The war on fat

[fresco]

Actually, I was making a point about the incongruity of the growing global obsession about obesity running alongside continuing famine and food shortages.

People used to fret about hunger as a great evil. Now they fret about fat.

Soon, UNICEF and other worthy organizations will be collecting money to enrol Third World children in Weight Watchers.

Edited June 26, 2003 by fresco (log)

[EJRothman]

Although I think fast food is disgusting and a major cause of obesity in this country and around the world, I agree with FG and others that banning or taxing it will do little ot alleviate the problem.

One major cause of obesity in this country is a profound ignorance towards the field of nutrition. Being tht nutrition interests me and that I learn whatever I can about it, it astonishes me how little the vast majority of the population knows about the subject. This past Sunday I found myself in a debate over the problems associated with trans fatty acids. This friend of mine had never even heard of trans fatty acids, and was claiming that I was simply proliferating some crack-pot new age nutrition advice. My point being that any solution to the obesity problem must begin with educating the public on better nutrition.

Granted, this will be a difficult task, made even more difficult by the fact that the government has its head stuck up its ass when it comes to nutrition. There are, however, some basic guidelines that hold true, such as comsumption of unprocessed whole grians, vegetables, and meat. What this country really needs is to appoint Harvard professor Walter Willet - one of the most pragmatic and learned nutrition experts currently around - to head the FDA.

In lieu of quality whole foods, this country is obsessed with unheathy refined foods which do little to aid the body in nutrition absorption while contributing little to satiety, resulting in overconsumption of calories. This works hand in hand with the fact that hardly anyone does any manual labor anymore which would help burn off these calories. The fact that the majority of America lives a rural/suburban life with little to no walking only exacerbates the problem. As the New York Times reported, major cities which induce people to walk as a primary means of transportation may show less incidence of obesity.

Interestingly, the latest issue of Eating Well (content not available online) has a feature article on efforts to study indiginous (sp?) tribes in an attempt to reconstruct early human eating habits. A life of constant activity and the need to work for food leads to virtually nonexistant occurances of heart disease and obesity. Now, leaving modern society and living in the hinterlands hunting, gathering, and farming is completely impractical. But recognizing the benefits of unprocessed foods and the importance of exercise is something of grave importance in today's fast-paced, fast-food society.

Sorry for the long post, nutrition is a point of great interest for me and always hits a nerve.

-Eric

Edited June 26, 2003 by EJRothman (log)

[fresco]

EJRothman,

That was a magnificent and informative rant.

What seems to be left out of just about every discussion of obesity and its causes is the role taste plays.

People who are feeling generally shitty about their lives are more inclined, I think, to seek foods that are very sweet, fatty and salty--foods that make them feel better. It is no coincidence, and nor do I think it is some calculated evil, that there is a very high concentration of these foods at your local fast food purveyor. But the huge popularity of soft drinks, and endless variations on potato chips and dorritos, especially among the people who can often least afford them, also is testament to the powerful role taste plays in obesity, and why it is becoming such an intractable problem.

George Orwell, in his role as a newspaper columnist, once received a letter from a well-to-do reader who boasted that he ate well on some absurdly small amount of money, explaining that he ate raw carrots, wholemeal bread and the like.

Orwell's rejoinder was that the poor did not have the luxury of eating well--they needed oversweet, milk tea and fatty, salty fish and chips just to get through their days.

One more observation: in Canada, donut shops do a booming business in recessions, because for little more than a buck, people can buy a hot coffee and a sweet donut, which eases their misery.

Edited June 26, 2003 by fresco (log)

[Fat Guy]

One major cause of obesity in this country is a profound ignorance towards the field of nutrition.

In order to substantiate that statement you'd have to show that, among similarly situated people, the ones with more knowledge of nutrition weigh less.

The only information I've seen on this point indicates that many people are obese despite the fact that they understand they're eating unhealthy food and too much of it.

And the jury is still very much out on trans-fats.

As an obese person who eats virtually no junk food and probably knows more about nutrition than 99% of the population and more about how food is produced and prepared than 99.99%, I find the notion that ignorance and disconnectedness from production are the root causes of obesity to be absurd. There is only one universal cause of obesity, and I stated it above. Beyond that, any attempt at a one-size-fits-all (so to speak) explanation is bound to be misguided and, if it forms the basis of policy, harmful to those who don't conform to averages (and in my life, I've met very few average people).

