<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>September</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Learning user tastes: a first step to generating healthy meal plans?</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Morgan Harvey</string-name>
          <email>morgan.harvey@cs.fau.de</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Bernd Ludwig</string-name>
          <email>bernd.ludwig@ur.de</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>David Elsweiler</string-name>
          <email>david@elsweiler.co.uk</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Computer Science (i8), Uni of Erlangen-Nuremberg</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>91058 Erlangen</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Institute for Information and</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Media, Language and Culture</addr-line>
          ,
          <institution>University of Regensburg</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>93053 Regensburg</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2012</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>13</volume>
      <issue>2012</issue>
      <fpage>2</fpage>
      <lpage>7</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Poor nutrition is fast becoming one of the major causes of ill-health and death in the western world. It is caused by a variety of factors including lack of nutritional understanding leading to poor choices being made when selecting which dishes to cook and eat. We wish to build systems which can recommend nutritious meal plans to users, however a crucial pre-requisite is to be able to recommend dishes that people will like. In this work we investigate key factors contributing to how recipes are rated by analysing the results of a longterm study (n=123 users) in order to understand how best to approach the recommendation problem. In doing so we identify a number of important contextual factors which can in uence the choice of rating and suggest how these might be exploited to build more accurate recipe recommender systems. We see this as a crucial rst step in a healthy meal recommender. We conclude by summarising our thoughts on how we will combine recommended recipes into meal plans based on nutritional guidelines.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION</title>
      <p>
        In the modern developed world people have the luxury of
an abundance of choice with regard to the food they eat.
While huge choice o ers many advantages, making the
decision of what to eat is not always straightforward, is in
uenced by several personal and social factors [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ] and can be
complex to the point of being overwhelming [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        The evidence suggests that many people are making poor
dietary choices with stark consequences for their health and
well-being. Societal problems such as obesity [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
        ], diabetes
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>
        ] and hypertension [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ] are all becoming more
prevalent, and these conditions are strongly linked to poor
dietary habits. The nutritional science literature indicates
that these kinds of conditions can be prevented and
sometimes even reversed through positive nutritional change [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ].
Two issues, though, are that people are generally poor at
judging the healthiness of their own diet [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] and even if they
Paper presented at the Workshop on Recommendation Technologies for
Lifestyle Change 2012, in conjunction with the 6th ACM conference on
Recommender Systems. Copyright c 2012 for the individual papers by the
papers’ authors. This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
do recognise a problem, they lack the requisite nutritional
understanding to implement positive dietary changes [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>Therefore many people could bene t from assistance that
allows them to strike a balance between a diet that is healthy
and will keep them well and one that is appealing and they
will want to eat. After all, it is no good providing users with
healthy diet plans if they do not cook and eat the dishes
therein, but instead choose unhealthy meals which are more
appealing to them.</p>
      <p>We believe this is a problem for which recommender
systems are ideally suited. If systems can predict dishes that
the user would actually like to eat, this could be combined
within a system modelling expert nutritional knowledge to
provide meal recommendations that are both healthy and
nutritious, but also appealing. Furthermore complete meal
plans for individual users corresponding to nutritional
guidelines given by experts could be generated algorithmically
which would suit the user's personal tastes. In this paper
we work towards these goals via the following main
contributions:</p>
      <sec id="sec-1-1">
        <title>We collect recipe ratings data in context, in a naturalistic setting over a relatively long time period</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-1-2">
        <title>Users not only provide ratings data, but specify the reasons behind their rating (i.e. the content and contextual features that led them to rate in this way)</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-1-3">
        <title>We analyse the collected data to determine which factors might help us to better understand a user's preferences</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-1-4">
        <title>We discuss how these factors could be utilised to build</title>
        <p>systems which combine recipes into complete meal plans
and the challenges this may present</p>
        <p>These contributions all relate to the rst aim of our work,
that is, to better predict which recipes appeal to a given
users and are therefore likely to prepare and eat. We
conclude the paper by outlining our plans for future work,
summarising some ideas on how we may combine recipe
recommendations into sensible meal plans.
