Numbers are often used in health messaging to guide behavior and spark motivation. But not every number that circulates widely is grounded in solid science. One claim in particular has gained traction over the years. It suggests that people make more than 200 food-related decisions every day without realizing it.
According to Maria Almudena Claassen, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Adaptive Rationality at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, this idea creates a misleading impression. "This number paints a distorted picture of how people make decisions about their food intake and how much control they have over it," she says.
Claassen worked with Ralph Hertwig, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, and Jutta Mata, an associate research scientist at the Institute and Professor for Health Psychology at the University of Mannheim. Together, they published research showing how flawed measurement methods can fuel inaccurate assumptions about eating behavior.
The Origin of the 200 Food Decisions Claim
The widely cited estimate of 200 daily food decisions traces back to a 2007 study by U.S. scientists Brian Wansink[1] and Jeffery Sobal. In that study, 154 participants were first asked to estimate how many decisions they made each day about eating and drinking. On average, they reported 14.4 decisions.
Participants were then asked to estimate how many choices they made during a typical meal across several categories, including "when," "what," "how much," "where," and "with whom." These estimates were multiplied by the number of meals, snacks, and beverages participants said they consumed in a typical day. When added together, this calculation produced an average of 226.7 decisions per day.
The researchers interpreted the gap between the two estimates, a difference of 212.3 decisions, as evidence that most food decisions are unconscious or "mindless."
Why Researchers Say the Number Is Misleading
Claassen and her colleagues argue that this conclusion does not hold up. They point to both methodological and conceptual weaknesses in the study design and say the discrepancy can be explained by a well-known cognitive bias called the subadditivity effect.
This effect occurs when people give higher numerical estimates after breaking a broad question into many smaller parts. In other words, asking about food decisions piece by piece naturally inflates the total. According to the researchers, the large number of supposed "mindless" decisions reflects this bias rather than an observed reality.
The team also cautions that repeating such simplified claims can shape how people view their own behavior in harmful ways. "Such a perception can undermine feelings of self-efficacy," says Claassen. "Simplified messages like this distract from the fact that people are perfectly capable of making conscious and informed food decisions."
Rethinking How Food Decisions Are Defined
The researchers argue that meaningful food decisions need to be defined in specific, real-world terms. What is being eaten? How much? What is avoided? When does the choice happen? And what social or emotional context surrounds it?
Food decisions do not occur in isolation. They are tied to concrete situations, such as choosing between salad and pasta or deciding whether to skip a serving. The most important decisions are those that connect directly to personal goals. Someone trying to lose weight may focus on lighter dinner options. Someone aiming to eat more sustainably may prioritize plant-based meals.
Why Multiple Research Methods Matter
To better understand everyday eating behavior, the researchers call for methodological pluralism. This means using a mix of approaches rather than relying on a single counting method. Suggested tools include qualitative observations, digital tracking, diary studies, and cross-cultural research.
Ralph Hertwig emphasizes that eye-catching figures can distract from what truly matters. "Magic numbers such as the alleged 200 food decisions do not tell us much about the psychology of eating decisions, even more so if these numbers turn out to be themselves distorted," he says.
"To get a better understanding of eating behavior, we need to get a better grasp of how exactly decisions are made and what influences them."
How Self-Nudging Can Support Healthier Choices
Understanding how food decisions actually work can help people build healthier habits. One practical strategy highlighted by the researchers is self-nudging. This approach involves arranging one's environment so that better choices are easier to make.
Simple changes can have an impact. Keeping pre-cut fruit within reach in the refrigerator or placing sweets out of sight can support long-term goals without requiring constant willpower. Self-nudging is part of the boosting approach, which focuses on strengthening personal decision-making skills rather than relying on external cues (Reijula & Hertwig, 2022).
In Brief
- For years, the idea that people make more than 200 unconscious food decisions per day has circulated widely. The figure is based on a methodologically flawed study and gives a distorted view of human decision-making.
- Oversimplified claims like this can weaken self-efficacy and wrongly suggest that food choices are beyond conscious control.
- Researchers at the MPI argue for methodological pluralism when studying food decisions.
- Strategies such as self-nudging can help people make informed, health-promoting choices.
Note
- While Brian Wansink was removed from his academic position and had 18 of his articles retracted, the study discussed here has not been retracted. Our critique focuses not on misconduct but on methodological and conceptual shortcomings inherent in the study's design.