[MatthewB]

I find the notion that ignorance and disconnectedness from production are the root causes of obesity to be absurd. There is only one universal cause of obesity, and I stated it above.

Ok.

And, your definition of the universal cause . . .

the consumption of more calories than the body can offset through physical activity

I don't believe that you'd argue that this exists within a non-historical & non-structural & non-economic context.

So what historical & structural & economic factors are in play, in your opinion?

[EJRothman]

One major cause of obesity in this country is a profound ignorance towards the field of nutrition.

In order to substantiate that statement you'd have to show that, among similarly situated people, the ones with more knowledge of nutrition weigh less.

The only information I've seen on this point indicates that many people are obese despite the fact that they understand they're eating unhealthy food and too much of it.

As an obese person who eats virtually no junk food and probably knows more about nutrition than 99% of the population and more about how food is produced and prepared than 99.99%, I find the notion that ignorance and disconnectedness from production are the root causes of obesity to be absurd. There is only one universal cause of obesity, and I stated it above. Beyond that, any attempt at a one-size-fits-all (so to speak) explanation is bound to be misguided and, if it forms the basis of policy, harmful to those who don't conform to averages (and in my life, I've met very few average people).

Granted I do not have the resources to prove that those who know more about nutrition tend to be more fit (I do not like to use terms like "weigh less" because weight and fitness are not directly related. Muscle is denser than fat, and thus a person will more muscle tone can weigh more than aa fat person).

It is not enough for a person to understand that they are eating unhealthy foods, they need to know why that food is unhealthy, as well as what to eat that is better.

I agree with you, FG, that you fit the mold of a person who knows a great deal more about nutrition than the average person, eat no fast food, yet, as you admit, are obese. The difference, however, is that food is a way of life for you. You eat out multiple times a week, cook lavishly at home, etc.

The majority of the public does not go to the extremes that you do for good food. Yes, taste is important, but that have been weined onto the taste of cheap, fast food. Although it is often derided for lack of flavor, wholesome food can be flavorful if done properly.

Bottom line is that using yourself as an example of a person who knows nutrition, avoids fast food, yet remains unfit is misplaced as you are a profound exception to the rule.

-Eric

[fresco]

MatthewB,

Maybe you'll have more luck with Fat Guy. Every time I see the word "structural" my keyboard freezes up.

[nerissa]

MatthewB,

Maybe you'll have more luck with Fat Guy. Every time I see the word "structural" my keyboard freezes up.

[Fat Guy]

Bottom line is that using yourself as an example of a person who knows nutrition, avoids fast food, yet remains unfit is misplaced as you are a profound exception to the rule.

I think we have a whole site full of such exceptions: pretty much everybody on eGullet is top-percentile food-and-nutrition knowledgeable and eats junk food in smallish amounts, yet judging from the events I've attended they are physically similar to the population at large, if not fatter.

[fresco]

You mean, "larger than life"?

[Fat Guy]

So what historical & structural & economic factors are in play, in your opinion?

The most important thing to realize when having this discussion is that we don't know.

[MatthewB]

So what historical & structural & economic factors are in play, in your opinion?

The most important thing to realize when having this discussion is that we don't know.

I don't mind if you speculate.

[Fat Guy]

Well, I could speculate that the decline of manual labor and its replacement by sedentary occupations has contributed to the problem. But then I'd realize that whenever I go through a town where people are still predominantly engaged in manual labor -- like any factory town -- the people seem much fatter than those in, say, Westchester. And overall the executive-professional types I see on the street seem quite a bit less flabby than construction workers and the like.

My guess is that it's a psychological (and most likely neuro-biological) issue inherent in the human condition that hasn't had the opportunity to display itself fully until the modern era. This is probably just the way people are when faced with unlimited and virtually cost-free food -- unlimited both in terms of quantity and choice. But the train has left the station on that: we're never going to be able to legislate the world back into the stone age, when you had to burn 1000 calories to catch a 1001 calorie piece of prey. We need to start with the assumption of unlimited food quantity and choice, and work from there, because that's the way it is and attempting to change that structural element of the universe is folly.