2.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>RELATED WORK</title>
      <p>
        The task of understanding user preferences and suggesting
appropriate recipes from a collection can be seen as a novel
variant of the well-researched recommender system problem
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13 ref7">13, 7</xref>
        ]. Although food recommendation is not a frequently
studied domain, there is a small body of appropriate related
work. Early attempts to design automated systems to plan
or recommend meals include CHEF [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ] and JULIA [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. Both
of these systems utilise case-based planning to plan a meal
to satisfy multiple, interacting constraints. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ] presented
a hybrid recommender using fuzzy reasoning to recommend
recipes; [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ] recommended new food products to
supermarket customers, and [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
        ] proposed a system that recommends
food items based on recipes recommended to groups of users,
clustered by labels.
      </p>
      <p>
        More recent e orts have tried to better understand the
user's tastes and improve recipe recommendations by
breaking recipes down into individual ingredients. Freyne and her
colleagues [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2 ref3">1, 2, 3</xref>
        ] demonstrate that this approach works
well, with clear improvements over standard collaborative
ltering approaches. We wish to build on the success of this
work to explore if other content and contextual factors in
uence the ratings that people assign to recommended recipes.
It is our hypothesis that the process of rating a recipe is
complex and several factors will combine to determine the
rating assigned, beyond purely the user's tastes and that
these tastes must be carefully modelled. Both negative and
positive ratings could be taken into account, for example:
the user may really dislike tomatoes so all recipes with this
ingredient might be poorly rated.
      </p>
      <p>Furthermore, not just the existence or absence of explicit
ingredients in a recipe but also combination of those
ingredients could be important, as could the complexity of the
recipe and how long it might take to prepare. Other
factors such as how well the preparation steps are described
and perhaps the nutritional properties of the dish and the
availability of ingredients could have a bearing on the user's
opinion of the recommendation. We believe that by building
recommender algorithms that incorporate or exploit these
kinds of aspects we will be better able to accurately predict
ratings. However we also believe that it is vitally
important that such factors can be automatically ascertained from
ratings data rather than replying on the users themselves.
By doing so users can be left to focus on the task of rating
recipes and the amount of potentially misleading bias can be
minimised. Below we describe how data was collected and
analysed to understand how content and contextual factors
may in uence the way a recipe is rated.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>DATA COLLECTION</title>
      <p>To collect data we developed a simple food recommender
system, which selected recipes from a pool of 912
Internetsourced recipes. This number was chosen as we believe it
represents a good balance providing a su cient variety of
dishes from which we may later be able to derive plans
whilst, at the same time, being small enough that the
resulting ratings matrix will not be too sparse. Users were given
a personalised URL and when this was accessed, they were
presented with a recipe, selected at random from a list
ltered to match a very basic pro le. For example, users who
speci ed being vegetarian were only recommended recipes
with meta-data indicating no meat; lactose intolerant users
were not suggested recipes with milk, etc. Users were not
made aware of the random nature of these
\recommendations" and were under the impression that the choices were
tailored to them. The web page invites the user to provide
a rating for the recipe in context i.e. either as a main meal
or breakfast for the following day, with recipe meta-data
being used to determine which meals should be recommended
for which time period. This is important because, in
contrast to previous data collection methods, the user is not
only rating the recipe with respect to how appealing it is,
but also how suitable the recipe is given a speci c context.
Approximately 3 main meals were recommended for every
recommended breakfast.</p>
      <p>In addition to collecting ratings, the web interface o ered
the users the chance to explain their ratings by clicking
appropriate check boxes representing di erent reasons. These
check boxes were grouped into reasons to do with personal
preferences, reasons related to the healthiness of the recipe
and reasons related to the preparation of the recipe { see
Figure 1. Reasons contributing positively to the ratings were
shown on the right-hand side of the screen and negative
reasons to the left. The listed explanations were generated
through a small user study, whereby 11 users rated recipes
and explained their decisions in the context of an interview.
The web interface also provided a free-text box for reasons
not covered by the checkboxes, however this was only very
infrequently used. We did not record any information
regarding whether or not the recipe was later cooked or eaten.
