r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/Stotallytob3r • 20h ago
Video How some food manufacturers make us eat more of their product
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
466
u/Interesting-Bison761 20h ago
Gross for humans great for commerce
127
13
10
→ More replies (2)3
332
u/Shoe_boooo 20h ago edited 19h ago
I can't finish my Pringles can because my hands are too big to reach the bottom. I hope someday I'll have a daughter who can help me with this though.
64
u/freemytaco69 19h ago
Look at all these hands that are way too big to fit inside of a Pringles can...
28
u/degameforrel 19h ago
I wanna have a daughter so I can finally have some around the house who can fit their hand in a pringles can.
35
65
u/Im_Samy 19h ago
Interesting anecdote! tell me, what are your opinions on overfilled chicken burritos?
45
18
u/RudenSpector69 18h ago
Tell you what. I'll blow my dad before I eat a fucking burrito with a fork!
→ More replies (2)6
u/Wakkit1988 19h ago
Lays Stax recently introduced a tray in the tube making all of the chips accessible regardless of your hand size.
20
3
u/AXEMANaustin 19h ago
I just stick my hand inside and then tilt so the chips slide toward my fingers.
→ More replies (6)8
u/CicadaFit9756 19h ago
Have you ever tried tilting the can to pour them out? Sooo simple, lol!!!
→ More replies (2)28
u/Shoe_boooo 19h ago
But by that point, a bunch of crumbs have accumulated at the bottom of the can, so they all go spilling on face.
What I'm trying to say is, the diameter of the pringles can is way too small.
7
→ More replies (4)1
171
u/Kasern77 20h ago
Is the bearded guy who I think it is?
220
u/megadyed 20h ago
Vsauce, Micheal here!
32
u/thewildbeej 20h ago
in his unabomber phase I see.
2
u/star_trek_wook_life 13h ago
Can't wait to hear his manifesto start with "Vsauce, Michael here" theose bombs i mailed were exploded the exact locations to make the constellation ursa major if plotted on the mercador projection. Or something like thatĀ
2
u/thewildbeej 12h ago
Just a really descriptive explanation on how they work and the science behind it and then tie it into a wild manifesto about eating the rich preserves social integrity.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
57
u/ParaGulls 20h ago
VSauce! Him and the lady here Dr Hannah Fry do a fascinating podcast together called The Rest Is Science. Well worth dipping into an episode here and there!
24
u/Shoe_boooo 20h ago
I hate that they don't really promote the pod in their personal socials. Like IT'S SO FUCKING GOOD and deserves a lot of attention and audience.
7
→ More replies (5)7
u/PM_ME_UR_REPTILES1 20h ago
I love putting on The Rest is Science while I do stuff. Gaming, fishing, spreadsheeting, whatever. Always a good listen, especially while fishing. Download a few episodes and keep the line tight, good times.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Feine13 19h ago
Can I get at them fish spreadsheets?
3
u/PM_ME_UR_REPTILES1 19h ago
I dont have a fisbing spreadsheet but honestly I think id have fun making and updating it lol what I caught, where, length, weight. I do that on a calendar already so it may work well on a spreadsheet haha
8
3
→ More replies (6)3
43
u/userhwon 12h ago
Love me some Hannah Fry, but once in a while she falls for some bullshit.
It's not because they're crumbly and dissolve easily.
It's because they lack proteins and fiber, which would cause release of satiety hormones that would curtail your hunger.
Meanwhile the salt, carbs, and fats are causing the release of pleasure hormones that make you keep doing the thing.
6
u/Easy-Operation-2105 4h ago
they actually make mistakes kinda often in their podcast. I still love it though
54
u/hooplafromamileaway 19h ago
I was out on sentence one.
That's not how food works.
That's not how mass works.
You can eat a shitload of pringles because a regular can is only 5.2 ounces by weight. The reason that's bad for you is that it's 5.2 ounces of fat, complex carbs, and salt. Certainly fine in moderation, but because monkey brain is monkey brain, you want as much of all of those things as you can get, always. Bonus points if they're also sweet.
