The war on fat

[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,"

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

Nobody has yet.

[Fat Guy]

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.

Yet they still 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.

Of course people can just stop eating, or, rather, they can just eat less. They don't have to understand anything about what they're eating in order to eat half as much of it. And that's the bottom line: you need to eat less or be more active. Replacing junk food with more nutritionally balanced food may be a good idea for other reasons, but it is irrelevant to the world of obesity, where a calorie is a calorie.

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.

Maybe -- I'd like to think so -- but that's a blood-chemistry distinction, not an obesity-related distinction. And there's still plenty of debate on the issue of whether blood-chemistry or body-fat is more important in the grand scheme of things.

[Fat Guy]

Since our pocketbooks are often the most important factor in everything we do, why is using taxation as an inducement "invalid"?

Indeed, the most conceptually valid scheme would be to tax obesity: here's a height/age/gender/weight chart, and you pay for every pound by which you vary from the chart.

[MatthewB]

Since our pocketbooks are often the most important factor in everything we do, why is using taxation as an inducement "invalid"?

Indeed, the most conceptually valid scheme would be to tax obesity: here's a height/age/gender/weight chart, and you pay for every pound by which you vary from the chart.

I'm in. Much better for me.

[EJRothman]

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?

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.

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.

Although taste may or may not be subjective  , pleasure IS...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.

First off, I butchered Lyle's quote, so if I am misrepresenting your POVs then I apologize and it is not intended.

To address a couple of the issues raised, the problems with "dieting" is that it is often a misguided attempt to lose weight fast and then return to previous eating habits. What is really needed is a complete and nutritious diet (as in "a bird's diet is composed of worms, and seeds") that balances nutrition and flavor. Personally I abide by a diet that focuses on proteins, vegetables, and whole grains - thereby avoiding refined and processed foods. I eat any enjoy foie gras, in fact I can't imagine an alternative diet plan that I would enjoy the taste of more. No, I do not eat McGriddles, but there is a large spectrum between those and iceberg lettuce with a spritz of lemon.

[Fat Guy]

the problems with "dieting" is that it is often a misguided attempt to lose weight fast and then return to previous eating habits.  What is really needed is a complete and nutritious diet

That's one way to go about it, but the evidence all points to that being too rigorous of a regimen for most people to observe (including knowledgeable people). Perhaps someday we will have a culture of moderation instead of one of extremism (yeah, right) and people will be better equipped to handle complete-and-nutritious eating plans. Let's hope so.

I wouldn't be surprised if the one true effective solution turned out to be drugs, the diet equivalent of Prozac or whatever.

[EJRothman]

Indeed, the most conceptually valid scheme would be to tax obesity: here's a height/age/gender/weight chart, and you pay for every pound by which you vary from the chart.

The problem with this of course, is that the definition of obesity is a terrible measure of a person's overall body composition. "Weight" by itself says nothing about a person's health. Many muscular individuals far exceed the standards for obesity. Mark Maguire is the most prominent example. Most football players also fall into the category. The government needs to wise up and define obesity by body fat composition, not weight.

To address your other points:

Smokers are physically addicted. There was a whole long discussion of food attictions elsewhere, and I don't want to get into that again, but I think the two are different.

I agree that a calorie is a calorie and that overconsumption of anything leads to obesity. However, I think that it is a step in the right direction to get people to eat more nutritious foods. From there maybe weight loss can follow. As I originally noted, more nutritious foods tend to lend a greater sense of satiety, which may cause people to eat less.

Finally to address:

There's still plenty of debate on the issue of whether blood-chemistry or body-fat is more important in the grand scheme of things.

This is very true, but that doesn't mean that there is no importance to proper nutrition for blood-chemistry reasons. There was a NYTimes Science section article (too long ago for a link) that suggested that overweight elderly individuals are better served by focusing on proper nutrition as opposed to weight loss, because at their advanced age it may be healthier to remain at a stable weight than put their body through the physical stress of the weight loss process.

Just some food for thought (and calorie free at that!)

[fresco]

"I wouldn't be surprised if the one true effective solution turned out to be drugs, the diet equivalent of Prozac or whatever."

Oddly, many people find they lose weight when they take zyban for smoking cessation.

[Fat Guy]

"I wouldn't be surprised if the one true effective solution turned out to be drugs, the diet equivalent of Prozac or whatever."

Oddly, many people find they lose weight when they take zyban for smoking cessation.

Isn't it all about compulsive behavior? I think the physical-addiction aspect of smoking is overrated -- it happens to be the basis for the lawsuits and the indignation, but we know full well that people can get the nicotine from non-cigarette sources (patch) yet it doesn't necessarily address the oral fixation and the pleasure of smoking. Take the nicotine out of the equation and it's the same as food: people know it's bad for them, but they don't stop. The transference from smoking to eating among most quitters is also telling.

