The aftermath of whether we serve it We'll eat it (if we don't, we won't)

I have written before about how as human beings, if you serve us, we will eat it, with examples from medical conferences, medical events and dietary conferences and recently published in JAMA Internal Medicine is the consequence, if we do not serve it, we will not eat, or at least we'll eat less.

The book, Sales Ban on the Sugar Sugar Workspace Workbench Link, investigates what happened to the consumption of sugary sweeteners (SSB) in the 10 months after the ban on Californium and medical center spaces (including coffee shops, vending machines and retail stores). People, of course, were still free to bring the drinks they wanted to work or school. Specifically, the researchers were interested in the impact that a ban on sales would have on SSBs (defined as pre-intervention consumption of over 12 fl oz per day for the past 3 months).

For two months before surgery, they opted for heavily recruited participants, and once the SSB ban was voted on, half were randomly asked to receive 15 minutes of mobilization intervention to reduce SSB, half were not 10 months later. their recruitments were investigated again.

The findings were not particularly strange. When SSBs are not sold, they are less consumed.

How much less?

Half in total, with those who received brief intervention in mobility, seeing their consumption reduced by about 75%, and those who did not reach 25% (although it should be noted that especially those who received motor intervention have had an impact self-reported consumption reductions).

The bottom line, though, is that unless you serve or sell it, we won't eat or drink it, or at least eat or drink much less than that, and so far as public health interventions are likely to go wiser to reduce access to over-consumption and applause, rather than simply encouraging people to eat only less.