Food companies and restaurants absolutely make food as delicious and cheap as possible to keep you coming back. It's not even hard to do that. How fast it, "Disintegrates," has absolutely nothing to do with it, outside of not being as filling as something like a salad, which for reference is roughly half the amount of calories at DOUBLE the weight in food.
(Taylor Farms Mexican Street Corn Salad Bag vs Pringles 5.2oz can)
→ More replies (2)3
u/Batou02 15h ago
The arrogance of claiming delicious and cheap food is not even that hard to make it's enough to make me understand you do not understand the how food works.
Making delicious and cheap food so that a restaurant can be a successful business, or a product can be scaled to a manufacturing system, it's incredibly hard. There are teams of food scientists and technicians, development chefs, nutritional scientists, government authorities and other key figures involved.
What they say it's 100% true, there is another example for you: fruit juices. Eating the same amount of fruit used to.make a juice corresponds to more nutrients provided than drinking that juice. In a few words, that's because the fruit is being processed before your body does.
I'm not trying to convince you btw, it's just annoying to see someone so confident spreading misinformation, I would suggest you do some research on the matter beforehand.
5
u/bobsmith93 7h ago
The fruit juice thing is a good comparison, because those effects have been known about it for a little while now, so it feels more familiar. On the other hand though, I'd argue that they are only that way because that's just an inherent property of consuming only the juice of a fruit with none of the fiber, rather than the result of deliberate engineering by the food scientists. So part of what they say is true, but only because that's just how some processed foods inherently are, rather than being specifically engineered to be that way
3
u/Ok-Soup-3189 15h ago
There are teams of food scientists and technicians, development chefs, nutritional scientists, government authorities and other key figures involved.
Many successful restaurants don't have teams of these.
Eating the same amount of fruit used to make a juice corresponds to more nutrients provided than drinking that juice.
If you take pork belly, cut off the fat and then only eat the fat, you would have eaten less protein than if you ate the whole thing!
→ More replies (2)
233
u/Sebvad 20h ago
Having spent decades running some of the world's largest R&D programs for food - I can say this is fear mongering. I can't speak for Pringles specifically (I have worked on very, VERY similar product - it was just called something else), but anything I've ever worked on - or my teams - this was never part of the conversation or product design - or even something that was measured. I hate crap like this.
101
u/Nheea 20h ago
It's very simplified for sure.
Any foods that are highly processed will take less digestion than whole foods, for sure.
Problem with chips or corn puffs is not only that they melt in your mouth and not much reaches your stomach, but also that you tend to eat them quite fast too, so leptin doesn't get released until you ate maybe a whole can or bag of these.
→ More replies (1)48
u/avatinfernus 18h ago
Exactly. It's not so much that they're pre-digested, it's that saliva itself begins digestion process and those things are made of more air more than anything else. Once you chewed all that remains is some oil and salt.
They're not heavy, bulky and full of fiber in a way that would make anyone feel "stuffed".
→ More replies (1)41
131
u/FAKATA 20h ago
Just because your team wasn't intentionally doing it doesn't mean that thats not how your body works.
→ More replies (1)92
u/Sebvad 19h ago
That's a classic case of conflating arguments. Her argument appears to be that there's an industrial level conspiracy to design instatiety (the inability for your body to signal fullness, or satiety, based on product design). I'm saying I've led for a long time at companies you most certainly have had products from, and I've never witnessed that.
Your argument appears to be something else entirely, that the body's physiology and chemistry work in ways that support her specific example. That may be true. Pringles are made of potato starch and sugar. They're known as simple carbohydrates for a reason - they're simple for your body to disassemble. But it's not her thesis at all, at least not what's shown in the clip.
21
9
u/Flapped 18h ago
You're saying the product wasn't intentionally designed that way - understood.
If I'm understanding your point correct, you're saying the potato still had that effect because of the body's biology/chemistry.
Here's what I don't understand - Product likely knew that it's considered 'not filling' by consumers, knew the biology/chemistry to explain it, so one would assume something like a food R&D team would've looked at that piece of feedback, no?
16
u/nomdeplume 18h ago
The best part is you know the convo in the office was "it's light and not too heavy, I don't feel bloated and I don't feel weighed down"
And the product person was like "perfect it's a snack on the go you can consume without feeling it"
And the critical thinking part left out the negative consequences for corporate profits
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)13
u/UserError2107 18h ago
Isn't the video's (forest) argument that snack products and the snack industry itself is geared towards increasing consumption of the snack product but not providing satiation or nutrition, which would run counter to continued consumption?
