Bribing kids to eat vegetables might backfire. Here’s what to do instead
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s a tactic many parents know well: “eat two bites of broccoli, and then you can have dessert”.
It seems like a practical solution for encouraging kids – especially picky eaters – to eat healthy foods. And in the short term, it often works.
But using food as a bargaining chip can do more harm than good.
Why food bribes backfire
Although well-intentioned, bribing children with treats to eat healthy foods can:
Create unhealthy associations
Studies show using discretionary foods such as sweets as rewards increases children’s preference for those foods.
Over time, children start to see dessert as the “prize” and vegetables as the “chore”. This skews their perception of food value and can lead to an unhealthy relationship with eating.
Bribes also link food with achievement or behaviour, which can foster emotional eating patterns later in life.
Disrupt appetite regulation
Children are born with the ability to self-regulate how much they eat, based on internal signals between the gut, brain, and hormones. It’s common for appetite to fluctuate – ravenous one day, uninterested the next – depending on activity, growth and development.
However, food rewards can override these natural cues. When children learn to eat to earn a reward rather than to satisfy hunger, research suggests it can increase the risk of overeating.
Increase fussy eating
Fussy eating is a normal phase in early childhood and typically improves once children start school.
But pressuring children to eat, especially with the promise of a reward, can make them even more resistant to trying new foods. Several studies show food rewards are linked to greater food fussiness over time.
What to do instead: evidence-backed strategies
Instead of resorting to bribes, here are research-informed ways to support healthy eating habits in children:
1. Focus on effort, not outcomes
It can take eight to ten exposures before a child accepts a new food. So keep offering it without pressure.
Praise your child for trying something new, rather than for finishing their plate.
Let them decide whether to eat it – and how much. The goal is to build positive experiences around food.
2. Pair new foods with familiar favourites
Children are more likely to try unfamiliar foods when served alongside ones they already enjoy.
So if your child loves potato chips, try introducing roast carrot “orange chippies” as a variation.
Offering the same food in different formats (such as avocado in sushi one day, on crackers another) also increases acceptance.
3. Make healthy food visually appealing
Studies show kids respond better to food presented in fun and colourful ways. Use different shapes, textures, and colours to make meals more inviting – think fruit skewers, rainbow veggie plates, or “build-your-own” meals.
4. Involve children in the kitchen
Children are more likely to eat food they’ve helped prepare. Even young children can assist with age-appropriate tasks like mixing, measuring, or choosing recipes. Cooking together is not just a learning opportunity, it also builds a sense of ownership and pride.
5. Model the behaviours you want to see
Children learn by watching. Research shows that when parents regularly eat and enjoy healthy foods in front of their kids, these children have better diets than their peers who don’t see their parents enjoy healthy foods.
Try to share meals as a family when possible and model the enjoyment of nutritious foods.
The bottom line
While bribing children to eat healthy food may offer short-term success, it can undermine their ability to self-regulate, distort their relationship with food, and increase fussiness in the long run.
But with patience, consistency and positive role modelling, children learn to enjoy a variety of healthy foods – no bribes required.
Nick Fuller is the author of Healthy Parents, Healthy Kids – Six Steps to Total Family Wellness. His free, practical recipe ideas can be found at feedingfussykids.com.
Nick Fuller, Clinical Trials Director, Department of Endocrinology, RPA Hospital, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
It’s Not Hysteria – by Dr. Karen Tan
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Firstly, who this book is aimed at: in case it wasn’t clear, this book assumes you have, or at least have had, a uterus. If that’s not you, then well, it’ll still be an interesting read but it won’t be about your reproductive health.
Secondly, about that “reproductive health”: it’s mostly not actually about reproductive health literally, but rather, the health of one’s reproductive organs and the things that they affect—which is a lot more than the ability to reproduce!
Dr. Tang takes us on a (respectably in-depth) tour of the relevant anatomy, before moving on to physiology, before continuing to pathology (i.e. things that can go wrong, and often do), and finally various treatment options, including elective procedures, and the pros and cons thereof.
She also talks the reader through talking about things with gynecologists and other healthcare providers, and making sure concerns are not dismissed out-of-hand (something that happens a lot, of course).
The style throughout is quite detailed prose, but without being difficult at all to read, and (assuming one is interested in the topic) it’s very engaging.
Bottom line: if you would like to know more about uteri and everything that is (or commonly/unfortunately) can be attached to them, the effects they have on the rest of the body and health, and what can be done about things not being quite right, then this is a good book for that.
Click here to check out It’s Not Hysteria, and understand more of what’s going on down there!
