Why a slice of toast helps you strike best deal

IF you are about to enter a difficult negotiation you might want to eat an extra slice of toast for breakfast.

Researchers found those who have eaten plenty of bread, cereal or other carbohydrates are less likely to accept a bad deal – and would rather walk away – than those who eat breakfasts lower in carbs and higher in protein.

In an attempt to explain why food can affect our mood, researchers measured chemicals in the blood of participants who ate low-carb and high-carb breakfasts.

They found those who had eaten more carbs at the beginning of the day had higher levels of dopamine, the brain’s ‘reward’ chemical which can produce feelings of happiness.

This may allow them to walk away from a bad deal because they are confident they will be rewarded at a later time, the study suggests.

By contrast, low levels of dopamine may mean they would feel a need to take anything they can get straightaway – even if there was the possibility of a better offer in future.

The researchers from Luebeck University, northern Germany, asked participants to record what they had for breakfast and then take part in a computer game where they are offered a share of a sum of money by another player.

The deal is less than 50:50,

‘Acutely influences our decisions’

meaning that the player offering keeps much more of the sum.

The recipient has two options – accept the unfair split, keeping the smaller amount of cash, or reject it, receiving nothing. The researchers found 53 per cent of the high-carb group decided to reject unfair offers, compared with 24 per cent of subjects who had eaten a low-carb breakfast.

In a further test, participants were fed controlled breakfasts – one with 80 per cent carbohydrates, 10 per cent protein and 10 per cent fat; and the other with 50 per cent carbohydrates, 25 per cent protein and 25 per cent fat.

Both breakfasts amounted to 850 calories, the research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said.

In the controlled experiment, 69 per cent of those on the highcarb diet rejected the bad deal, compared with 60 per cent on the low-carb diet.

The authors said the results showed the nutrient make-up of our food ‘acutely influences our social decisions’.

They added: ‘Our results shed new light on the striking relevance of food intake. This opens new perspectives on problems, such as anti-social behaviour as well as the global problem of poor nutrition.

‘The latter may not only have negative consequences on physical health but also on social decisions.’