[Stone]

FG -- I think it's wrong to say that "a calorie is a calorie." Getting your daily calorie intake from a proper balance of protein, carbs and fats will have a different effect on you than getting it from an improper balance. That is, the body deals with calories from fat different than with calories from proteins. Small meaningless point.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that govts actually tax people for being overweight. The suggestion is that they tax "bad" food to discourage people from eating them. Oh, and it will bring more revenue into the government, always a good thing. Big difference.

Whether it's compulsion or addiction is irrelevant isn't it? I think we can agree that losing weight as hard as quitting smoking. Not for everyone, but then I know a lot of people who smoked for years and had no problem quitting.

We could just fall back on the "people are stupid" argument. It is universally applicable.

[Fat Guy]

I think it's wrong to say that "a calorie is a calorie."  Getting your daily calorie intake from a proper balance of protein, carbs and fats will have a different effect on you than getting it from an improper balance.

It won't likely affect your weight, though.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that govts actually tax people for being overweight.  The suggestion is that they tax "bad" food to discourage people from eating them. 

The designation "bad food" is conceptually nonsensical. It's a question of quantity. Bread is bad food if you eat too much of it. McDonald's french fries are entirely healthful if you only eat a few of them once in awhile.

Whether it's compulsion or addiction is irrelevant isn't it?

Not if you're trying to find a cure.

We could just fall back on the "people are stupid" argument.

That's usually what it comes down to.

[A Scottish Chef]

We could just fall back on the "people are stupid" argument. 

Alternatively - it's more than possible that people have understood the bad diet = obesity equation and still decided that gorging on glorious food is the best choice for them.

What's wrong with healthy compulsions anyway? I drink, smoke, eat way too much and still feel great.

[Stone]

I think it's wrong to say that "a calorie is a calorie."  Getting your daily calorie intake from a proper balance of protein, carbs and fats will have a different effect on you than getting it from an improper balance.

It won't likely affect your weight, though.

Of course it will. People who get a "healthy" intake of 2,000 calories will burn them faster than people who get an unhealthy intake of 2,000 calories.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that govts actually tax people for being overweight.  The suggestion is that they tax "bad" food to discourage people from eating them. 

The designation "bad food" is conceptually nonsensical. It's a question of quantity. Bread is bad food if you eat too much of it. McDonald's french fries are entirely healthful if you only eat a few of them once in awhile.

This is so wrong I don't know where to begin. You might as well say that a banana is not yellow because if you lower the lights it's more of a dark ochre color. If you drink too much water, you will die. (Some frat boy recently died of water poisoning.) But to suggest that this calls into question whether water is "healthy" is absurd. Foods are not equal. There may be a debate over what a healthy diet consists of, but that doesn't mean that the concept has no meaning.

And what the fuck does "healthful" mean?

A Double Whopper, which has, what, 2500 calories?, is unhealthy -- it has too much salt, and too much fat. It is unhealthy even if it is the only source of calories for the day. In fact, it is really unhealthy especially if it is the only source of calories for the day. It is not a question of quantity.

Whether it's compulsion or addiction is irrelevant isn't it?

Not if you're trying to find a cure.

Why? Are there different treatments for "addiction" as opposed to "compulsion"? You could be right, but I've never heard that.

We could just fall back on the "people are stupid" argument.

That's usually what it comes down to.

At least we agree on something.

Edited June 26, 2003 by Stone (log)

[FathyrJack]

A Double Whopper, which has, what, 2500 calories?, is unhealthy -- it has too much salt, and too much fat. It is unhealthy even if it is the only source of calories for the day. In fact, it is really unhealthy especially if it is the only source of calories for the day. It is not a question of quantity.

Yes I would consider this unhealthy but as long as you burned 2500 calories a day through activity . You would not gain weight. You would be malnurished but not fat.

[EJRothman]

Excelent recent post, Stone. The only thing I'd really like to address is the term, "healthful." According to the dictionary it means the same thing as healthy. My twisted mind has created two seperate definitions, however, and I feel compelled (bored, really) to share them.

I think of 'healthy' as meaning dietetic. Foods that are basically low in calories.

'Healthful,' on the other hand, gives me the impression that the food has many nutritious characteristics regardless of calorie content.

This may be stupid, but whatever.

[slkinsey]

I agree that a calorie is a calorie and that overconsumption of anything leads to obesity.  However, I think that it is a step in the right direction to get people to eat more nutritious foods.  From there maybe weight loss can follow.  As I originally noted, more nutritious foods tend to lend a greater sense of satiety, which may cause people to eat less.

I just wanted to step in here and flog for one of my pet peeves. Most people totally misuse the word "nutritious." Something that is nutritious is full of nutrients, it is something that furnishes or sustains with nutriment. Calories would qualify as a nutrient. In other words, fat is very nutritious since it is full of calories and other good things our bodies need to run.

