Beyond "Healthy" and "Unhealthy": A Behavioral and Nutritional Framework for a Sustainable Food Relationship
For decades, public health messaging, corporate food marketing, and diet culture have reinforced a reductive classification of food as either “healthy” or “unhealthy.” While this framework was originally intended to encourage nutritious eating, it has instead contributed to an epidemic of food-related anxiety, disordered eating behaviors, and a distorted perception of dietary health. From the rise of “clean eating” movements to the demonization of entire food groups, the moralization of food has fueled cycles of guilt, restriction, and compulsive overconsumption.
This approach fails to recognize the multifaceted role of food in human health, behavior, and culture. Rather than solely focusing on macronutrients, calories, or dietary purity, a more sustainable model should integrate behavioral psychology, neuroscience, cultural anthropology, and functional nutrition to create a comprehensive understanding of food. This article proposes a new framework that moves beyond binary thinking and embraces the full spectrum of food’s biological, psychological, cultural, and social functions.
The Behavioral Psychology of Food Moralization
Food is not just fuel. It is deeply entangled with cognition, emotion, and learned behavior. Every eating decision is shaped by an intricate interplay of psychological conditioning, neurobiological reward pathways, and environmental influences. Yet despite this complexity, mainstream dietary discourse remains reductionist, punitive, and rigid, reinforcing black-and-white thinking that contributes to anxiety, guilt, and a spiraling loss of autonomy over food choices.
Understanding the behavioral underpinnings of food moralization—how cognitive distortions (e.g., mental shortcuts that skew how we interpret food as “good” or “bad”), social learning, and neurobiological conditioning shape eating patterns—is critical to dismantling harmful narratives and fostering a more sustainable, psychologically sound approach to nutrition.
Cognitive Distortions and the Psychological Toll of Food Labeling
Food categorization is highly susceptible to cognitive biases, particularly dichotomous thinking, a distortion in which individuals perceive concepts in absolutes—"good" versus "bad," "clean" versus "junk," "healthy" versus "unhealthy." This mental rigidity undermines intuitive eating, replacing it with rigidly imposed food rules that override interoceptive awareness—the body’s natural ability to regulate hunger, satiety, and nutritional needs.
Moralizing food choices fosters guilt-driven behaviors. Assigning moral value to food—viewing a salad as “virtuous” and a slice of cake as a “cheat”—creates a cycle of guilt, shame, and compensatory eating patterns. Research indicates that individuals who internalize rigid food rules are more likely to engage in binge-restrict cycles, emotional eating, and disordered food avoidance (Polivy & Herman, 2005).
Parental food messaging influences lifelong eating patterns. The way food is framed in childhood has lasting psychological consequences. Children exposed to strict classifications—such as being told that sugary foods are “bad” or that processed snacks are “dangerous”—develop externalized control mechanisms, relying on food rules rather than hunger cues. Longitudinal studies show that early exposure to rigid dietary rules correlates with increased binge eating, secretive eating, and emotional distress in adulthood (Rollins et al., 2014).
Restrictive labels trigger psychological resistance and overconsumption. When food is labeled as “forbidden” or “bad,” it increases psychological resistance—a phenomenon known as reactance (Brehm, 1966). Rather than discouraging consumption, restriction heightens fixation, often resulting in compulsive overconsumption once access is restored.
This over-reliance on external dietary rules rather than internal regulation is precisely what fuels disordered eating patterns, loss of autonomy, and long-term food-related anxiety.
Neuroscience of Restriction, Reward, and Overconsumption
Eating behavior is not solely driven by conscious decision-making. It is biologically conditioned by reward pathways, hormonal fluctuations, and stress responses. Restrictive eating disrupts these mechanisms, creating a neurological environment primed for overconsumption and loss of control.
Dietary restriction increases food salience and reward anticipation. When individuals engage in chronic restriction, the brain’s reward system adapts by intensifying its response to forbidden foods. Functional MRI studies reveal that those who follow rigid dietary rules show heightened activation in the mesolimbic dopamine system—the brain’s reward-processing center—when exposed to foods they are trying to avoid (Stice et al., 2013). The result is increased fixation, greater likelihood of binge episodes, and reduced satisfaction with unrestricted alternatives.