Share This Post
-
Leaded or Unleaded Clothing?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
…and other items from this week’s health news:
Fast fashion, heavy fashion?
In few words: researchers presenting at the American Chemical Society found that all children’s shirts tested exceeded the US lead safety limit of 100 ppm.
Now, it may seem alarming that clothing even has a 100ppm lead safety limit, because surely the correct amount of lead to have in clothing is zero. Of course, lead exposure at any level is harmful and is linked to brain damage, behavioral issues, and nervous system effects, with children under 6 being especially vulnerable.
And worse, the lead wasn’t just in metal parts like buttons or zippers but also embedded directly in the fabric, likely from dye-fixing chemicals such as lead(II) acetate.
The next step from this now is that the researchers are investigating whether washing contaminated clothes could spread lead directly to other garments and/or leave residue in washing machines to spread it to other garments washed next.
Read in full: Study finds dangerous lead levels in children’s clothing
Related: Are You Inhaling Microplastics In Your House? ← clothing is a big contributor to this, and tumble-driers especially will exacerbate the problem
BMI found to be even less useful than previously accepted
Shocking no regular 10almonds readers (because the fact that BMI still gets used the way it does is a pet hate of the writing staff), researchers presenting at the European Congress on Obesity 2026 found that over one-third of adults were misclassified by BMI, meaning their assigned weight category didn’t match their actual body fat levels.
A lot of this is because doesn’t measure body fat directly, let alone show where fat is stored, which matters because visceral fat (around organs) carries more risk than fat stored elsewhere (in fact, the fat stored elsewhere can be healthy and even sometimes protective, depending on various factors, see our “related” article below).
The research team compared BMI with DXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), which is a gold-standard method that directly measures body fat percentage and distribution. What they found is that many people labeled overweight or obese by BMI didn’t actually have high body fat, while others with higher fat levels were missed entirely.
Specific findings:
- “Obese” category: 34% were actually here because of body fat, the rest should not have been here
- “Overweight” category: 53% were misclassified, with most actually in the normal range
- “Normal” category: 22% were reclassified up or down when body fat was measured
- “Underweight” category: 68.4% were reclassified up into “normal”
In other words, BMI and body fat methods often flag different people entirely, not just slightly different numbers.
If any other medical standard testing system flagged “different people entirely”, it would be thrown out decades ago!
Read in full: Scientists say BMI gets it wrong for over one third of adults
Related: When BMI Doesn’t Quite Measure Up ← for even more things that are wrong with this system that is wildly unhelpful at best, and often even dangerous
The anti-Alzheimer’s vaccine?
Researchers (Dr. Gabriela Cruz et al.) found that adults aged 65+ who received a high-dose flu vaccine had a lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease compared with those receiving a standard-dose version.
Notably, women enjoyed earlier and stronger reductions in risk, while men got smaller or delayed benefits.
As for the duration of the effect:
- On the one hand, the association lasted up to 25 months in one analysis and 28 months in another, suggesting a medium-term effect rather than a permanent risk reduction
- On the other hand, people who received high-dose vaccines annually over three years showed further reductions in risk, hinting at a cumulative effect.
In other words, get it annually and you’ll be well-covered!
You may be wondering why it works; it’s likely because stronger immune stimulation from high-dose vaccines can reduce brain inflammation or improve immune responses, which are increasingly linked to dementia risk.
This builds on from earlier studies that already linked regular flu vaccination to lower dementia risk—sometimes reporting up to 40% lower incidence.
Read in full: High-dose flu shots inked to lower Alzheimer’s dementia risk in older adults
Related: Could the shingles vaccine lower your risk of dementia?
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Keep Your Wits About You – by Dr. Vonetta Dotson
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Dr. Dotson sets out to provide the reader with the tools to maintain good brain health at any age, though she does assume the reader to be in midlife or older.
She talks us through the most important kinds of physical activity, mental activity, and social activity, as well as a good grounding in brain-healthy nutrition, and how to beat the often catch-22 situation of poor sleep.
If you are the sort of person who likes refreshers on what you have just read, you’ll enjoy that the final two chapters repeat the information from chapters 2–6. If not, then well, if you skip the final 2 chapters the book will be 25% shorter without loss of content.
The style is enthusiastic; when it comes to her passion for the brain, Dr. Dotson both tells and shows, in abundance. While some authors may take care to break down the information in a way that can be understood from skimming alone, Dr. Dotson assumes that the reader’s interest will match hers, and thus will not mind a lot of lengthy prose with in-line citations. So, provided that’s the way you like to read, it’ll suit you too.