[MatthewB]

We need to start with the assumption of unlimited food quantity and choice, and work from there, because that's the way it is and attempting to change that structural element of the universe is folly.

Agreed. I was never assuming that any of my speculations would lead to regulation, revolutions, etc.

*sings* "Just my imagination, running away with me"

[EJRothman]

Bottom line is that using yourself as an example of a person who knows nutrition, avoids fast food, yet remains unfit is misplaced as you are a profound exception to the rule.

I think we have a whole site full of such exceptions: pretty much everybody on eGullet is top-percentile food-and-nutrition knowledgeable and eats junk food in smallish amounts, yet judging from the events I've attended they are physically similar to the population at large, if not fatter.

Yes, a site full of exceptions, but still exceptions at that.

With regard to a later issue you address:

Well, I could speculate that the decline of manual labor and its replacement by sedentary occupations has contributed to the problem. But then I'd realize that whenever I go through a town where people are still predominantly engaged in manual labor -- like any factory town -- the people seem much fatter than those in, say, Westchester. And overall the executive-professional types I see on the street seem quite a bit less flabby than construction workers and the like.

A combination of factors is at work here. The manual laborers are working hard yes, but consuming low quality junk food due to cost, thus still overconsume. The executive probably watches what he eats and has a session with his personal trainer after work and on the weekends.

As you also mention (not quoted here) We cannot change the availability of food. You're right, we're not hunting animals anymore. My hope is that knowledge of nutrition will catch on and maybe (though doubtfully) fast, cheap food will begin to embrace more healthful foods. They have attempted, and currently failed to do this (a salad with 2000 calories of dressing on it is not health food). I wish they would stop trying to fool the ignorant public, but that, of course, would be bad business.

[Fat Guy]

Bottom line is that using yourself as an example of a person who knows nutrition, avoids fast food, yet remains unfit is misplaced as you are a profound exception to the rule.

I think we have a whole site full of such exceptions: pretty much everybody on eGullet is top-percentile food-and-nutrition knowledgeable and eats junk food in smallish amounts, yet judging from the events I've attended they are physically similar to the population at large, if not fatter.

Yes, a site full of exceptions, but still exceptions at that.

I'm still not buying it. All you have to be is the average moron who watches Oprah or any other afternoon- or morning-TV programming to acquire the dim knowledge that junk food is unhealthy. I would hazard a guess that not just some, but the overwhelming majority of people who eat junk food are fully aware that it's bad for them, just as (and here's an actual useful analogy to smoking) pretty much everybody who smokes knows it is hazardous to one's health.

[fresco]

I've never had the pleasure of watching Oprah, but know she has weight issues. Maybe she could turn her book club into a health club. (And watch ratings plummet).

[MatthewB]

Oprah???

Nah.

Uma!!!

[fresco]

Didn't someone say, "never eat at a place called Uma's"?

[hollywood]

Didn't someone say, "never eat at a place called Uma's"?

Everybody makes mistakes.

[EJRothman]

Bottom line is that using yourself as an example of a person who knows nutrition, avoids fast food, yet remains unfit is misplaced as you are a profound exception to the rule.

I think we have a whole site full of such exceptions: pretty much everybody on eGullet is top-percentile food-and-nutrition knowledgeable and eats junk food in smallish amounts, yet judging from the events I've attended they are physically similar to the population at large, if not fatter.

Yes, a site full of exceptions, but still exceptions at that.

I'm still not buying it. All you have to be is the average moron who watches Oprah or any other afternoon- or morning-TV programming to acquire the dim knowledge that junk food is unhealthy. I would hazard a guess that not just some, but the overwhelming majority of people who eat junk food are fully aware that it's bad for them, just as (and here's an actual useful analogy to smoking) pretty much everybody who smokes knows it is hazardous to one's health.

Yes, I agree that most people know junk food is bad for them. That's not enough to change anything. Ask them why junk food is bad for them. Ask them what they should eat instead. Ask them what makes those certain foods more nutritious than fast food. You'll get a blank stare as a response.