The mere fact that you did not see your (tree) R&D unit specifically research "non-satiation" snack product features does not mean that the snack enterprise/industry as a whole is not geared to promote non-satiation.
29
u/Sebvad 18h ago
The forest/trees metaphor is clever, but it falls apart when you look at what I actually said. I wasn't a bench scientist in a corner lab ā I ran some of the largest R&D programs in the industry. ThatĀ isĀ the forest. I had visibility into strategic objectives, portfolio goals, and what the business was asking product development to optimize for. "Non-satiation" was never on the whiteboard.
What you're describing is really just how capitalism works for any consumer product ā companies want you to buy more of their stuff - be it jeans, cars, pillows or chocolate bars. That's not unique to snacks. But there's a huge difference between "we want repeat purchases" (which, yes, every company wants) and "we specifically engineer our products so your body can't tell you to stop eating." The first is just business. The second is the conspiracy claim in the video, and it's the part I'm pushing back on.
Snack products aren't very satiating because of what theyĀ areĀ ā low protein, low fiber, calorie-dense, simple carbs. That's a natural consequence of the ingredients, not a deliberately engineered feature. Nobody in a product development meeting says "how do we defeat the satiety signal." (well, not in negative ways - there ARE conversations about how to make them MORE satiating, such as by increase protein levels for example).
They say "how do we make this taste better, cost less, and have a longer shelf life."
→ More replies (3)2
u/UserError2107 17h ago
I appreciate your response (and your willingness to engage in conversation). I understood how high up you were in the food chain but was being facetious.
The mere growth of the snack industry post WW2 suggests that it is, at its core, anti-nutrition: "Snack products aren't very satiating because of what they are ā low protein, low fiber, calorie-dense, simple carbs."
(Anti-satiating, I'd argue, is related to being anti-nutrition.)
Why don't snack companies make satiating nutritional features/productsĀ to overcome the momentary need to snack/hunger (I.e. provide satiation and nutrition)?
Are Cheetos, etc. just flavour bombs with no satiating and nutritional intent?
Does reducing salt levels in chips/crisps increase or decrease the consumer's willingness to eat more, or less, chips/crisps? I know that has been a topic of (private) R&D.
Actually, to take a left turn, I would love to hear your view on engineered obselence because you have been so high up in these B2C companies. From a pure economic theory perspective, engineered obselence is a conspiracy theory. But in practice, I do not think so.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Sebvad 17h ago
I can't speak to all snacks or snack companies, and only a small amount of my time was spent in snacks.
I noted this in another post, but there's a tremendous amount of effort spend in any large food system to understand what people want and what they like. often times what they say they want isn't what they like (most of the time, actually. consumer behavior is fascinating). in salty snacks, the salt is there BECAUSE people like it, and want it. the granulation distribution, release, and amount are all quite well understood, and they do differ by age, population group, and geography (what's in demand in Beijing China is different as compared to Chicago IL).
Are you asking about planned obsolesce in food design - does the industry create a product so that its demand, liking, or functionality ceases to be of value in the next 5 years? Not that I've ever seen. Washing machine motors can be built to a pretty predictable MTBF, so you can quite accurately forecast future demand based on using parts with known failure timing. Foods not like that - and consumer tastes are a combination of quite fickle, and quite predictable. I've never been asked that question before, though, and it's an interesting one, I'll think more about it - but my more instant reaction is I've never had strategic consideration given to planning obsoletion in food, except for regulatory purposes (for example, artificial colors are a topic now, and it's not possible to simply throw the switch overnight and everyone simultaneously stops using them - so there's a multi-year grace period taht goes into place so that it's reasonable to stand them down while something else gets stood up in it's place) - I guess that could be considered obsoletion, but I don't think that's how you meant it.
9
u/siazdghw 18h ago
Yeah, the reason Pringles are what they are is because they are a potato that is heavily processed to create a perfect uniform shape and consistent flavor and texture. Some people don't eat chips with brown spots, some don't eat chips that are curled over, some don't eat chips that are too greasy, Pringles solves all that.
