Why Eat 1 more” promotes fruit and vegetable intake more than 5 per day”

Why Eat 1 more” promotes fruit and vegetable intake more than 5 per day”

A new study shows that simply telling people to "eat 1 more" fruit or vegetable can be more effective than traditional 5-day messages—if the goal feels achievable, it works.

In a recent study published in the journalappetiteResearchers synthesized the results of three independent studies to assess the potential benefits of setting consumption goals in achieving fruit and vegetable consumption (FV) goals. The studies explicitly examined the “relevant” and “achievable” elements of these goals.

The study results showed that FV consumption increases significantly compared to no set goals. In some cases, participants' perception of the ease or accessibility of the goal further encouraged FV consumption. In contrast, FV goal relevance did not noticeably alter FV consumption. However, it is important to note that the observed increases were statistically significant but modest in size.

background

The researchers discovered a “sweet spot” for effort in Study 1: Participants who reported moderate (not extreme) effort to achieve goals experienced the largest FV uptake gains, suggesting that sustained change outperforms overexertion.

Fresh fruits and vegetables (FVS) are among the healthiest and most cost-effective sources of essential nutrients for humans. [T2D]obesity and cardiovascular diseases [CVDs]). Unfortunately, global FV consumption, particularly in Western nations, is significantly lower than reported by public health authorities such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and others that present important public health concerns.

In the UK, adults are reported to consume an average of 286g FV/day, compared to WHO recommendations of 400g FV/day. The average consumption in Europe is reported at 386 g FV/day, and the average consumption in the USA is 2.39 cups FV/day, which corresponds to 325 g FV/day.

The current gold standard for promoting fruit and vegetable (FV) consumption is to convert WHO daily FV recommendations into petrap-rich consumer guidelines (e.g. “five servings of FV daily”). The daily parts implicitly form specific, time-bound, and measurable goals, which some authors call “smart” (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound) goals.

Unfortunately, previous research aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of these goals in the FV consumption context has two recurring drawbacks: 1. "Achievable" and "relevant" items are rarely explicitly tested, and 2. Reports suggest that 5-day portion goals may not be considered "attainable" in today's approved food world.

About the study

The paper reveals an unexpected psychological twist: Participants who reported greater awareness of their own FV intake showed stronger intentions to continue eating well regardless of goal type.

The present study aims to address both disadvantages by synthesizing the results of three independent studies aimed at elucidating the effects of “attainable” and “relevant” elements in FV consumption.

The first study (Study 1) focused on the effects of attainment of FV health promotion goals, recommending two versions of FV goals: 1. “Eat 5 FV today” (hypothesized to be less perceptible) and 2. “Eat 1 more FV today.” The second study (Study 2) also assessed accessibility while explicitly testing the “relevance” element through four FV goal recommendations: 1.

The third study (Study 3) builds on Study 2 by incorporating real-world FV purchase scenarios. Study participants were British students selected based on previous research highlighting the demographic's poor eating practices and low FV consumption.

The canteens served two large colleges (approximately 2,000 students), six small colleges (approximately 500 students) and a large city hospital (2 canteens) (Royal Bournemouth Hospital, which serves the general public). Each canteen showed between 1 and 3 of the 4 different health promotion messages (over a 4-week measurement period) for one week.

Studies 1 and 2 included 127 (38% male, mean age = 20.9) and 226 (28% male, mean age = 21.0) British University Students, respectively. Study 3 used data from 10 canteens in Poole and Bournemouth, UK. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were randomly assigned to cases and controls. All three studies demonstrated their individual health promotion goals using easily visible 10 cm x 5 cm magnets provided to each study participant. However, in Study 3, health promotion goals were displayed using posters in the cafeterias rather than magnets. The control participants' magnets were empty (no target). The interventions lasted 1 week.

FV consumption was assessed following participant completion using participant food diaries (Studies 1 and 2). In addition, participants' willingness to consume FVS in the future was assessed via questionnaires. FV consumption in Study 3 was assessed via canteen FV sales. Multiple regression models were used to examine the effects of each study treatment.

Study results

Study 2's Apple consumption metric included a clever twist: participants received 50 pence per ungated Apple returned, a financial approach designed to ensure truthful reporting of actual intake.

Study 1 demonstrates the benefits of providing goals in promoting FV consumption. Cases were found to consume significantly more FVs than their control counterparts. However, there was no statistically significant difference in FV consumption between the “Eat 1 More…” and “Eat 5…” themselves. Rather, the perceived ease of the goal – regardless of the specific wording – was positively associated with greater FV consumption. Notably, goal salience did not significantly alter FV consumption outcomes.

Study 2 mirrors Study 1 and shows that participants provided with “Eat 1 More…” consumed slightly more FVS than those provided with “Eat 5…” goals, particularly in immediate FV choice and apple consumption, although not for all measures. Surprisingly, however, goal relevance (current vs. future utility) did not change FV consumption outcomes, highlighting the lack of importance of “relevance” for FV advertising campaigns.

Study 3 showed increased FV turnover during target promotion and approximately one week later. Remarkably, neither success nor relevance changed the study results. In tandem with Study 1 (in participants' homes), these results suggest that the goal of “success” is situational. It is also important to note that the observed increases in FV consumption and sales were relatively small (e.g., an increase/day increase of 0.5 and a day at home and an increase in canteen sales of about 10%).

The researchers also observed that other factors, including danger of FV, positive attitudes, and self-efficacy, were associated with higher FV consumption, consistent with previous literature.

Limitations of the studies include their focus on UK university students, which may limit generalizability, and the modest effect sizes observed. The authors also note that their operationalization of “relevance” (current vs. future utility) may not be sufficient to detect effects, and that other unmeasured factors such as priming effects or individual differences may have played a role.

Conclusions

The present study confirms the benefits of setting goals to promote fruit and vegetable (FV) consumption. While the perception or achievability of achieving these goals may further improve FV consumption, depending on the set setting and outcome, this effect was sometimes statistically significant. In particular, goal relevance does not improve FV consumption.

"Our results show facilitation of health behaviors through providing goals and providing goals to achieve. Based on these findings, we recommend providing goals, particularly easy/achievable goals, to encourage FV consumption."

Sources: