Kelly D. Brownell’s research while affiliated with Yale University and other places

Body weight is regulated by a complex interaction of biological, behavioral, and cultural factors. The population as a whole is at risk for obesity because of increased intake of dietary fat, the consumption of calories in fewer meals per day, striking accessibility to palatable foods, and decreased physical activity. This risk may become a reality in individuals with certain biological predispositions (genetic tendency, low metabolic rate, increased fat cell number), specific eating patterns, and susceptibility to the extreme cultural pressure to be lean. These factors must be considered in establishing goals for treatment, which fall into medical and psychosocial categories. This includes defining a “reasonable” as opposed to “ideal” weight. A three-stage process is proposed for identifying the best treatment for an individual. This involves a classification decision, a stepped care decision, and then a matching decision. Criteria are provided for a comprehensive assessment of the overweight individual, and treatment options are reviewed for programs of varying intensity, cost, and risk.

Objective: To investigate the influence of a defendant's weight on simulated jurors' perceptions of guilt. Design and methods: Participants were 471 lean and overweight adults (mean body mass index: 25.34±5.91) who read a vignette describing a case of check fraud while viewing one of four images of the alleged defendant (a lean male, a lean female, an obese male or an obese female). Participants rated the defendant's culpability on a 5-point Likert scale and completed measures of anti-fat attitudes. Results: Male respondents endorsed greater overall weight bias than females (F (1470)=23.815, P<0.01, η(2)=0.048). A three-way interaction was detected between participant sex, defendant sex and defendant weight on perceptions of guilt such that when the defendant was female, male participants were significantly more likely to find her guilty if she was obese than if she was lean (guilt ratings=4.05±0.83; 3.31±1.03, respectively; F(1467)=5.935, P=0.015, R(2)=0.060). In addition, lean male participants were significantly more likely to believe that the obese female defendant met criteria for check fraud, and indicated greater belief she would be a repeat offender, compared with the lean female defendant (t(90)=2.081, P=0.040; t(90)=2.395 P=0.019, respectively). There were no differences in perceptions of guilt or responsibility between the obese male and the lean male defendants. Conclusion: The results of this novel study indicate that both weight and gender of a defendant may affect juror perceptions of guilt and responsibility.

In an article that forms part of the PLoS Medicine series on Big Food, Kelly Brownell offers a perspective on engaging with the food industry, and argues that governments and the public health community should be working for regulation, not collaboration.

This chapter discusses the responsibility of changing public policy to address obesity. The understanding of obesity as an issue of personal responsibility has led to weak government action. The chapter notes that the environment is the major force underlying the obesity crisis and then addresses school food environments, food access and cost, sugared beverage consumption, food marketing, and restaurant food nutrition content and portion size. Comprehensive bans on advertising are difficult to develop, given the range of ways in which foods are advertised, such as on the Internet and through videogames. Menu labeling could promote healthier food choices when dining out. Public health policies that target the school food environment, issues of access and cost of foods, sugar beverage consumption, food marketing, restaurant food nutrition content and portion size can have far-reaching effects in curbing the obesity epidemic and in improving the world's diet and health in cost-effective ways.

Reports an error in "Mind over milkshakes: Mindsets, not just nutrients, determine ghrelin response" by Alia J. Crum, William R. Corbin, Kelly D. Brownell and Peter Salovey (Health Psychology, np). In the second paragraph on the first page, the Allison & Uhl 1964 citation is incorrect. The corrected sentence and full citation is provided in the erratum. All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2011-09907-001.) Objective: To test whether physiological satiation as measured by the gut peptide ghrelin may vary depending on the mindset in which one approaches consumption of food. Methods: On 2 separate occasions, participants (n = 46) consumed a 380-calorie milkshake under the pretense that it was either a 620-calorie "indulgent" shake or a 140-calorie "sensible" shake. Ghrelin was measured via intravenous blood samples at 3 time points: baseline (20 min), anticipatory (60 min), and postconsumption (90 min). During the first interval (between 20 and 60 min) participants were asked to view and rate the (misleading) label of the shake. During the second interval (between 60 and 90 min) participants were asked to drink and rate the milkshake. Results: The mindset of indulgence produced a dramatically steeper decline in ghrelin after consuming the shake, whereas the mindset of sensibility produced a relatively flat ghrelin response. Participants' satiety was consistent with what they believed they were consuming rather than the actual nutritional value of what they consumed. Conclusions: The effect of food consumption on ghrelin may be psychologically mediated, and mindset meaningfully affects physiological responses to food. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).

To test whether physiological satiation as measured by the gut peptide ghrelin may vary depending on the mindset in which one approaches consumption of food. On 2 separate occasions, participants (n = 46) consumed a 380-calorie milkshake under the pretense that it was either a 620-calorie "indulgent" shake or a 140-calorie "sensible" shake. Ghrelin was measured via intravenous blood samples at 3 time points: baseline (20 min), anticipatory (60 min), and postconsumption (90 min). During the first interval (between 20 and 60 min) participants were asked to view and rate the (misleading) label of the shake. During the second interval (between 60 and 90 min) participants were asked to drink and rate the milkshake. The mindset of indulgence produced a dramatically steeper decline in ghrelin after consuming the shake, whereas the mindset of sensibility produced a relatively flat ghrelin response. Participants' satiety was consistent with what they believed they were consuming rather than the actual nutritional value of what they consumed. The effect of food consumption on ghrelin may be psychologically mediated, and mindset meaningfully affects physiological responses to food.