Anticipated deprivation amplifies dopaminergic food-seeking behavior. The expectation of restriction—whether through dieting, fasting, or labeling foods as “off-limits”—heightens cravings and impulsivity. Research demonstrates that anticipating food deprivation leads to stronger dopaminergic drive, reinforcing loss of executive control over eating (Volkow et al., 2011). This pattern mirrors reinforcement learning models in behavioral psychology, where restriction primes the brain for hyper-responsiveness to high-reward foods.
Chronic stress drives cravings through neuroendocrine disruption. Sustained activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis elevates cortisol levels, which are known to increase preferences for energy-dense, carbohydrate-rich foods (Adam & Epel, 2007). While this response may have been adaptive in ancestral environments, it now contributes to emotional eating and disordered regulation in the face of modern stressors.
Intermittent access to palatable foods reinforces compulsive eating cycles. Behavioral conditioning research shows that oscillating between restriction and indulgence intensifies reward sensitivity. When pleasurable foods are withheld and then reintroduced, the resulting dopamine spike reinforces overconsumption—a mechanism also observed in addiction models (Avena et al., 2008). This binge-reinforcement loop perpetuates compulsive eating and undermines long-term dietary regulation.
How Food Moralization Undermines Long-Term Dietary Regulation
The combination of cognitive rigidity, externalized food control, and neurobiological reinforcement creates a perfect storm for chronic disordered eating patterns.
Chronic dieting suppresses interoception and undermines food autonomy. Long-term restriction interferes with the body’s innate ability to recognize and respond to internal hunger and satiety cues. Individuals conditioned to follow external dietary rules—rather than listening to physiological feedback—show reduced activation in the insular cortex, the brain region responsible for processing internal bodily states (Herbert et al., 2013; Craig, 2009). This disruption in interoceptive awareness weakens the foundation for intuitive, self-regulated eating.
Dietary rigidity increases the risk of binge-eating and metabolic disregulation. Contrary to its intended goals, restrictive dieting has been consistently linked to disordered eating patterns over time. Longitudinal studies demonstrate that individuals who chronically restrict are more likely to experience binge-eating episodes, heightened stress, and greater difficulty maintaining metabolic stability (Lowe et al., 2018). In this way, dietary rigidity becomes self-defeating—intensifying the very behaviors and physiological imbalances it aims to control.
Rigid dietary frameworks, moralization, and restriction-based approaches do not lead to better health outcomes—they create a cascade of psychological and neurobiological responses that fuel disregulated eating behaviors, stress, and loss of dietary autonomy. To truly support long-term, sustainable nutrition, a shift away from punitive food narratives and toward a model that reinforces cognitive flexibility, intrinsic motivation, and interoceptive awareness may improve health outcomes.
The future of dietary psychology lies not in controlling food choices through external rules, but in restoring the individual’s ability to self-regulate, trust their body, and cultivate a balanced relationship with eating—one that is grounded in evidence-based behavioral science, not industry-driven dietary marketing.
Intuitive eating approaches—those that prioritize interoceptive awareness and body trust over external food rules—have been linked to improved psychological well-being and lower disordered eating pathology. Tylka et al. (2006) demonstrated that intuitive eaters report higher self-esteem, body acceptance, and psychological resilience, further supporting a model that restores autonomy and flexibility in dietary choices.
The Impact of Nutritionism and Reductionist Food Science
The prevailing discourse around food and health has been shaped by nutritionism, a paradigm that minimizes food into its biochemical constituents, prioritizing macronutrient profiles, vitamin content, and caloric density over the complex physiological, psychological, and even ecological interactions that define dietary patterns. Coined by Scrinis (2013), the concept of nutritionism critiques the modern tendency to evaluate food based only on its individual components, ignoring the synergistic effects of whole-food consumption, gut microbiota interactions, and cultural dietary traditions. While this approach has influenced public health recommendations, food labeling regulations, and consumer behavior, it has also oversimplified nutrition science, leading to widespread misinformation, dietary confusion, and unintended public health consequences.
The Pitfalls of Nutritionism
Reductionist dietary frameworks have not only shaped how individuals perceive food, but also how governments structure policy, public health guidelines, and institutional feeding programs. From the U.S. Dietary Guidelines to federal nutrition assistance programs, many policies have prioritized single nutritional targets—such as reducing total fat, cholesterol, or sodium—over comprehensive dietary patterns, contributing to unintended consequences in public health (Mozaffarian & Ludwig, 2010; Scrinis, 2013).