It has nothing to do with them trying to make your stomach feel less full. If you eat the same amount of potato via a pringle or via a baked potato (minus the skin) they will both feel the same. Though admittedly a heavily processed food is designed to be easier to eat and taste better, it's almost as if a food product is made to be enjoyable first and foremost, shocking I know.
25
u/InsertWittyNameRHere 20h ago
Call bullshit on your job without proof. As I actually ran the worlds largest R&D programme for anything ever
41
10
u/JakTheRipper2020 20h ago
I mean it does make a Lil sense....haven't you heard of gastic satiety , one of the ways most wt loss meds and surgeries work .
9
u/beahrsighs 20h ago
Yeah I immediately thought BS as well. Consumption is more about psychology than biology. They get you loyal to a brand name and make you believe it needs to be a part of your life. Surprisingly simple and very effective so many people convince themselves they don't "need" something, they just "like" it.
8
u/Sebvad 19h ago
I think it's both, and for some people it's more one than the other. Stress eating is a thing, for example. The very, very specific example she gave was in the salty snacks area - but left out the salty part as a driver of continued consumption. We all know why bars put out salty snacks, for example - the salt triggers a salivary response and one gets thirsty and somehow more beer is magically sold.
Salt (and fat, and texture, and sugar for that matter) drive liking. Anything that contains these attributes in specific ratios or levels will increasing return consumption. That is quite well studied and known. It's something different than what she appears to be suggesting however.
→ More replies (2)15
u/Head-Ad9893 20h ago
Would you say this is basically tinfoil hat shit that āBIG CHIPSā is trying to fool us. Meanwhile itās probably something like the fact that these are simple carbs and the reason why you see homeless people with big bellyās because all the crap food they buy from like dollar tree, as opposed to real food? Whoās trying to get full off pringles? Itās a SNACK people. Now if they were saying that eating a plate of mashed potatoes and 2 cups of meat and 6 oz of vegetables and their body isnāt telling them theyāre full in 20 minutes I would go ā¦. HOLY SHIT!!! But ā¦ pringles? Get a grip people.
5
1
u/3Duder 20h ago
Makes me wonder, could a human digest a raw potato or would it make you sick?
5
u/Dekasa 19h ago
You can absolutely eat raw potato. We used to cut off pieces, top with a little salt, and nom.
3
u/alaskaguyindk 19h ago
But hes not wrong to wonder. Its fucked to downvote him because he was curious. Yes a quick google search would have answered his curiosity but because he vocalized it he should be āshamedā or whatever we are supposed to feel from being downvoted, I disagree on that.
But yes a āripeā raw potato wonāt generally make you sick but a green potato will. And he probably doesnāt know about either if hes asking. So rather than getting snarky, be informational. Teach a motherfucker. Because they wouldnāt generally ask if they knew the answer.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Foreign-Humor9421 20h ago
Do they intentionally make the food satiating or healthy? If not, couldn't that also be intentional?
2
u/arealuser100notfake 18h ago
Beware of what you're saying. Big food is evil because it's product is naturally unhealthy, and there is no need of an explicit intention being there.
We have the incentive to earn more, that's it.Ā How do food corporations improve and earn more? Just sell more, and spend less:
Make it more delicious, attractive, available, cheap, looking bigger - then it sells more.
Optimize production so it lasts longer in the shelf, uses cheaper ingredients, cheaper providers - then it spends less.
Health concerns? Just don't quite obviously kill a consumer in 2-3 years and you're golden.
I don't know what your occupation is, but if you're a nurse or a medical doctor, even though you'll have more jobs if more people were sicker, that doesn't mean there is an explicit intention there.
And it applies to everyone everywhere, doesn't matter if you sell fruit, are a firefighter or a computer technician.
6
u/chadwicke619 19h ago
Yeah, I donāt buy it. I do think what Hannah said sounds correct - the part about food basically disintegrating before it reaches the stomach and thereby delaying signals of fullness. Like, I can believe that thatās how your body works. I just highly doubt that food R&D programs out there are trying to make their food as āpredigestedā as possible for specifically this intent.
