Can’t stop thinking about food? You’re far from alone

By Dr. Liji Thomas, MDReviewed by Lauren HardakerSep 29 2026

Researchers question whether the popular term “food noise” describes a new phenomenon or puts a new name to familiar food-related thoughts.

Study: Prevalence and Correlates of Perceived Food Noise Among U.S. Adults in a Nationally Representative Sample. Image credit: Roman Samborskyi/Shutterstock.com

Food noise refers to people’s experiences with thoughts related to food. A recent study published in the journal Obesity Science & Practice found that frequent perceived food noise was associated with lower self-rated diet quality and poorer self-rated mental health. Moreover, loss of control over eating, current GLP-1 use, and being female were among the strongest independent predictors.

What does ‘food noise’ really measure?

Since 2023, the term ‘food noise’ has seen increasing use across a variety of settings, from social media to clinician-patient exchanges, to describe “experiences of persistent, intrusive thoughts about food”. It has been reported to be reduced during the use of glucagon-like peptide-receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs).

The term remains scientifically undefined. Moreover, this relatively unknown term is being used to market anti-obesity medications and behavioral interventions, even though its prevalence among US adults remains unclear.

Various psychometric tools are being developed and tested to measure levels of food noise, such as the Food Noise Questionnaire (FNQ) and the Ro-Allison-Indiana-Dhurandhar Food Noise Inventory (RAID-FN). However, they may overlap with existing scales that describe well-characterized terms such as food addiction, food cravings, and food preoccupation.

In the current study, people were asked about food noise to examine the prevalence of self-identification with this experience, without attempting to measure the levels of food noise. The researchers hope to estimate its prevalence across demographic groups and associated risk factors. However, this is an exploratory study and the results are considered hypothesis-generating rather than definitive.

Researchers examine food noise across 1,000 US adults

The study was a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) Omnibus Survey conducted online in May 2026. It included 1000 US adults. The investigators aimed to identify the proportion who believed they experienced food noise, using a single survey item, and associated factors.

Weighted frequencies and percentages were calculated for food noise experience and eating/weight behaviors. Multivariable associations were examined using weighted proportional odds modeling.

Nearly one in five frequently report food noise

Most respondents were White, non-Hispanic, with a wide range of education and income levels. Approximately 18% of respondents said they often or always experienced food noise, and 17% said they never had it. Overall, 50.89% reported experiencing food noise at least sometimes. Of the rest, 32.1% and 32.9% reported experiencing it rarely or sometimes.

Women were more likely to always or often experience food noise (22.7%) than men (12.7%). Similarly, younger adults up to the age of 29 years reported it more frequently (26.5%) compared to 13.5% among adults aged 60 years or older and 15.6% among those aged 45–59 years.

Asian non-Hispanic respondents had the highest reported prevalence, and Other/Multiracial respondents the lowest, at 32.2% and 14.4%, respectively.

About 12.4% reported current GLP-1 use, while 5.3% had used it in the past. Perceived food noise frequency differed significantly across GLP-1 use groups, reported by 25.76% of current users and 26.78% of former users, compared with 16.3% of non-users. However, after adjustment for other variables, current but not former GLP-1 use remained significantly associated with more frequent food noise.

Predictors of reported food noise

After adjustment for multiple variables, factors independently associated with more frequent food noise included:

• Loss of control over eating was most strongly associated with more frequent food noise, with nearly six times the odds
• Asian non-Hispanic race/ethnicity, with 2.19 times the odds compared with White non-Hispanic respondents
• Household income of $150,000 or more, with 94% higher odds compared with an income below $15,000
• Current GLP-1 use, 60% higher odds
• Attempted weight loss over the past year, 37% higher odds
• Eating less to change weight or body shape, 57% higher odds
• Female sex, 47% higher odds
• Greater importance assigned to social support for dietary change, 42% higher odds
• Perception of more substantial genetic contribution to weight, 33% higher odds

Older age was independently associated with slightly lower odds of more frequent food noise, with the odds decreasing by approximately 1% per year of age. Other/Multiracial respondents also had lower adjusted odds than White non-Hispanic respondents.

Frequent food noise was also associated with poorer self-rated mental health. In the adjusted model, each one-point increase in the better-mental-health score was associated with 19% lower odds of more frequent food noise.

GLP-1 users show a counterintuitive food noise pattern

GLP-1RA use is more likely among those with insulin resistance or obesity, both of which are associated with a higher reactivity to food cues. The authors suggest that this selection effect could help explain why GLP-1RA use is linked to higher reported rates of food noise, contradicting prior evidence suggesting reduced food noise associated with the use of these agents. Future longitudinal studies could help distinguish this kind of selection bias from medication-related changes.

Alternatively, the relief from food noise associated with GLP-1RA use might have increased the awareness of such prior experiences among users, potentially reducing tolerance for such symptoms.

The authors note that, given the multiple factors that increase vulnerability to food cues and a food marketing strategy that confronts consumers everywhere predominantly with low-nutrient, hyperpalatable convenience foods, food noise has probably been around for a long time and has been studied, though under other names.

The current study has value in that it indicates the approximate proportion of US adults who use this term as a lay-level description rather than a professional construct to describe what they feel. Recent psychometric tools have been developed to measure food noise, even though existing constructs may already capture some or all of the same experiences. This may make it harder to objectively compare results across papers.

Key food noise questions left unanswered

The study was a secondary analysis, which limits the data to what the primary study collected. Thus, assessment terms may have been suboptimal. Potentially useful data may not have been collected, even if they are linked to food noise perceptions. For example, the dataset did not include participants' weight or history of weight cycling.

The regression model used here depended on complete cases only, excluding missing data. The authors emphasize that the analysis is exploratory and its findings should be considered hypothesis-generating.

Food noise may give familiar experiences a new name

The study suggests that self-reported experiences labeled as food noise are common among US adults and are associated with certain demographic characteristics, as well as with eating-related behaviors. The authors emphasize the possibility that it is already being measured under several other terms associated with established constructs. Further research is needed to define, measure, and understand its clinical significance.