This nutrient-centric paradigm has promoted isolated nutrient benchmarks as the gold standard for health, enabling the widespread reformulation of ultra-processed foods to meet these targets, often by substituting one nutrient for another (e.g., sugar for fat). Simultaneously, programs like WIC and school lunch guidelines have historically evaluated food eligibility based on nutrient content rather than food integrity or cultural relevance, reinforcing the idea that nutrition can be engineered through enrichment and fortification (Nestle, 2002; Scrinis, 2013).The consequences of this approach are well documented.
Nutrient reductionism distorts consumer perception. By isolating and promoting specific nutrients, the food industry has capitalized on consumer belief systems, marketing products as “high-protein,” “low-carb,” or “fortified with vitamins” without addressing overall dietary quality. Research on the health halo effect (Chandon & Wansink, 2007) demonstrates that nutrient-focused marketing can lead individuals to overconsume processed foods perceived as "healthy," despite their high levels of added sugars, refined oils, and preservatives. Additionally, randomized controlled trials demonstrate that diets composed primarily of ultra-processed foods lead to increased caloric intake and decreased satiety despite being matched for macronutrients. Hall et al. (2019) found that participants consuming ultra-processed foods ate approximately 500 more calories per day compared to those eating minimally processed diets, highlighting how food form and satiety signaling—not just nutrient content—are critical to dietary outcomes.
Whole-food matrices influence nutritional outcomes. The biological impact of food extends far beyond its individual components. Whole-food matrices—the natural structural and chemical compositions of foods—modulate nutrient bioavailability, gut microbiome interactions, and metabolic responses (Fardet, 2014). For example, dairy’s calcium is more bioavailable when consumed in its natural matrix, interacting with vitamin K2 and fatty acids, whereas calcium supplements alone fail to replicate these effects. Similarly, carotenoids in whole vegetables demonstrate superior absorption and antioxidant activity compared to isolated beta-carotene supplements, which in some cases have even been associated with increased lung cancer risk in smokers (The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group, 1994).
Supplementation cannot replicate whole-food effects. The rise of nutraceuticals and functional foods reflects the pervasive belief that nutrients can be extracted, concentrated, and reintroduced into diets as isolated compounds. However, meta-analyses have consistently shown that whole-food-based interventions are superior to supplementation in preventing chronic disease (Mozaffarian et al., 2018). While certain populations may benefit from targeted supplementation, broad public health efforts centered on “fortified” and “enriched” products reinforce nutritionism’s flawed premise—that isolated nutrients can replace whole-food dietary patterns.
The Consequences of Oversimplified Public Health Messaging
Public health nutrition guidelines have historically relied on broad dietary directives intended to simplify nutrition science for mass communication. While well-intentioned, many of these recommendations have been based on single-nutrient targets rather than holistic dietary patterns, leading to misguided consumer behaviors and unanticipated epidemiological shifts.
The Low-Fat Era and the Rise of Metabolic Syndrome
In the late 20th century, dietary fat was positioned as the primary driver of cardiovascular disease, leading to aggressive public health campaigns promoting low-fat diets (Willett & Stampfer, 2013). However, the food industry responded by reformulating processed foods to be fat-free while increasing their sugar content—an intervention that coincided with rising obesity and type 2 diabetes rates (Lustig, 2013). Subsequent research has since demonstrated that dietary fat composition is more important than total fat intake, with polyunsaturated fats playing a protective role in cardiovascular health (Mozaffarian et al., 2006).
The Demonization of Carbohydrates and the Fiber Deficiency Crisis
More recently, low-carbohydrate and ketogenic diets have dominated public discourse, often without distinguishing between refined carbohydrates and fiber-rich, complex carbohydrate sources. While reducing ultra-processed carbohydrate intake can improve metabolic markers, excessive carbohydrate restriction has led to a measurable decline in fiber consumption, with significant consequences for gut microbiome diversity, short-chain fatty acid production, and overall gastrointestinal health (Makki et al., 2018). Epidemiological data indicate that diets high in whole grains, legumes, and fiber-rich plants are associated with reduced all-cause mortality, yet many individuals now avoid these foods due to oversimplified messaging equating all carbohydrates with metabolic dysfunction (Reynolds et al., 2019).
The persistent pendulum swings in dietary recommendations have not only caused confusion but have diminished trust in nutrition science, leaving the public caught between competing claims and industry-driven health trends. When food is framed in binary terms of "good" versus "bad," it fosters rigid thinking, fueling food anxiety, disordered eating, and resistance to evidence-based dietary guidance. This is where a new framework is essential. Rather than continuing to isolate nutrients and demonize individual foods, we need a more complete model of food perception—one that restores context, embraces diversity, and prioritizes dietary patterns over reductionist health claims.