We were concerned simply by how appealing the recipe was
to the user in the occurring context.</p>
      <p>
        After publicising the system on the Internet, through
mailing lists and twitter, 123 users from 4 countries provided
3672 ratings over a period of 9 months. The user
population grew organically over time with some users only using
the system actively for a few weeks and others for longer
periods - the kind of behaviour you would expect with a real
system. We argue that although this is a relatively small
and sparse data set, it is an improvement on previous recipe
ratings data collection methods, which have used mechanical
turk (where there are no validity controls) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref3">1, 3</xref>
        ] and surveys
where participants rate large numbers of recipes or
ingredients in a single session [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. While surveys can o er the
chance to collect data on general user preferences in short
time periods, they cannot account for factors, such as food
availability, preparation and cooking time, previously eaten
meals etc., that would in uence ratings if a recipe
recommender was to be used in the wild.
      </p>
      <p>
        Our dataset also di ers from previous work in terms of
matrix density. The number of ratings per user follows a
Zip an distribution (median = 7, mean = 29.93 max = 395
min =1; 18 users have 1, 52 have 10+). Whereas previous
food recommender papers report user - ratings densities of
between 22% and 35% [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2 ref3">1, 2, 3</xref>
        ], our dataset exhibits a
userrating density of 3.28%, which we believe to be much more
realistic and more in line with standard recommender
systems collections such as movielens and net ix. In terms of
ratings per recipe, our collection has a median 3 ratings per
recipe (mean = 4.04, max=14, min=2). Table 3 shows the
breakdown of ratings (ratings of 0 were discounted as they
were marked as not being suitable as a full meal).
      </p>
      <p>Our dataset is, therefore, not only realistic in terms of
size, but also a suitable platform for investigation and
experimentation as it is both sparse and variant in terms of
ratings (sd = 1.41).</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS</title>
      <p>To learn about the decision process undertaken when users
rate recipes, as well as the factors that in uence this
process, we analysed the reasons provided by the users when
they rated. The aim here was take inspiration for the
development of new and improved recommendation models.
Figure 2 shows the frequency with which users indicated that
particular reasons had in uenced the rating they assigned.
This gure demonstrates the complexity of the process with
several factors - both context and content related - being
indicated as being in uential. Given that the focus of this
work is to inform the development of recipe recommender
systems, we focus primarily on factors which could be
determined automatically by a system</p>
      <p>The most common reasons for negatively rating a recipe
(shaded grey in the gure) were that the recipe contained a
particular disliked ingredient, the combination of ingredients
did not appeal, or the recipe would take too long to prepare
and cook. The most common reasons for rating a recipe
positively (shaded white) had to do with ease or quickness
of preparation, the type of dish or the recipe being novel
or interesting. Health related reasons, such as the recipe
containing too many calories, the user not perceiving the
recipe as being healthy enough, or positive factors like the
recipe being balanced or easily digestible were clicked less
often overall. However, further analysis revealed that these
were clicked very frequently for a particular subset of users.
16.3% of the recipes rated by users who clicked on health
reasons at least once had a click on a health reason.</p>
      <p>To help understand the relationships between the clicked
factors and between the factors and the submitted rating
we trained a number of linear models. The nal model
contained 23 factors in total with 17 factors which were
signi cant i.e. the coe cient estimate is more than 2
standard errors away from 0. Highly signi cant factors (all
pvalue 0:01) included the combination of ingredients in the
recipe, whether the recipe would be suitable for vegetarians,
how well the users felt the recipe tted their own tastes and
if the recipe contained a speci c ingredient the user
particularly likes. All of these signi cant indicators point to the
content of the recipes (in terms of ingredients) being highly
signi cant factors in the choice of rating and also suggest in
many cases that this is dependent on the individual tastes of
the users. This endorses the approach of Freyne et al., who
tried to model ingredient preferences in their work.