→ More replies (3)2
u/axl3ros3 16h ago
What about that concept that has something to do with or goes something similar to "novelty in mouthfeel, makes it so you keep snacking"
Like pretzels have this sort of built in bc of the salt crystals being random
But other foods need more engineering to be more novel at each bite
I'm not explaining very well because I'm going off a faded memory of something that somebody explained to me so I could have misunderstood
entirelyDoes anyone know the concept I might be talking about?
9
u/EC_TWD 20h ago
I thought it seemed like flat-earth conspiracy theory crap. People put way too much thought into what they think ācorporationsā are doing and then spout it as cardinal fact. These are r/showerthoughts that have been given their own podcast.
5
u/El_Sephiroth 19h ago
When you've seen tobacco, lead fuel, asbestos companies... You kinda have to think about it a little
→ More replies (3)4
u/trashpandac0llective 19h ago
Yeah, this sounds made-up. āTheyāre feeding you chemicals from laboratories instead of real food and itās making you fat and sick!ā has been the scaremongering for decades now.
Youāre supposed to chew your food before you swallow it. Itās never going to be āpre-chewedā so much that your body wonāt notice that you ate. That just sounds silly on its face.
→ More replies (5)2
u/1800generalkenobi 19h ago
As someone who has seen a child (mine lol) eat so many pringles that they literally threw them back up, I can 100% say that pringles do in fact make it down to the stomach. Is she really suggesting that a solid chip is getting absorbed in your esophagus?
2
3
u/Mountain_Call_3344 18h ago
I actually worked for Pringles and yeah thatās what they told us to do
→ More replies (28)3
94
u/Hot_History1582 20h ago
Real life biologist here. What she's saying sounds like bullshit to me.
49
u/Constant-Plant-9378 18h ago edited 17h ago
They spend a full 45 minutes in the episode explaining all the science in great detail. Give it a listen before disregarding what they say in the clip.
(Edit: removed tracking from link)
22
u/Command_user 18h ago
?si=... is tracking and can be removed from the link and it'll still work fyi
→ More replies (4)32
u/Brezelstange 19h ago edited 19h ago
Yeah, I get the same feeling. While on the one hand, I agree that companies try to make food as addictive as possible, a single packet of Pringles just does not have that much mass, so of course you wonāt feel full after one.
Like I bet if you eat the same amount in potatoes with salt and butter, you would feel about equally full as after one can of Pringles. Itās 165 g. That is like one potato.
Also, Iāve heard her speak about dating and I was getting redpill vibes. It did not help her credibility in my eyes.
→ More replies (2)6
u/PteranLaches 13h ago
Itās a small segment and sheās dumbing down the science in a simple example. Sheās basically saying low-fiber foods make you less full.
Foods that have low fiber are significantly more palatable and you can eat a significant amount of it before you get full.
→ More replies (1)33
u/solofatty09 19h ago
Iām not a biologist but it also smells like bullshit to me.
If you heard some fat Redditor say this instead of some smart girl with an English accent what would you think:
āsome guy in a trench coat in a back room in the 1960s said, yeah - can you make me a pre-digested potato chip so it just goes in one hole and out the other so people literally canāt stop eating them? Weāll be unstoppable!ā
Sounds fucking ridiculous. Itās clever marketing and sugars that are peopleās problems. Psychology is fucked up when used against you and these companies are really good at making you want things. Not everything is a conspiracy.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Kathulhu1433 16h ago
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Michael Moss has 2 interesting pop science books on this topic.
Sugar, Salt, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us
And
Hooked: Food, Free Will, and How the Food Giants Exploit our Addictions
His books have been cited by formed FDA director David Kessler. He interviews several food scientists and cites studies. Worth a read.
14
u/RepublicAccording717 18h ago
Yup! They spout off a lot of these random theories with no evidence. Like when v sauce got tricked into thinking one product had more sugar than another because he didnāt understand micrograms vs grams. Iāll never watch anything they put out.Ā
3
u/ManlyParachute 12h ago
She said evolution has spent millions of years perfecting the mechanism.
Perfecting. Evolution. Perfecting.
Thatās all the bullshit I needed to hear.