Most foods that people say are "nutritious" are actually not particularly nutritious. A perfect example is raw vegetables. They do not provide many calories and many of the vitamins and minerals are made unavailable to us by the plants' natural defenses. Another example is wheat bread versus white bread. Everyone knows that wheat bread is more nutritious, right? Wrong. There are actual documented cases where cultures which subsisted mainly on bread developed widespread diseases of nutritional deficiency due to a switch from white to wheat bread.

In most "first world" countries, getting enough nutrition really isn't the issue. Our problem is that we get too much nutrition. And the body has this neat thing that it does when it finds itself with an excess of nutrition... it stores the extra nutrition against a rainy day in an efficient biological battery called fat.

Really what most people are saying is "healthy" foods, not necessarily "nutritious" foods. For most of us, healthy foods are precisely those which are not particularly nutritious, since this helps us avoid the health problems that come along with the chronic overconsumption of nutrients.

[slkinsey]

...the body deals with calories from fat different than with calories from proteins.  Small meaningless point.

And in absolute terms vis-a-vis weight loss/gain, completely untrue.

[slkinsey]

Of course it will.  People who get a "healthy" intake of 2,000 calories will burn them faster than people who get an unhealthy intake of 2,000 calories.

So, what you're saying is that the body will burn 2,000 calories from kale faster than 2,000 calories from refined white sugar? Totally untrue.

[Varmint]

But what about 2000 calories from lard?

I guess you need to take into account what is actually digested.

[Stone]

...the body deals with calories from fat different than with calories from proteins.  Small meaningless point.

And in absolute terms vis-a-vis weight loss/gain, completely untrue.

I thought about it, and I should have said that the source of calories matters. Actually, I think that the word Calorie -- a unit of heat to raise water one degree (or whatever), has little meaning in this debate. But if you intake 500 "calories" of bacon, compared with 500 "calories" of steamed broccoli, your body will process and store it differently. The bacon will have more of an "adverse" effect in terms of putting on weight.

And I've also rethought the "people are stupid" explanation. Sure, people are stupid, but that's not what this is about. That suggests obesity is a problem of education. FG and I are both reasonably intelligent, well-educated adults. That doesn't explain why we're both fat.

Edited June 26, 2003 by Stone (log)

[Fat Guy]

But if you intake 500 "calories" of bacon, compared with 500 "calories" of steamed broccoli, your body will process and store it differently.  The bacon will have more of an "adverse" effect in terms of putting on weight.

Do you also think a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers?

[Fat Guy]

A Double Whopper, which has, what, 2500 calories?, is unhealthy -- it has too much salt, and too much fat.  It is unhealthy even if it is the only source of calories for the day.  In fact, it is really unhealthy especially if it is the only source of calories for the day.  It is not a question of quantity.

"2500 calories"

"too much salt"

"too much fat"

yet

"not a question of quantity"

???

Okay, how about half a double Whopper?

How about a quarter of one?

How about a bite?

[Stone]

But if you intake 500 "calories" of bacon, compared with 500 "calories" of steamed broccoli, your body will process and store it differently.  The bacon will have more of an "adverse" effect in terms of putting on weight.

Do you also think a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers?

Apples and oranges.

500 calories of bacan is, say, 50 oz. 500 calories of broccoli will be, just guessing 500 oz. But they're made of different things. That's the point. When they get into your body, your body will break down the fats and proteins in the bacon differently than it will break down the stuff in the broccoli. And it will store and use that stuff differently. That's why the bacon will have a deleterious effect on weight compared to broccoli.

(I once took your side in this debate and was resoundingly shouted down by a bunch of nutritionists and other smug scientific bastards. I said, hey, if you're only eating a half pound of a veal parm sandwich, that's still only a half pound, you know? They managed to convince me that I was wrong.)

[Stone]

A Double Whopper, which has, what, 2500 calories?, is unhealthy -- it has too much salt, and too much fat.  It is unhealthy even if it is the only source of calories for the day.  In fact, it is really unhealthy especially if it is the only source of calories for the day.  It is not a question of quantity.

"2500 calories"

"too much salt"

"too much fat"

yet

"not a question of quantity"

???

Okay, how about half a double Whopper?

How about a quarter of one?

How about a bite?

Good point. If I don't eat any of the double Whopper, it's a healthy, nutritious meal. And if I don't smoke any of that crack . . . .

[Varmint]

But if you intake 500 "calories" of bacon, compared with 500 "calories" of steamed broccoli, your body will process and store it differently.  The bacon will have more of an "adverse" effect in terms of putting on weight.

Do you also think a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers?

Let me paraphrase myself: If you eat a spoon of lard that contains 500 calories and a bowl of kale containing 500 calories, how many of those calories will actually be digested? Some of this is dependent on idiosyncratic physiological differences between individuals, the extent that the food is chewed, and other factors. I know that if I swallow 500 calories of corn without chewing, tomorrow's potty will serve as evidence that I didn't digest/absorb many of those.