Bottom line: if you are looking for a book on maintaining optimal brain health that covers the basics without adding advice that is out of the norm, then this is a fine option for that!
Click here to check out Keep Your Wits About You, and keep your wits about you!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Carbonated Water: For Weight Loss, Satiety, Or Just Gas?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
There are two main mechanisms of action by which sparkling water is considered to help satiety and/or weight loss; they are:
- It “fills us up” such that we feel fuller sooner, and thus eat less, and thus (all other things being equal) perhaps lose weight
- The carbon dioxide is absorbed into the bloodstream, where (as a matter of chemistry) it improves glucose metabolism, thus lowering blood sugars and indirectly leading (potentially) to weight loss, but even if not, lowered blood sugars are good for most people most of the time, right?
However, there are just a few problems:
Full of gas?
Many people self-report enjoying sparkling water as a way to feel fuller while fasting (or even while eating). However, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, so, here be data… Ish:
❝In order to determine whether such satiating effects occur through oral carbonic stimulation alone, we conducted modified sham-feeding (SF) tests (carbonated water ingestion (CW), water ingestion (W), carbonated water sham-feeding (CW-SF), and water sham-feeding (W-SF)), employing an equivalent volume and standardized temperature of carbonated and plain water, in a randomized crossover design.
Thirteen young women began fasting at 10 p.m. on the previous night and were loaded with each sample (15ºC, 250 mL) at 9 a.m. on separate days. Electrogastrography (EGG) recordings were obtained from 20 min before to 45 min after the loading to determine the power and frequency of the gastric myoelectrical activity. Appetite was assessed using visual analog scales. After ingestion, significantly increased fullness and decreased hunger ratings were observed in the CW group. After the load, transiently but significantly increased fullness as well as decreased hunger ratings were observed in the CW-SF group. The powers of normogastria (2-4 cpm) and tachygastria (4-9 cpm) showed significant increases in the CW and W groups, but not in the CW-SF and W-SF groups. The peak frequency of normogastria tended to shift toward a higher band in the CW group, whereas it shifted toward a lower band in the CW-SF group, indicating a different EGG rhythm.
Our results suggest that CO2-induced oral stimulation is solely responsible for the feeling of satiety.❞
~ Dr. Maki Suzuki et al.
Now, that’s self-reported, and a sample size of 13, so it’s not the most airtight science ever, but it is at least science. Here’s the paper, by the way:
Oral Carbonation Attenuates Feeling of Hunger and Gastric Myoelectrical Activity in Young Women
Here’s another small study with 8 people, which found that still and sparkling water had the exact same effect:
Effect of carbonated water on gastric emptying and intragastric meal distribution
However, drinking water (still or sparkling) with a meal will not have anywhere near the same effect for satiety as consuming food that has a high water-content.
See also: Some Surprising Truths About Hunger And Satiety ← our main feature in which we examine the science of volumetrics, including a study that shows how water incorporated into a food (but not served with a food) decreases caloric intake.
As an aside, one difference that carbonation can make is to increase ghrelin levels—that’s the hunger hormone (the satiety hormone is leptin, by the way). This one’s a rat study, but it seems reasonable that the same will be true of humans:
…which is worth bearing in mind even if you yourself are not, in fact, a male rat.
The glucose guzzler?
This one has simply been the case of a study being misrepresented, for example here:
Fizzy water might aid weight loss by providing a small boost to glucose uptake and metabolism
The idea is that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the blood mean faster glucose metabolism, which is technically true. Now, often “technically true” is the best kind of true, but not here, because it’s simply not useful.
In short, we produce so much carbon dioxide as part of our normal respiratory processes, that any carbon dioxide we might consume in a carbonated water is barely a blip in the graph.
Oh, and that article we just linked? Even within the article, despite running with that headline, the actual scientists quoted are saying such things as:
❝While there is a hypothetical link between carbonated water and glucose metabolism, this has yet to be tested in well-designed human intervention studies❞
~ Professor Sumantra Ray
Note: the word “hypothetical” means “one level lower than theoretical”. This is very far from being a conclusion.
And the study itself? Wasn’t even about carbonated water, it was about kidney dialysis and how the carbon dioxide content can result in hypoglycemia:
The mechanism of hypoglycemia caused by hemodialysis
…which got referenced in this paper (not a study):
Can carbonated water support weight loss?
…and even that concluded:
❝CO2 in carbonated water may promote weight loss by enhancing glucose uptake and metabolism in red blood cells.
However, the amount is so small that it is difficult to expect weight loss effects solely from the CO2 in carbonated water.