Nevertheless, the fact that ingredient factors can have both a
positive and negative in uence on ratings and that the
combination of ingredients can be important, suggests that more
complicated models may be able to better exploit ingredient
information when calculating predictions.</p>
      <p>Other important factors included whether to not the recipe
would be easy to prepare and whether it suited the time of
day speci ed (i.e. breakfast or main meal) and if the user
already had the necessary ingredients at home. Interestingly,
given the importance of how easy the recipe is to prepare
was, the perceived time required to cook the recipe was not
a signi cant factor. This highlight the complexity of the
decision process and the number of factors - context-related
and content related - which in uence how a recipe is rated.</p>
      <p>A number of factors related to how healthy the user
perceived the recipe to be including if the user felt it would be
light and easy to digest and if the user felt it was too
unhealthy. In general these health factors did not contribute
signi cantly to the predictive power of the linear models for
all of the ratings together, however we wanted to
understand if they might help predict ratings on a per-user basis.
We looked at the correlation between calorie and fat
content of recipes and the ratings provided by two groups of
users, those had clicked on a health related factor once or
more (Care-about-Health, n = 53, 2572 ratings), and those
who never clicked on a health reason (Don't-Care-About
Health, n = 70, 1110 ratings)1. Figures 3 and 4 show clear
di erences between the rating behaviour exhibited in these
groups. There is a clear trend that the higher the fat
content of recipes (r2=0.88, p=0.012) or the higher the calori c
content (r2=0.87,p=0.022), the lower users in
Care-aboutHealth group tend to rate the recipe. This trend is not
present in the second group. If anything there seems to be
a slight tendency toward the reverse trend whereby recipes
higher in fat (r2 = 0:230,p = 0:643) and calories (r2 = 0:73,
p = 0:064) tend to be assigned a higher rating. This
observation suggests that accounting for nutritional factors will
allow more accurate recommendations to be generated.</p>
      <p>
        To summarise, these analyses of the collected data
demonstrate the complexity of deciding how suitable a recipe will
be to cooked in the near future. The results also hint that
several factors could be exploited in recommendation
algorithms for recipe recommendations.
1Nutritional content of recipes was calculated using the
system as described in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ].
ram 62
rge .1
p
s
liroe .158
a
C
      </p>
      <p>CalorieHsealthySuInggarrTedypieentoCfudrirsehnt pTroeof.similar
CoMmebaitnaPtiorenp. timExeperIntisger.Taivmaeil.ofDdiagyestabBlaelancFeadvT.yinpger.oCfudrirsehnt pref.</p>
      <p>NPovreepl. time EInagsry. avail.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>5. BUILDING ON THESE RESULTS</title>
      <p>In the previous section we uncovered several patterns in
the data indicating that building recommendation algorithms
able to account for speci c content or contextual features
may enable more accurate prediction of recipe ratings. Two
important open questions are 1) how can we derive these
contextual variables in real-life settings without asking the
user to explicitly de ne their context? And 2) how can we
best incorporate such features into recommendation models?
We outline some of our thoughts on these points below:</p>
      <p>The reasons given by users in our study and the
corresponding ratings suggest the ingredients contained within a
recipe are very important to the rating process. This nding
endorses the approach of Freyne and her colleagues.
However, it is clear from our data that ingredients can have
either a positive or a negative in uence on the rating. For
example, if the user likes tomatoes and a recipe contains
this ingredient it would be a reason for a high rating. On
the other hand, however, if a user does not like tomatoes,
our data shows this will negatively a ect the recipe rating.
Previous recommender algorithms do not account for this
negative bias and we believe, based on our results, that
including this would improve prediction accuracy. Future
recommender models may also account for how important an
ingredient is to a dish. For example, imagine a user who does
not like tomatoes. For his rating of a recipe where tomato
is merely a garnish, this may not have a large in uence on
the rating. However, if the tomato is a vital ingredient in
the recipe e.g. in a tomato soup, then it is more likely to
have a large in uence.</p>
      <p>Another point to consider with respect to ingredients is
the coverage of particular ingredients within a collection.
For example, Freyne et al.'s algorithm deals with ratings
for individual ingredients. This means if egg is rated highly
egg-white will be not be treated in the same way. This is
exacerbated in our case by the fact that our recipes are
websourced and may have vocabulary mis-match issues. These
kinds of relationships between terms could be identi ed via
instances of nth order co-occurrence. This could be achieved
via the use of dimensionality reduction techniques such as
singular value decomposition.</p>
      <p>Reducing the dimensionality of the feature space would
likely have other advantages with respect to dealing how
ingredients are combined in a recipe. Our data show that
the combination of ingredients can in uence the rating
applied to a recipe. For example, a user may rate recipes with
tomato highly and recipes with pineapple similarly highly on
average. However, recipes which combine these ingredients
may be given a very low rating. On the other hand, tomato
and basil are a combination that work well together and this
may have an extra positive in uence on the data.