People generally no nothing about nutrition, knowing something is unhealthy merely skims the surface.

Food is different than smkoing in this regard. Ask anyone why smoking is bad, they'll tell you it gives you cancer, makes skin sag, makes you look older, makes teeth yellow, clothes smell stale, hair and nails brittle, etc. People know what smoking does. They also know how to avoid this: don't smoke.

Ask people what unhealthy food does and all you get is "it makes people fat." They don't know why. Plus, you can't just stop eating. You need to know what not to eat.

There's another issue that hasn't really been addressed as well. Yes, fat guy, as you said, you are overweight, like the majority of this country. The difference is (and this is all assumption) you got that way because you overindulged in high-quality foods and didn't get as much exercise as you should. Now I have know way to prove this, and I may be wrong, but I bet that although you are fat, you are also a lot healthier than most fat people because the foods you eat are highly nutritious sources of vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and healthy fatty acids. So my guess (and I am going out on a limb) is that fat gourmands are healthier than fat fast foodites.

[Stone]

What is improper is for a government to do this through coercion (generally via taxation) or through legislation.

Imposing taxation (whether literally or through pricing policy) is an invalid response in a democratic society.

Why? Since our pocketbooks are often the most important factor in everything we do, why is using taxation as an inducement "invalid"? It may be poor policy, in that it's sloppy and gets sloppier by the moment, but why is it "wrong" or "improper"? (Apologies if this was already discussed at length, I haven't read the thread.)

But as with smoking, the only realistic long-term solution is through positive education.

From what I've read, this is simply incorrect. I believe there is a direct relationship between the increase in taxes on cigarettes in a drop in the number of smokers (escpecially teens). I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

And if you think that obese people need any "education", you're fooling yourself. Do you really think that guy suing McDonalds thought their food was healthy? Come on.

[fresco]

McDonalds' customers may be getting fat, but as we all know, McDonalds has been struggling lately. The company's global revenues are $15 billion, compared with an annual take of $33 billion for the US weight loss industry.

Instead of fending off obesity litigation claims and worrying about every other fast food upstart eating their lunch, McD's could diversify into weight loss clinics--"Billions and billions shed."

[Lyle]

If I could be allowed for a moment to limit the argument to highly civilized and educated countries and be allowed to make gross generalizations, isn't it often a simple question of priorities? Limiting this to personal observation, how many people who in GOOD FAITH diet and/or exercise in the effort to lose weight fail?

I am lucky. I'm a lazy bastard who, outside of occasional hiking trips and routine yardwork, doesn't get a lick of exercise. I eat as much of anything I want. My heart may some day leap out my ear (doctors tell me so far I'm fine), but I'm one of the thinner people I know. I'm in fact skinny. If I were to gain 30+ pounds in the next six months, would I diet to lose the weight? Probably, but I can't be sure. As Steven's assumption states, I am faced with an unlimited food supply. The pleasure of eating may still be a higher priority than the pleasure of looking fit.

My sainted mother continually gained weight after my birth, and for years "dieted". She never lost much. The pleasure of eating outweighted the pleasure of looking fit. It took a dire prediction from several medical professionals to realign her priorities. She took to a simple diet, probably her tenth over the span of 30 years, and because weight was now important to her, she has lost much of her heft.

The laborers that burn three times the calories a day that I do also have this infinite supply of food to replinish their energy stores. At this point, the pleasure of nullifying hunger pains outweighs the pleasure of looking fit.

Fine. Introduce a fast-food tax. Take it forward to a butter enrichment tax (BET) for sauces at nicer restaurants. Ban foie gras. I'm not losing weight staying at home grilling steaks and making mashed potatoes either. Organic or otherwise.

Although taste may or may not be subjective , pleasure IS. Those who derive pleasure from consuming McGriddles or dry salads or whatever won't stop until it becomes their priority to stop. Good luck reprograming us to think that way. I know it's not healthy. I really don't care. It's not important to me...yet.

[fresco]

""If I could be allowed for a moment to limit the argument to highly civilized and educated countries and be allowed to make gross generalizations,"

What more appropriate for this thread than gross generalizations? We certainly don't want slender rationalizations.