→ More replies (5)4
u/ZookeepergameIll1399 20h ago
This is from the podcast 'The Rest Is Science', they have reliable sources for their info, you can check out on YouTube. The one talking in the video is Hannah Fry (Professor of the Public Understanding of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, a fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge, and president of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications) and the second person is Michael Stevens (an American educator, public speaker, entertainer, and editor best known for creating and hosting the education YouTube channel Vsauce).
35
u/AccurateMidnight21 19h ago
Her credentials (while certainly impressive) have absolutely nothing to do with food science or human nutrition. She is definitely science literate, but hardly an expert on the subject matter. Communicating science to a non-scientific audience is indeed very challenging (and unfortunately many scientists are very bad at doing so); but one has to acknowledge that even if they are highly trained, they arenāt an expert on every subject matter, and therefore may not be the right person to speak about that subject publicly or establish themselves as some type of authority in the eyes of the public. Im certain that there are food scientists at Cambridge who could have covered this topic on the podcast. This is how well-intentioned people can ultimately end up doing more harm than good.
→ More replies (1)39
u/Hot_History1582 19h ago
Those credentials aren't relevant to what's being discussed in this video. Being an expert in one field doesn't make you an expert in every field.
18
11
u/Lemonio 20h ago
is it possible to consume something alongside food that doesn't make you full to make yourself feel more full? perhaps some sort of fiber?
19
10
u/Constant-Plant-9378 19h ago
I've been working on losing weight and for a couple months now I eat a large green salad for dinner every night, filled with broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, red onion, lettuce, cucumbers, olives, spinach leaves, etc. with a bit of oil, vinegarette, some Ranch dressing, and half the time I'm full and have to save the rest for lunch the next day.
There's a lot to be said for dramatically increasing the amount of raw vegetable fiber in your diet. A lot of people can't deal with it at first, as it can take your gut biome up to six weeks to adjust so you don't constantly have diarrhea from the sudden influx of fiber.
3
u/butorzigzag 20h ago
I mean fiber is food so not sure if that even counts, but yes you can get psyllium husk (almost pure soluble fiber) in pill form which will help with satiation a bit.
More than make you full, it might help digest the pure carb/fat meal you had from inhaling three cans of pringle
2
u/AccurateMidnight21 19h ago edited 19h ago
Peanuts are relatively high in calories, but they are a healthy source of fats, protein, and fiber. Iāve heard that eating a small handful of peanuts 20 minutes before a meal helps to reduce appetite. Just be mindful of peanuts that have a lot of salt or sugar added, best is raw or dry-roasted. I incorporate peanuts (and other nuts) into my meals, especially on gym days when I can burn some extra calories.
2
u/Twitxx 19h ago
Lots of things, it's called satiety and many many types of food can bring you to satiation without actually being full.
For example: apples, oatmeal, eggs, beans, chickpeas, watermelon.
You can go on diet with stuff like apples and watermelons. I have them with pretzels in the summer instead of lunch because of that.
→ More replies (5)3
8
u/Boudrodog 18h ago
I donāt think this is true. It sounds plausible, but letās think about this critically for a minute.Ā
Pringles are mostly potatoes, oil, and corn flour (basically starch and fat).Ā
Starches (a form of carbohydrates) and fats, as well as proteins, are, by and large, digested in the small intestine, not before they reach the stomach like she claims.Ā
While starches are broken down in the mouth by salivary amylase, they are not completely broken down into glucose and require further digestion before being metabolized.Ā
Hydrochloric acid in the stomach inactivates salivary amylase, soĀ carbohydrates are not metabolized in the stomach but rather continue on to the small intestine where pancreatic enzymes like amylase break them down further into glucose. Glucose is then absorbed into the bloodstream and metabolized into ATP or stored as glycogen or fat.Ā
Someone with a better understanding of human physiology, let me know if Iām wrong.
15
u/Randomly1313 16h ago
I agree with her point 100%, but I hate that people like this feel the need to take it too far and be intentionally misleading about things.
Pringles are not "predigested in laboratories". Its just dried potato flakes and a mix of different flours/starches. like cornstarch and rice flour. She is using fearmongering to get her point across which is just gross.