Dimensionality reduction techniques, such as SVD or Bayesian
Latent Variable models, should implicitly deal with these kinds
of patterns.</p>
      <p>Our analyses further suggest that including nutritional
information in recommendation models should allow more
accurate prediction of ratings. We identi ed two groups of
users who behaved very di erently based on whether or not
they at some point checked that the healthiness of a recipe as
an explanation for a rating. The \healthy group" tended to
assign a lower rating to recipes higher in calorie and fat
content, while the \unhealthy group" displayed, if anything, the
opposite predisposition. The group to which a user should
be assigned could be obtained explicitly from the user or,
preferably, could be learned from ratings data. For
example, recipes could be assigned a healthiness score based on
nutritional guidelines from health experts and learn which
group a user belongs to based on the way they rate recipes
with high or low health scores. We acknowledge that the
nutrition-aware models may improve performance by o
ering unhealthy dishes to the users that prefer such dishes and
this could be against our long-term goals. We would,
however, deal with this issue when combining recipes into meal
plans as explained below.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK</title>
      <p>In this paper we have investigated the decisional process
involved in rating recommended recipes. We collected
ratings data for recipes and context and statistically analysed
the reasons behind assigned ratings. Our future goals in the
short term include building on this work to design models
that better predict user food preferences using the ideas
suggested above. We are continuing to collect data and hope to
investigate how performance of models change as the
collection size increases.</p>
      <p>The presented work represents a single component in a
much larger project aimed at building recommender
systems that promote healthier dietary choices. In the longer
term we plan to move beyond the recommendation of recipes
in isolation to recommending dietary plans (7 - 30 days).
This involves recommending sequences of recipes under
constraints. These constraints will include user preferences of
combining recipes and nutritional knowledge, such as the
daily recommended intake suggested by the WHO, and user
activity patterns. The WHO guidelines provide a means to
calculate recommended calorie intake based on a user's
prole, as well as a breakdown of the percentage of energy that
should come from di erent types of sources (proteins, fats,
carbs, bre etc.)</p>
      <p>One way of modelling this situation is to view it as a graph
problem, where the shortest pathes should be computed in a
graph where nodes correspond to meals. A week with three
meals per day would be represented by a graph with 7 *
3 nodes where edges correspond to dishes (e.g. spaghetti
carbonara is an edge from breakfast today to lunch today).
A possible cost function could be the distance from the
intake estimated from the ingredients and the portion size
compared to the recommended daily value. Evaluating the
output of such algorithms will be a challenge beyond
algorithmics and will involve collaboration with nutritional
scientists working on on the project.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Acknowledgements</title>
      <p>The authors would like to thank Mario Amrehn and Stefanie
Mika for their hard work with the data collection.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Freyne</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Berkovsky</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Intelligent food planning: personalized recipe recommendation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In IUI '10</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>321</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>324</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2010</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Freyne</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Berkovsky</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Intelligent food planning: personalized recipe recommendation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In IUI '10</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>321</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>324</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2010</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Freyne</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Berkovsky</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Smith.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Recipe recommendation: accuracy and reasoning</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proc. UMAP</source>
          , UMAP'
          <volume>11</volume>
          , pages
          <fpage>99</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>110</fpage>
          , Berlin, Heidelberg,
          <year>2011</year>
          . Springer-Verlag.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J. F.</given-names>
            <surname>Guthrie</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B. M.</given-names>
            <surname>Derby</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A. S.</given-names>
            <surname>Levy</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>America's Eating Habits: Changes and ConsequencesAgriculture Information Bulletin No. (AIB750)</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>243</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>280</fpage>
          . US Department for Agriculture,
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Hammond. Chef</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>A model of case-based planning</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the National Conference on AI</source>
          ,
          <year>1986</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Hinrichs</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Strategies for adaptation and recovery in a design problem solver</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning</source>
          ,
          <year>1989</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Jannach</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Zanker</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Felfernig</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Friedrich</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Recommender systems { An introduction</article-title>
          . Cambridge Univ. Press,
          <year>2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Johansson</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Wikman</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A. M.</given-names>
            <surname>Ahrn</surname>
          </string-name>
          , G. Hallmans,
          <string-name>
            <surname>and I. Johansson.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Underreporting of energy intake in repeated 24-hour recalls related to gender, age, weight, day of interview, educational level, reported food intake, smoking habits and area of living</article-title>
          .