The strongest epidemiological evidence for chronic disease prevention does not support the exclusion of entire food groups but rather a dietary approach that is adaptable, diverse, and deeply integrated into human behavior and culture. Instead of promoting oversimplified solutions or restrictive food rules, we must focus on real-world application, ensuring that nutrition is framed within biological, behavioral, and environmental contexts that empower individuals, not constrain them.
Redefining Food Through a Comprehensive Framework
For too long, food has been reduced to its most basic chemical components, e.g. calories, macronutrients, and micronutrients, and stripped of its deeper significance. This narrow perspective has shaped everything from public health messaging to clinical nutrition, reinforcing the idea that food is primarily fuel. But food is far more than a source of energy. It is a force that shapes identity, carries memory, influences emotions, fosters creativity, and even functions as medicine. To reclaim a more complete understanding of food, we must recognize its role across multiple dimensions—biological, psychological, cultural, and behavioral.
A Comprehensive Framework for Food Perception
Each category represents a fundamental aspect of how food interacts with human health, experience, and well-being. Together, they create a more accurate, resilient, and adaptable model of eating, which acknowledges the complexity of food beyond its nutritional value.
Food is fundamental fuel for life. At its core, food provides the macronutrients and micronutrients required for energy metabolism, cellular function, and physiological balance.
Culture lives through food. Every dish tells a story. Culinary traditions shape identity, connect generations, and define how communities express and sustain themselves.
Food begins with the land. It is cultivated, grown, and shaped by the land, seasons, and ecosystems that sustain us. Understanding where food comes from fosters a deeper respect for nature, local food systems, and the environmental impact of our choices.
Memory is encoded in flavor. Our earliest food experiences leave lasting imprints, influencing food preferences, emotional associations, and lifelong eating behaviors.
Food soothes and stabilizes. It is a primary mechanism for self-soothing, with direct neurobiological effects on stress, mood regulation, and emotional resilience.
Cooking is a creative act. It is more than a survival skill—it is an outlet for self-expression, cognitive flexibility, and sensory exploration.
Pleasure is essential to nourishment. Taste, texture, and aroma engage reward pathways in the brain, reinforcing the fundamental role of enjoyment in dietary adherence and mental well-being.
Food can be healing. It has the capacity to prevent, manage, and even reverse chronic disease. The intersection of holistic nutrition, functional medicine, and evidence-based dietary interventions demonstrates food’s power beyond sustenance.
Diversity in diet builds resilience. Exposure to a wide range of foods strengthens adaptability, expands microbiome diversity, and fosters a more resilient approach to eating.
Food is a form of self-care. The way we engage with food—through ritual, mindfulness, and nourishment—directly influences metabolic health, mental clarity, and overall well-being.
Implications for Public Health, Policy, and Clinical Practice
A more sustainable food culture is unlikely to emerge through individual behavior change alone. This raises a central question: how do broader systems including education, public health messaging, healthcare practices, and food policy, shape the way people understand, relate to, and access food? These systems have historically emphasized oversimplified nutritional narratives and weight-centric metrics, often reinforcing cycles of restriction, anxiety, and disordered eating.
To move toward a more integrated and sustainable model, strategic reforms may be needed that address both systemic and psychological barriers. What might it take to realign these systems around values of balance, resilience, and behavioral insight rather than external compliance?
Reforming Nutrition Education with a Social & Behavioral Perspective
Traditional school-based nutrition programs often focus on calorie counting, food groups, and macronutrient content—sometimes at the expense of food’s cultural, emotional, and sensory dimensions. While this framework may aim to promote measurable health outcomes, it often reduces food to a set of numbers, stripping it of its relational and experiential context. This prompts a larger question: can students develop lasting food literacy when the education they receive is largely stripped from cultural and practical relevance?
A more meaningful model would extend beyond limited dietary classifications to cultivate curiosity, self-awareness, and respect for how food operates in everyday life. This might include integrating cultural food traditions into curricula, which could dismantle stigma around non-Western diets and foster inclusive, adaptive eating practices. Experiential learning such as school gardens, cooking classes, and food storytelling could transform nutrition education from a passive intake of rules to a dynamic, participatory process.