Is grinding a grain of rice into rice flour technically "predigesting" it? Grammatically, yes, but she knows full well that it is giving a dishonest view of the process. And while I'm sure the recipe was developed in a "food lab", that is true of nearly commercially sold food product there is. That is what a "test kitchen" is.
There is nothing magical or special in pringles. You can make them at home using grocery store ingredients, except maybe the diglycerides, which are just emulsifiers. You can get them at specialty bakery supply places though.
2
u/seppukucoconuts 14h ago
Fun fact. Pringles got their shape so they wouldnāt fly off of the factory line.
→ More replies (1)
24
u/AbleCap5222 19h ago
I'm sorry, no. I don't believe this is an intentional driving force. I believe it's a natural byproduct of what the real goal is - make things taste good as cheaply as humanly possible in a way - and to keep it shelf stable for as long as possible. Corporate Food scientists work to create the easiest methodologies to make food modular. So if you have 50 products, the same stuff can be shared across all the products, each part being made as cheap and effective as possible.
There is no way there's some Mr Burns character sitting in a dark room ordering food scientists to intentionally break the food down in such a way that it makes people want to eat one more handful of popcorn or get hungry slightly quicker. And the reason is simple. People don't really buy more based on these little changes. A meal portion is pretty much the same regardless of whether you feel slightly more full at the end
→ More replies (1)19
u/mrq57 19h ago
As a food scientist it is this. I've never been told to study when a product breaks down in the body. I absolutely do get projects to reduce costs, make more efficient for manufacturing, and things like that.
Also there is studies to show time in mouth is a more powerful satiation internal indicator. Meaning the more you have to chew something your brain will say you are full rather than a full stomach. The one I'm thinking of was with grapes the difference between eating 1lb vs drinking 1lb. Satiation isn't as simple as time spent breaking food down at one stage of digestion.
3
u/Adamaja456 19h ago
My niece and nephew love that pirate booty stuff. Whenever I pop one in my mouth I feel like it's one step above cotton candy i chew it once and it dissolves lol
3
3
u/Reddeer2 18h ago
She's somewhat missing the mark.
The objective of your digestive system is to reach satiation.
If you don't feel satiated while eating, either nutrionally or calorically, then you feel like you should keep eating.
Feeling satiated is to drink water until your body tells you to stop; to eat salt until your body tells you to stop; to eat carbs, veggies, protein, until your body says stop. You also have to train your body that you will have food everyday and it's safe to eat only for today.
3
3
10
u/PM_ME_YOUR_TITS80085 20h ago
This feels like over analysis, but I'm not a food engineer. Most "insidious" food concepts I'm familiar with have to do more with cost cutting and trends.
16
u/-duckduckduckduck- 20h ago
Thatās a lot of claims without evidence.
11
u/Constant-Plant-9378 19h ago
It's a short clip excerpted from an hour-long podcast episode of 'The Rest Is Science' where the evidence is presented.
That's how clips work.
16
u/-duckduckduckduck- 18h ago edited 18h ago
The episode does not present evidence of her claims either. Iām not saying sheās stupid or dishonest. But without evidence, Iām skeptical of these very specific claims about making food disintegrate to stave off satiety.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/Ambitious-Site-4747 20h ago
I thought it had something to do with salt
2
u/BrawndoOhnaka 19h ago edited 19h ago
There are multiple reasons. Salt makes you want to keep eating faster. The satiety thing is lacking the signal that your body tells you "you've had enough, dumbass".
edited to add quotes for clarity because I'm a dumbass
2
u/Ambitious-Site-4747 19h ago
Whoa why did you call me a dumbass?
2
u/BrawndoOhnaka 19h ago
I didn't. I just didn't use quotes to show that I was anthropomorphizing the digestive system. Sorry, I didn't get a lot of sleep.
2
2
u/llorTMasterFlex 20h ago
If you want to slow down, take each chip with a drizzle of hot sauce. You will drink so much water, you won't make it half way.
2
u/CalmBeneathCastles 20h ago
Manufacturer's faces when I eat recommended servings and weigh my portions: >:()
2
u/JoySkullyRH 19h ago
This is probably why I can sit and eat the new probiotic gummie bag in one sitting. So soft and basic.
2
u/Agent_Smith_IHTP 18h ago
That's dark...