          <source>Public Health Nutrition</source>
          ,
          <volume>4</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ):
          <volume>919</volume>
          {
          <fpage>27</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2001</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. D.</given-names>
            <surname>Lawrence</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G. S.</given-names>
            <surname>Almasi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
            <surname>Kotlyar</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. S.</given-names>
            <surname>Viveros</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S. S.</given-names>
            <surname>Duri</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Personalization of supermarket product recommendations</article-title>
          .
          <source>Data Min. Knowl. Discov.</source>
          ,
          <volume>5</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          -2):
          <volume>11</volume>
          {
          <fpage>32</fpage>
          ,
          <year>January 2001</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Mu</surname>
          </string-name>
          ller,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Harvey</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Elsweiler</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Mika</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Ingredient matching to determine the nutritional properties of internet-sourced recipes</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Pervasive Health</source>
          <year>2012</year>
          ,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Nestle</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Wing</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Birch</surname>
          </string-name>
          , L. DiSogra,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Drewnowski</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Middleton</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Sigman-Grant</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Sobal</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Winston</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Economos</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Behavioral and social in uences on food choice</article-title>
          .
          <source>Nutrition Reviews</source>
          ,
          <volume>56</volume>
          (
          <issue>5</issue>
          ):
          <volume>50</volume>
          {
          <fpage>64</fpage>
          ,
          <year>1998</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Ornish</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.E.</given-names>
            <surname>Brown</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.H.</given-names>
            <surname>Billings</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.W.</given-names>
            <surname>Scherwitz</surname>
          </string-name>
          , W.T. Armstrong,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.A.</given-names>
            <surname>Ports</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.M.</given-names>
            <surname>McLanahan</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.L.</given-names>
            <surname>Kirkeeide</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.L.</given-names>
            <surname>Gould</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.J.</given-names>
            <surname>Brand</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease?: The lifestyle heart trial</article-title>
          .
          <source>The Lancet</source>
          ,
          <volume>336</volume>
          (
          <issue>8708</issue>
          ):
          <volume>129</volume>
          {
          <fpage>133</fpage>
          ,
          <year>1990</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Ricci</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Rokach</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Shapira</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and P.B. Kantor, editors.
          <source>Rec. Systems Handbook</source>
          . Springer,
          <year>2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Scarborough</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Bhatnagar</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Wickramasinghe</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Smolina</surname>
          </string-name>
          , C. Mitchell, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Rayner</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Coronary heart disease statistics. British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research</source>
          Group Department of Public Health, University of Oxford,
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Scheibehenne</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Greifeneder</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P. M.</given-names>
            <surname>Todd</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Can there ever be too many options? a meta-analytic review of choice overload</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Consumer Research</source>
          ,
          <volume>37</volume>
          :
          <fpage>409</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>425</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Sobecki</surname>
          </string-name>
          , E. Babiak, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Slanina</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Application of hybrid recommendation in web-based cooking assistant</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Knowledge-Based Intelligent Info. and Engineering</source>
          Sys., pages
          <volume>797</volume>
          {
          <fpage>804</fpage>
          . Springer,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Svensson</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Laaksolahti</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>K.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Hook, and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Waern</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>A recipe based on-line food store</article-title>
          .
          <source>In 5th Int. Conf. on Intelligent User Interfaces</source>
          ,
          <source>IUI '00</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>260</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>263</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2000</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          [18]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Diabetes</surname>
            <given-names>UK</given-names>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Reports and statistics on diabetes prevalence.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          [19] WHO.
          <article-title>World health organization: Chronic disease information sheet http://www</article-title>
          .who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/ (accessed feb 14th
          <year>2012</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>