample of Irish adults. Public Health Nutrition 3(2):219-226.
• Kearney M, et al. (1997). Perceived need to alter eating habits among representative samples of adults from all member states of the European Union. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 51:S30-5.
• Kristal AR, et al. (1999) .How can stages of change be best used in dietary interventions? Journal of American Dietetic Association 99:679-684.
• Lappalainen R, et al. (1997). Difficulties in trying to eat healthier: descriptive analysis of perceived barriers for healthy eating. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 51:S36-40.
• Lassen A, et al. (2004). Successful strategies to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables: results from the Danish '6 a day' Worksite-Canteen Model Study. Public Health Nutrition 7(2):263-270.
• Lowe CF, et al. (2004). Effects of a peer modelling and rewards-based intervention to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in children. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 58(3):510-522.
• Mac Evilly C & Kelly C. (2001). Conference report on ‘Mood and Food’. Nutrition Bulletin 26 (no 4).
• Margetts BM, et al. (1998). Factors which influence ‘healthy’ eating patterns: results from the 1993 Health Education Authority health and lifestyle survey in England. Public Health Nutrition 1(3):193-198.
• Nestle M, et al. (1998). Behavioural and social influences on food choice. Nutrition Reviews 56(5):S50-S64.
• Oliver G, Wardle J (1999) Perceived effects of stress on food choice. Physiology & Behavior 66:511-515.
• Paisley L, et al. (1995). Consumer perceptions of dietary changes for reducing fat intake. Nutrition Research 15:1755-1766.
• Patterson RE, et al. (1997). Components of the working well trial intervention associated with adoption of healthful diets. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 13: 271-276.
• Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC & Norcross JC (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviours. American Psychology 47:1102-1114.
• Rosenstock IM (1966). Why people use health services. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 44, 94-94.
• Snyder MP, Story M & Trenkner LL (1992). Reducing fat and sodium in school lunch programs: the LUNCHPOWER! Intervention Study. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 92:1087-1091.
• Sorensen LB, et al. (2003). Effect of sensory perception of foods on appetite and food intake: a review of studies on humans. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 27:1152-1166.
• Abdul R, et al. (2008) Psychosocial Predictors of Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in Adults: A Review of the Literature. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 34(6):535-543.
• Stevens VJ, et al. (2002) Randomized trial of a brief dietary intervention to decrease consumption of fat and increase consumption of fruits and vegetables. American Journal of Health Promotion 16(3):129-134.
• Steiner JE (1977). Facial expressions of the neonate infant indicating the hedonics of food-related chemical stimuli. In: Weiffenbach J. ed. Taste and development: The Genesis of Sweet Preference. (DHEW Publication No. NIH 77-1068). Washington DC: US Gover
• Stubbs RJ, et al. (1996). Breakfasts high in protein, fat or carbohydrate: effect on within-day appetite and energy balance. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50:409-417.
• Stubenitsky K & Mela DJ (2000). UK consumer perceptions of starchy foods. British Journal of Nutrition 83:277-285.
• Wardle J, et al. (2000). Stress, dietary restraint and food intake. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 48:195-202.
• Worsley A & Crawford D (1985). Awareness and compliance with the Australian dietary guidelines. A descriptive study of Melbourne residents. Nutrition Research 5:1291-1308.

Don't miss any news from us!

You may also like….

Mindless to mindful eating

Why we eat what we eat: The barriers to dietary and lifestyle change

Behaviour Change Models and Strategies

10 Healthy Lifestyle Tips for Adults

Rue Belliard 2A (3rd floor), 1040 Brussels, Belgium

VAT: BE0456866931

[email protected]

• Healthy living
• What’s in food?
• Food production
• Food safety
• Understanding science

About EUFIC

• How we work
• Work at EUFIC

Using this website

• Privacy policy
• Terms of use

© eufic 2024 - design: FWD - illustration: Pouce-pied

Healthy Food Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on healthy food.

Healthy food refers to food that contains the right amount of nutrients to keep our body fit. We need healthy food to keep ourselves fit.

Furthermore, healthy food is also very delicious as opposed to popular thinking. Nowadays, kids need to eat healthy food more than ever. We must encourage good eating habits so that our future generations will be healthy and fit.

Most importantly, the harmful effects of junk food and the positive impact of healthy food must be stressed upon. People should teach kids from an early age about the same.

Benefits of Healthy Food

Healthy food does not have merely one but numerous benefits. It helps us in various spheres of life. Healthy food does not only impact our physical health but mental health too.

When we intake healthy fruits and vegetables that are full of nutrients, we reduce the chances of diseases. For instance, green vegetables help us to maintain strength and vigor. In addition, certain healthy food items keep away long-term illnesses like diabetes and blood pressure.

Similarly, obesity is the biggest problems our country is facing now. People are falling prey to obesity faster than expected. However, this can still be controlled. Obese people usually indulge in a lot of junk food. The junk food contains sugar, salt fats and more which contribute to obesity. Healthy food can help you get rid of all this as it does not contain harmful things.

In addition, healthy food also helps you save money. It is much cheaper in comparison to junk food. Plus all that goes into the preparation of healthy food is also of low cost. Thus, you will be saving a great amount when you only consume healthy food.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Junk food vs Healthy Food

If we look at the scenario today, we see how the fast-food market is increasing at a rapid rate. With the onset of food delivery apps and more, people now like having junk food more. In addition, junk food is also tastier and easier to prepare.

However, just to satisfy our taste buds we are risking our health. You may feel more satisfied after having junk food but that is just the feeling of fullness and nothing else. Consumption of junk food leads to poor concentration. Moreover, you may also get digestive problems as junk food does not have fiber which helps indigestion.

Similarly, irregularity of blood sugar levels happens because of junk food. It is so because it contains fewer carbohydrates and protein . Also, junk food increases levels of cholesterol and triglyceride.

On the other hand, healthy food contains a plethora of nutrients. It not only keeps your body healthy but also your mind and soul. It increases our brain’s functionality. Plus, it enhances our immunity system . Intake of whole foods with minimum or no processing is the finest for one’s health.

In short, we must recognize that though junk food may seem more tempting and appealing, it comes with a great cost. A cost which is very hard to pay. Therefore, we all must have healthy foods and strive for a longer and healthier life.

FAQs on Healthy Food

Q.1 How does healthy food benefit us?

A.1 Healthy Benefit has a lot of benefits. It keeps us healthy and fit. Moreover, it keeps away diseases like diabetes, blood pressure, cholesterol and many more. Healthy food also helps in fighting obesity and heart diseases.

Q.2 Why is junk food harmful?

A.2 Junk food is very harmful to our bodies. It contains high amounts of sugar, salt, fats, oils and more which makes us unhealthy. It also causes a lot of problems like obesity and high blood pressure. Therefore, we must not have junk food more and encourage healthy eating habits.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Home / Essay Samples / Food / Healthy Food / The Importance of Eating Healthy Food

The Importance of Eating Healthy Food

• Category: Food
• Topic: Healthy Food , Importance of Food

Pages: 2 (921 words)

• Downloads: -->

Physical Health Benefits

Mental well-being, longevity and quality of life, practical tips for healthy eating.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Hamburger Essays

Dieting Essays

Chicken Essays

Beer Essays

Cooking Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->