Posted On: 03/09/2014
â€œCouch potatoes captivated by fast-paced action films eat far more than those watching more sedate programmes,â€ The Independent reports.
A small US study found that people snacked more when watching action-packed movies.
The study took 94 US student volunteersÂ and randomly assigned themÂ in groups to watch 20 minutes of either the action film â€œThe Islandâ€ with sound, the same film without sound or â€œCharlie Roseâ€, a long-running American talk show.
They were provided with unlimited snacks of M&Ms, cookies, carrots and grapes.
People watching the action film with sound ate 65% more calories than those watching the talk show.
Researchers discussed the hypothesis that the frequent visual and audio variations in â€œThe Islandâ€ (a style of filming that director Michael Bay, best known for the "Transformers" films, has become notorious for) may be distracting. This means participants may have been unawareÂ of how much they were snacking.
However, this does not prove that action films make you fat. The study appeared to allow students to gather themselves into groups before being assigned to what they would watch. This could have meant the groups were not adjusted for factors such as food preferences, physical activity or when the students had last eaten, which could all have influenced results.
The study does remind us, however, that we need to pay attention to what we eat, including food we consume while distracted, as it all counts towards our daily calorie intake.
The study was carried out by researchers from Cornell University in New York and Vanderbilt University in Nashville. It was funded by Cornell University.
The study was published in theÂ peer-reviewed medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine.
The UK media reported the story accurately, but did not highlight any of its weaknesses. However, The Independent did helpfully publish advice from Englandâ€™s Chief Medical Officer that people should do a minimum of 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate activity a week.
This was aÂ randomised controlled trial that aimed to see if people ate more snacks depending on the type of TV content they were watching.
While randomising participants is the best way to get groups that are balanced in their characteristics, this study only gave limited details of how this was done. This makes it difficult to know exactly how well the randomisation worked, and if the groups were truly balanced.
The researchers recruited 94 undergraduate students, gathered in groups of up to 20 people, then randomly assigned them to watch TV for 20 minutes, which was either:
During the 20 minutes, four snacks were made available: M&Ms, cookies, carrots and grapes. They were allowed to eat as much of them as they wanted. The amount of snacking per person was calculated by weighing the snacks before and after the 20 minute programme.
The researchers then analysed the results by type of TV show and sex of the participant.
Participants watching the action film with sound ate 98 more grams (g) of food than those watching a talk show (206.5g versus 104.3g). This equated to 65% more calories (kcal) consumed in the action film with sound group (354.1kcal versus 214.6kcal).
Those watching the action film without sound also ate significantly more snacks than people watching the talk show â€“ 36% more grams of food (142.1g versus 104.3g) and 46% more calories (314.5kcal versus 214.6kcal).
Males ate more than females in all three groups.
The researchers concluded that â€œmore distracting TV content appears to increase food consumption: action and sound variation are bad for oneâ€™s dietâ€. They suggest that people should either avoid snacking when watching distracting TV or use â€œproportioned quantities to avoid overeatingâ€.
This study appears to indicate that the type of TV programme a person watches can influence how many calories are consumed as snacks. However, little information was provided about the methods and findings of this study, which makes it difficult to be certain how well it was performed and, therefore, how robust the results are.
The potential issues with the study that could affect interpretation of the results seen include:
In conclusion, this study in isolation doesnâ€™t prove that watching certain TV programmes or films makes you fat. However, it does act as a reminder that we should pay attention to what we eat, including food we consume while distracted, as it all part of our calorie intake.
It is still recommended that you aim for at least 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity each week, as well as eating a healthy, balanced diet.
If you are trying to lose weight, it might be a good idea to remove snacks from situations where you may get distracted â€“ whether that is at home watching TV or at the cinema.
Only eating in a set location, such as your kitchen or dining room, can be a good way of staying mindful of how much you are actually eating; even a few extra snacks every night can quickly add up.
There are, however, a range ofÂ 100 calories or less snacks you can try,Â that shouldnâ€™t put you over your daily calorie intake.
Analysis by Bazian. Edited by NHS Choices. Follow Behind the Headlines on Twitter. Join the Healthy Evidence forum.
Action films make you fat, study finds. The Independent, September 1 2014
Action films most likely to make you fat, says study. BBC News, September 2 2014
Tal A, Zuckerman S, Wansink D. Watch What You Eat: Action-Related Television Content Increases Food Intake. JAMA Internal Medicine. Published online September 1 2014