Researchers tested whether a simple phone game could help people reduce cravings for unhealthy foods they wanted to eat less of. Over two weeks, 156 people played a game where they swiped their phone away from pictures of foods they wanted to avoid and toward pictures of healthier foods. The game did reduce how strong their cravings felt for about a week after training ended, especially for people who usually try to control what they eat. However, the cravings came back by the one-month follow-up, and the game didn’t actually change how much people ate. While the results are promising, scientists still need to figure out how to make the benefits last longer.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Whether a smartphone game that trains people to push away unhealthy foods and pull toward healthy foods can reduce food cravings and change eating habits.
  • Who participated: 156 adults who wanted to change their eating habits. They were randomly split into two groups: one played the real training game, and the other played a placebo game where all foods were treated the same way.
  • Key finding: The real training game reduced how intensely people craved unhealthy foods for about a week after training (roughly 19% reduction in craving strength), but this effect disappeared by the one-month check-in. The game didn’t actually change how much food people ate.
  • What it means for you: This app-based approach may help reduce the strength of food cravings in the short term, particularly if you’re someone who usually tries to control your eating. However, it’s not yet proven to help people actually eat less or maintain results long-term. Think of it as a potential tool to help manage cravings, not a complete solution for changing eating habits.

The Research Details

This was a randomized controlled trial, which is considered one of the strongest types of research studies. Researchers recruited 156 people and randomly assigned them to two groups. One group used a smartphone app that trained them six times over two weeks. In this training, they saw pictures of foods they wanted to eat less of and swiped their phone away from these pictures. They also saw pictures of healthier foods and swiped toward them. The other group (control group) played a similar game, but all foods were treated equally—sometimes swiped away, sometimes swiped toward—so they received no real training.

Researchers measured food cravings and actual food intake every day during the two-week training period, for four days before training started, for four days after training ended, and once more a month later. They also measured something called “approach bias,” which is basically how automatically people’s brains were drawn toward or away from different foods.

This design is strong because the random assignment helps ensure the two groups were similar at the start, and the placebo control group helps rule out the possibility that any benefits came from simply paying attention to food or using an app.

Understanding whether smartphone-based training can change how people think about and crave food is important because many people struggle with food cravings, and traditional approaches like willpower alone don’t always work. If a simple phone game could help, it would be accessible to millions of people. This study also helps researchers understand whether techniques that work for reducing alcohol cravings can be adapted for food.

This study has several strengths: it was pre-registered (meaning the researchers planned their analysis before collecting data, which prevents cherry-picking results), it used a proper control group, and it measured outcomes multiple times over several weeks. The sample size of 156 is reasonable for this type of study. However, the study only followed people for one month, which is relatively short. The researchers also used a statistical method called Bayesian analysis, which is valid but less commonly used than traditional statistics, so some readers may find it harder to interpret the confidence levels.

What the Results Show

The main finding was that the active training reduced how intensely people craved the unhealthy foods they wanted to eat less of. Specifically, craving intensity dropped by about 19% compared to the placebo group in the four days after training ended. This effect was strongest in people who described themselves as “restrained eaters”—those who usually try to control what they eat—and in people who had struggled with dieting success in the past.

The training also appeared to reduce something called “approach bias” for unhealthy foods, meaning people’s automatic tendency to be drawn toward these foods decreased. However, the evidence for this was weaker than for the craving reduction.

Importantly, by the one-month follow-up, the benefits had disappeared. Cravings bounced back to levels similar to the placebo group. Additionally, the training had no effect on how much food people actually ate—the game didn’t translate into real changes in eating behavior.

The training did not help people increase their intake of the healthy foods they wanted to eat more of, nor did it reduce cravings for those foods. This suggests the training was only effective for reducing unwanted cravings, not for promoting positive eating changes. The researchers also found no meaningful changes in actual food intake for either group, which was surprising given that craving intensity decreased. This suggests that reducing how much you crave something doesn’t automatically lead to eating less of it.

This study builds on earlier research showing that approach-avoidance training works for reducing alcohol cravings. The results here are somewhat encouraging because they show the technique can reduce food cravings too. However, previous studies on food-related training have had mixed results, and this study’s finding that cravings returned by one month aligns with concerns that these effects may not last. The fact that reduced cravings didn’t translate to reduced eating is also consistent with some previous research suggesting that craving and actual consumption are more separate than we might expect.

Several important limitations should be considered. First, the benefits only lasted about a week, so we don’t know if longer or more frequent training would produce lasting results. Second, the study only measured actual food intake through self-reporting (people writing down what they ate), which is less reliable than objective measurement. Third, the study only lasted one month, so we can’t know about longer-term effects. Fourth, the study didn’t measure whether people actually changed their automatic responses to food in real-world situations—only in the lab setting. Finally, the study was relatively small and conducted in one country, so results may not apply to everyone.

The Bottom Line

Based on this research, a smartphone-based approach-avoidance training app may help reduce the intensity of food cravings for a week or two after use, particularly if you’re someone who usually tries to control your eating. However, it should not be viewed as a standalone solution for changing eating habits. If you’re interested in trying this approach, consider it as one tool among many—combine it with other strategies like meal planning, stress management, and regular physical activity. The evidence is moderate for short-term craving reduction but weak for long-term benefits or actual behavior change.

This research is most relevant to people who struggle with intense cravings for specific unhealthy foods and who are motivated to change their eating habits. It may be particularly helpful for people who describe themselves as “restrained eaters” or those who have struggled with past dieting attempts. However, people looking for a quick fix to eating problems should manage their expectations—this tool appears to help with cravings, not with overall weight loss or sustained dietary change. Anyone with eating disorders should consult a healthcare provider before trying any intervention.

Based on this study, you might expect to notice reduced craving intensity within the first week of using the app. However, these benefits appear to fade by about four weeks. To maintain benefits, you would likely need to continue using the app regularly, though this study didn’t test that approach. Don’t expect to see changes in actual food intake or weight based on this intervention alone.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Track your craving intensity for specific unhealthy foods on a scale of 1-10 each day. Record this in your app before starting the training, during the two-week training period, and for at least four weeks after. This will help you see if the training is working for you personally and when effects might be fading.
  • Use the app’s training game six times per week for two weeks, focusing on foods you personally want to eat less of. Pair this with a simple food log where you record what you actually eat at meals. This combination helps you track whether reduced cravings are translating into actual eating changes for you.
  • Set up weekly check-ins to review your craving scores and food intake patterns. If you notice cravings returning after a few weeks, consider repeating the two-week training cycle. Track which foods show the most improvement and which remain challenging. Share this data with a nutritionist or healthcare provider if you’re working with one, as they can help you develop additional strategies for foods where the app alone isn’t sufficient.

This research describes a smartphone-based training tool that may help reduce food cravings in the short term, but it is not a medical treatment and should not replace professional medical or nutritional advice. The study found that benefits fade within a month and that reduced cravings don’t automatically lead to eating less. If you have an eating disorder, diabetes, or other health conditions affecting your diet, consult your doctor or a registered dietitian before using any app-based intervention. This single study provides preliminary evidence; more research is needed to understand long-term effectiveness and whether this approach works for different populations. Individual results may vary significantly.