Drinking carbonated water may also affect blood glucose measurements.❞
Note: the word “may”, when used by a scientist and in the absence of any stronger claims, means “we haven’t ruled out the possibility”.
What breaking news that is.
Stop the press! No, really, stop it!
So… What does work?
There are various ways of going about actually hacking hunger (and they stack; i.e. you can use multiple methods and get cumulative results), and we wrote about them here:
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Here’s Why You Want To Know About Mushrooms and Depression
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Dr. Tracey Marks, psychiatrist, explains:
A magic solution?
Psilocybin, the psychedelic compound found in certain mushrooms, activates 5HT-2A serotonin receptors, and historically has been used recreationally to broaden thinking, relax users, and amplify emotions. And that “amplify emotions”?
Useful for combatting depression!
It’s been researched since the 1950s; it was approved as Indocybin in 1960, banned in the US in in 1966, and classified as Schedule I in 1970 (high abuse potential, no accepted medical use).
However, in more recent years: since the 1990s, studies are giving promising results vs anxiety, depression, and alcohol dependence; most use microdosing (one to two doses).
Psilocybin was eventually granted status for treatment-resistant depression (Compass Pathways, 2018) and major depression (Usona Institute, 2019) to speed approval; both are currently (at time of writing) in phase 2 trials and still recruiting participants. This may seem slow compared to some medicine R&D timelines (look at vaccines, for example, which often have to be produced as quickly as possible because of the death toll while waiting), but it could be worse: Spravato took two and a half years from breakthrough designation to approval; typical drug development can take 10+ years, so fast-tracking does shorten the process.
One of the main benefits (aside from “it can work when other things fail”) is that often a single dose can provide relief for months.
For more on all of this, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like:
Taking A Trip Through The Evidence On Psychedelics
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Haven’t Done Endurance Training Lately? Turn That Into An Advantage (Here’s How)
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Confession time: this writer, who reads and writes about health science every day, hasn’t done endurance training in a long time. Partly because of time constraints, partly for other reasons, but I sometimes wonder if I could still run pretty much indefinitely like I used to. I’ll find out someday, but not today!
Today we’re going to be looking at making use of that lack of endurance training, by leveraging how muscles “remember” past exercise and bounce back quickly. Good news, you don’t have to bounce back specifically into endurance training if you don’t want to, and in fact, weight training seems to be what’s best.
Here’s how…
Bounce back stronger
Researchers (Dr. Clay Weidenhamer et al.) investigated this topic, using a combination of gene analysis and mouse trials. If you, dear reader, are not a mouse, then worry not: broadly speaking, mammalian muscles are mammalian muscles regardless, and this is one of the most applicable-to-humans kinds of study available.
How the experiment ran: mice ran on a wheel for 4 weeks, rested 4 weeks, then ran again for 4 weeks.
What they found, in few words: the second round of exercise led to greater muscle fiber growth (up to 30% more mass) than the first.
As a bonus, this occurred even when the second exercise phase was much less intense than the first.
Remember that gene analysis that we mentioned? It showed increased mitochondrial activity during retraining, suggesting mitochondria—not just satellite cells—drive muscle memory. This is important, because it means we can boost (or lose) muscle memory in more ways than previously recognized.
See also: 7 Ways To Boost Mitochondrial Health To Fight Disease
And, since it is one of the above-linked 7 ways, you might also want to bear in mind: Coenzyme Q10 From Foods & Supplements
On which note, you may be wondering how much diet affects this, and the answer is that while diet can and will play a part, both control and high-fat diet mice showed similar retraining gains, showing that exercise memory can override poor diet.
In terms of what exercise works best, weight training was best, but aerobic exercise still resulted in gains, and primed the muscles to be more receptive to future exercise benefits too.
You can read the paper itself, here: Muscle memory of exercise optimizes mitochondrial metabolism to support skeletal muscle growth
If, like this writer, you have a vague idea that you might like to get back into endurance training, then check out this mythbusting edition with regard to (amongst other things) marathon-runners in older age: Are We Truly “Never Too Old”, Or Are There Some Reasonable Age Limits On Exercise?
Want to learn more?
Check out this truly excellent book that we reviewed a little while ago:
Next Level – by Dr. Stacy Sims ← the focus is on thriving through menopause (including: postmenopause) and going from strength to strength.
Dr. Sims uses the first few chapters to explain the menopause in more detail than most people know it, before launching into the main part of the book, which is the “what to do” section. If you only buy one book of this genre, we heartily recommend this one.
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
