Cited by 391Nutrition, Health and Food BehaviorFood, Nutrition, and Cultural PracticesEating Disorders and Behaviors

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Meaning of Food in Our Lives: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Eating and Well-Being

Rozin, Paul·2005·Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior

Abstract

Humans are biologically adapted to their ancestral food environment in which foods were dispersed and energy expenditure was required to obtain them. The modern developed world has a surplus of very accessible, inexpensive food. Amid the enormous variety of different foods are "super" foods, such as chocolate, which are particularly appealing and calorie dense. Energy output can be minimal to obtain large amounts of food. In terms of education (eg, in nutrition and risk-benefit thinking) and environment design, modern cultures have not kept pace with changes in the food world. Overweight and worrying about food result from this mismatch between human biological predispositions and the current food environment. The French have coped with this mismatch better than Americans. Although at least as healthy as Americans, they focus more on the experience of eating and less on the health effects of eating. They spend more time eating, but they eat less, partly because of smaller portion sizes. French traditions of moderation (versus American abundance), focus on quality (versus quantity), and emphasis on the joys of the moment (rather than making life comfortable and easy) support a healthier lifestyle. The French physical environment encourages slow, moderate social eating, minimal snacking, and more physical activity in daily life.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1499-4046(06)60209-1

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Geier AB, Rozin P. Unit bias: a new heuristic that helps explain the effect of portion size on food intake. Psychol Sci. In press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rozin, P.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Rozin, Paul
Venue
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-11
Volume
37
Pages
S107-S112
ISSN
1499-4046 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2027880001
Cited by
390
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 16
FWCI
4.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Food, Nutrition, and Cultural Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
Keywords
food environment, dietary habits, well-being, overweight, obesity, cross-cultural comparison, portion size, snacking, physical activity, nutrition education, social eating
MeSH terms
Energy Intake, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Diet, Eating, Feeding Behavior, Humans, Nutritive Value, Obesity, Exercise

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review