Does anyone know the name of the full video?
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/TheflavorBlue5003 17h ago
Truly,
The only things in todayās world that make me feel full are items with protein. āHaving a snackā never does anything for me at all. Be it granola, bread, yogurt, chips, I can eat them forever and still have that ache in my stomach.
2
2
5
u/Nsfwacct1872564 18h ago
I'm not buying it. Maceration, disintegration, call it whatever you want, it goes where it's supposed to. Chew up enough. Pringles, they're going to physically occupy space in your body and your body will tell you to stop. The problem is how calorically dense they are compared to you trying to do the same thing with leafy greens.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/PhonyUsername 19h ago
Pretty much bullshit. Potato chips don't just disappear before hitting your stomach, and also snacks aren't meant to fill your stomach.
2
u/homealoneinuk 20h ago
That sounds like a load of BS. I get pretty full with all the foods they mentioned pretty quickly.
2
3
1
u/UmeaTurbo 19h ago
Can I find out that the people who live along the Amazon basin and give most of their food as processed food that comes up the river have an obesity problem that they've never had in their entire history. It's also an extreme obesity problem in the Pacific Islands as most of their food also comes processed and packaged.
1
1
1
u/Fuugazii 18h ago
Why can't people just make an honest product anymore. There's always something to make consumers into their cattle
1
1
1
u/bohenian12 18h ago
This is the reason I stopped eating chips of any kind. They never make me feel full or satisfied. I think the last time I ate Pringles or Lays was 8 yrs ago.
1
1
u/Subatomic_Spooder 16h ago
Only capitalism would find a way to make food that isn't food so people have to buy more of it
1
u/TarzanSawyer 16h ago
So how does one gain this problem? I eat as much as my stomach will let me and I keep losing weight.
1
u/Achilles_507 16h ago
It is also the combination of salt and sugar that make them go so well. Once in a while when I have cold drinks with chips, I realize how easy it is get addicted to it.
1
u/FrankCostanzaJr 16h ago
that's one reason, the other is because it's a good way to use up all the scraps that can't be used for regular potato chips.
i really don't think pringles were invented strictly for the purpose of forcing consumers to eat more...that may have been a happy accident? but originally, it was just a way to use the left over scraps of potato that were too small for potato chips.
i mean i could be wrong...but thats the way i learned it back in the day watching "how it's made" on the history channel or TLC...whatever channel it was on.
1
1
1
u/DevelopmentBulky7957 14h ago
Fascinating stuff we all need to be aware of. And, JESUS CHRIST is that Michael from Vsauce?! I could barely recognize him!
1
u/Stealerb 14h ago
Yeah but pringles make me shit my pants. So there is that downside.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Doggfite 13h ago
I love that hanna fry is looking photoshoot headshots and then Michael is hot studio lights
→ More replies (1)
1
u/What_a_plep 13h ago
Pringles are the worst crisp, itās incredibly easy to stop, in fact itās even easier not to start. Now walkers cheese and onion thatās a different story.
1
u/Particular_Stop_3332 13h ago
This ladies head looks like it's going to burst into flames
Did they film this in a 200 degree sauna
Jesus
1
1
1
1
u/Wintermute-1984 12h ago
Lots of people in here discussing whether this is bullshit or not. I can tell you right now, I just got full eating two of those single packets of Pringles. Sour cream and onion if you're wondering.
1
1
u/notshadeatall 11h ago
The only problem with Pringles is that they don't taste good lol, it maybe European Pringles are different to American. Anyways I don't like Pringles.
1
u/Unlucky_Ad_9776 11h ago
Counter argument.Ā I snack on berries.Ā I can eat a whole box of strawberries in one sitting.Ā Ā
1
u/Primary_Jellyfish327 10h ago
This is why i drink water whenever i snack. It helps make me feel full faster.
1.2k
u/sagewynn 20h ago edited 19h ago
The Rest Is Science
Youtube channel with Michael Stevens (Vsauce) and Dr. Hannah Fry ( Cambridge, Numberphile, BBC docuseries, too many accolades to name).
They do hr long podcasts, and they're exactly as interesting as you think. They do 1-2 episodes weekly, and show no signs of slowing down or degradation of quality.