Rather than centering fear-based messaging around weight and disease, nutrition education could shift toward reinforcing sustainable habits that develop from within. Such an approach aligns with behavioral insights showing that internally motivated behaviors are more durable than those driven by shame or social pressure.
Reshaping Public Health Messaging Beyond Fear and Restriction
Public health messaging has often leaned on fear-based or restrictive framing—warnings about “bad” foods, moralized labels, and disease risk projections. The underlying assumption seems to be that avoidance leads to behavioral correction. But is fear an effective long-term motivator when it comes to food?
Evidence suggests it may not be. When dietary choices are driven primarily by avoidance, individuals may be more likely to experience guilt, shame, or disordered eating cycles. In contrast, messaging centered on abundance, or what can be added to a diet rather than eliminated, can support a more adaptive, resilient food relationship. Emphasizing variety, nutrient richness, and cultural relevance over restriction may enhance both psychological and physical outcomes.
Behavioral economics offers practical tools for shifting food behavior without coercion. Subtle interventions such as adjusting default options, rearranging food environments, or altering framing language can influence choices in ways that feel empowering. Just and Wansink (2009) demonstrate that such “nudges” are often more effective than mandates, reinforcing the value of flexible, autonomy-supporting strategies.
At the same time, food marketing practices warrant deeper examination. Phrases like “guilt-free” or “clean” carry implicit moral weight, elevating some foods while criticizing others. This dichotomy can worsen food anxiety and undermine self-trust. Regulatory measures to address misleading health claims could help cultivate a more honest, balanced food dialogue grounded in evidence rather than trendy, virtue-driven signaling.
Equipping Healthcare Professionals with Behavioral Nutrition Strategies
Healthcare providers are often tasked with offering dietary guidance, yet most receive minimal training in behavioral nutrition or food psychology. This gap may result in overly prescriptive counseling such as meal plans, calorie targets, and weight-loss goals that fail to address the emotional and behavioral drivers behind eating habits. As a result, clinical advice can unintentionally reinforce guilt or rigid thinking rather than promoting sustainable change.
Integrating behavioral science into medical and dietetic education could shift this paradigm. Motivational interviewing, for example, allows providers to explore patients’ intrinsic motivations and tailor guidance to their lived experiences. Rather than imposing external rules, this approach supports self-efficacy and long-term adherence.
Additionally, increased awareness of disordered eating patterns is essential. Providers may unknowingly exacerbate food anxiety or shame, particularly among individuals already struggling with restrictive tendencies. Embedding training on eating disorders, trauma-informed care, and body diversity across clinical disciplines could help prevent harm and promote a more supportive therapeutic relationship.
Would a healthcare system structured around behavioral nuance rather than compliance produce more sustainable outcomes? Evidence increasingly suggests that it might.
Expanding Food Accessibility and Equity
The question of food choice becomes irrelevant in communities where choice itself is structurally limited. In many low-income areas, food deserts and food swamps, or regions lacking access to fresh, whole foods, and areas oversaturated with ultra-processed options respectively, create significant health disparities. When nutrient-poor options are the most accessible, behavioral interventions alone are insufficient.
Addressing these disparities requires rethinking food policy at a structural level. Expanding local agriculture initiatives, such as farm-to-school programs, community gardens, and neighborhood produce markets, can increase fresh food availability while also fostering community engagement. These models may also offer economic opportunities that reinforce public health goals at the local level.
Subsidy reform is another critical lever. U.S. agricultural policy has long favored commodity crops used in processed foods. Redirecting subsidies toward fruit and vegetable production could help close the affordability gap between whole and processed foods, creating more equitable access to nutritious options.
Food assistance programs like WIC and SNAP also play a pivotal role, yet they are often designed around standardized food lists that don’t account for cultural preferences or household autonomy. Adapting these programs to include culturally relevant, flexible options could support both nutritional adequacy and dignity in food choice—an essential, often overlooked, dimension of health equity.
Integrating Policy, Education, and Health Systems for Sustainable Change
Ultimately, creating a food culture that supports resilience, equity, and well-being requires coordinated efforts across policy, education, and healthcare. It is insufficient to ask individuals to “make better choices” when the systems that surround them reinforce confusion, scarcity, and shame. Yet forcing a singular definition of “healthy” onto a diverse population risks replicating the same rigidity we aim to dismantle.
A more sustainable future may rest in models that value flexibility over orthodoxy— approaches that empower individuals to align food choices with both biological and psychological needs. Public health messaging can celebrate abundance and connection; healthcare systems can be trained in behavioral nutrition; food policy can promote access without moralizing.
