The traditional approach to weight reduction has been to consciously reduce calories by restricting fat, carbohydrates or calories—Pritikin¹, Atkins² and Weight Watchers, respectively. This approach has shown dismal results^3,4. Adherence to any form of restrictive diet is very poor. Yet experts agree that to lose weight calorie balance is necessary. Energy intake must balance energy expenditure. Most experts ascribe to the idea that to sustain long-term weight loss, additional weight control interventions, in addition to caloric restriction, must be employed. Some additional factors we have studied include portion control⁵, proximity of food⁶, food names7, visual cues⁸ and visibility of food⁹. I would like to add a specific thought and propose a new paradigm that does not focus on restriction, but on changing the environmental and behavioral factors where the focus is on change and not restriction. This would be a stealth calorie reduction as a consequence, not as the day-to-day cognitive focus.

Americans didn’t consciously add fat, carbohydrates or calories to their diet to gain weight over the past few decades. So the question is, why have the conscious restriction of these become the mainstay of weight reduction plans? The thought of calorie reduction without calorie restriction crystallized in my mind as we were conducting studies on pistachio consumption in various conditions.

Our studies revealed that subjects could consume fewer calories, without conscious calorie restriction, and yet be equally satisfied and satiated compared to the group that consumed more calories. This is a paradox—calorie reduction without feeling hungry or restricted. In the first study, subjects self-selected portions of either shelled pistachios or pistachios in the shell. Comparable weights of nuts were initially selected. Because the shells take time to remove and are not consumed, the actual calories consumed were 50% less when the nuts in the shell were eaten. At the same time, the groups were equally satisfied with their portions and equally satiated. This is a paradox not seen in typical calorie reduction diets; 50% fewer calories consumed yet no feeling of deprivation. In a second study, office workers consumed pistachios in the shell over an 8-hour shift. One day the empty shells were left on the desks as a visual cue of consumption and on a second day the shells were removed. When the shells were left on the desk as a visual cue the subjects ate 35% fewer calories. Yet as seen in the first study, the subjects were equally satisfied and satiated. Again this is a paradox not seen in typical calorie reduction diets; 35% fewer calories consumed yet no feeling of deprivation.

I propose that the paradox seen in the consumption of pistachios be used as a template for a new weight loss paradigm. The new paradigm would be that environmental and behavioral changes be made the focus of weight control and not dietary restriction, as seen during the past 30 years. Calorie reductions would be a consequence of the changes and not the focus. Americans did not consciously work at gaining weight over the past 30 years. Why not make changes in our environment and behavior without consciously focusing on calories? This stealth approach would result in avoidance of cravings as a consequence of feelings of deprivation.

Most people on fat, carbohydrate or calorie restricted diets eventually crave the foods they are restricting. Can you imagine someone craving shelled pistachios? The Pistachio Principle focuses on changing the environment and doesn’t consciously restrict nutrients. Therefore, because individuals are still eating pistachios, just in a different form, cravings are avoided.

A final thought. There are many holistic weight reduction approaches that include behavioral and environmental techniques. However, they are adjunctive to the basic low-fat, low-carbohydrate or caloriereduction plan. Imagine the possibilities if the restriction and deprivation were removed from the “diet” picture altogether and this new Pistachio inspired paradigm was utilized instead.

REFERENCES

1. Pritikin, R. The New Pritikin Program. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc; 1990.↑
2. Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution. New York, NY: Avon Books; 1999.↑
3. Cummings S, Parham E, Strain G. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Weight management. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002;102:1145-1155.↑
4. Foster G, Wyatt H, Hill J, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348:2082-2090.↑
5. Wansink B, Van Ittersum K, Painter JE. Ice cream illusions: Bowls, spoons, and selfserved portion sizes. Am J Prev Med. 2006; 31:240-243.↑
6. Wansink B, Painter JE, Lee Y-K. The office candy dish: Proximity's influence on estimated and actual consumption. Int J Obes. 2006;30:871-875.↑
7. Painter JE, Wansink B, Van Ittersum K. How do descriptive menu labels influence restaurant attitudes. Adv Consum Res. 2002;29:168-172.↑
8. Wansink B, Painter JE, North J. Bottomless bowls: Why visual cues of portion size may influence intake. Obes Res. 2005;13:93-100.↑
9. Painter JE, Wansink B, Hieggelki J. How visibility and convenience influence candy consumption. Appetite. 2002;38:237-238.↑

James Painter, PhD, RD, is professor and chair of School of Family and Consumer Sciences, Eastern Illinois University. Dr. Painter has conducted research and presented lectures on the influences in food choices including portion control, food cues and food psychology.