Can such a shift be achieved without creating new forms of elitism or control? That remains a critical question. But what is increasingly clear is this: real change lies not in micromanaging what people eat, but in building environments where good choices are intuitive, supported, and accessible. Future work should explore how these principles can be operationalized through curriculum reform, adaptive public health messaging, and training models that embed behavioral and cultural competence.
If the goal is not perfection, but sustainability, then the systems that shape our food lives must evolve accordingly.
Works Cited
Adam, T. C., & Epel, E. S. (2007). Stress, eating and the reward system. Physiology & Behavior, 91(4), 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.04.011
Avena, N. M., Rada, P., & Hoebel, B. G. (2008). Evidence for sugar addiction: Behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.04.019
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). Is food marketing making us fat? A multi-disciplinary review. Foundations and Trends in Marketing, 1(3), 73–116. https://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/MKT-016
Craig, A. D. (2009). How do you feel—now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2555
Fardet, A., & Rock, E. (2014). Toward a new philosophy of preventive nutrition: From a reductionist to a holistic paradigm to improve nutritional recommendations. Journal of Food Science, 79(7), R1127–R1146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12410
Hall, K. D., Ayuketah, A., Brychta, R., et al. (2019). Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake. Cell Metabolism, 30(1), 67–77.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008
Herbert, B. M., Pollatos, O., & Schandry, R. (2013). Interoceptive sensitivity and emotion processing: An EEG study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 65(3), 214–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.04.007
Just, D. R., & Wansink, B. (2009). Smarter lunchrooms: Using behavioral economics to improve meal selection. Food Policy, 34(6), 923–929.https://www.choicesmagazine.org/UserFiles/file/article_87.pdf
Lowe, M. R., Doshi, S. D., Katterman, S. N., & Feig, E. H. (2018). Dieting and restrained eating as prospective predictors of weight gain. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 770. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00577
Lustig, R. H. (2013). Fat chance: Beating the odds against sugar, processed food, obesity, and disease. Penguin Books.
Makki, K., Deehan, E. C., Walter, J., & Bäckhed, F. (2018). The impact of dietary fiber on gut microbiota in host health and disease. Cell Host & Microbe, 23(6), 705–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2018.05.012
Mozaffarian, D., Katan, M. B., Ascherio, A., Stampfer, M. J., & Willett, W. C. (2006). Trans fatty acids and cardiovascular disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 354(15), 1601–1613. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra054035
Mozaffarian, D., & Ludwig, D. S. (2010). Dietary guidelines in the 21st century—a time for food. JAMA, 304(6), 681–682. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1116
Mozaffarian, D., Rosenberg, I., & Uauy, R. (2018). History of modern nutrition science—Implications for current research, dietary guidelines, and food policy. BMJ, 361, k2392. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2392
Nestle, M. (2002). Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health. University of California Press.
Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2005). Dieting and binge eating: A causal analysis. American Psychologist, 60(2), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.2.193
Reynolds, A., Mann, J., Cummings, J., Winter, N., Mete, E., & Te Morenga, L. (2019). Carbohydrate quality and human health: A series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Lancet, 393(10170), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31809-9
Rollins, B. Y., Loken, E., Savage, J. S., & Birch, L. L. (2014). Effects of restriction on children’s intake differ by child temperament, food reinforcement, and parent’s chronic use of restriction. Appetite, 73, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.10.005
Scrinis, G. (2013). Nutritionism: The science and politics of dietary advice. Columbia University Press.
Stice, E., Yokum, S., Burger, K. S., Epstein, L. H., & Small, D. M. (2013). Youth at risk for obesity show greater activation of striatal and somatosensory regions to food. NeuroImage, 81, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6604-10.2011
The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. (1994). The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. New England Journal of Medicine, 330(15), 1029–1035. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199404143301501
Tylka, T. L., & Wilcox, J. A. (2006). Are intuitive eating and eating disorder symptomatology opposite poles of the same construct? Journal of Health Psychology, 11(4), 599–611. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.4.474
Volkow, N. D., Wang, G.-J., Tomasi, D., & Baler, R. D. (2011). The addictive dimensionality of obesity. Biological Psychiatry, 73(9), 811–818. https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(13)00011-5/abstract
Willett, W. C., & Stampfer, M. J. (2013). Current evidence on healthy eating. Annual Review of Public Health, 34, 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124646
