Junk Food Is Satan's tool to make us fat

[enthusiast]

i thought this article in today's NY Times was excellent - balanced and unhysterical - and quoting some research which i hadn't seen before.

does it go some way to answering fat Guy's pointed, punchy and neat point:

It's just terrible that the fast-food companies are trying to give us smaller portions of french fries.

It's just terrible that the fast-food companies are trying to give us bigger portions of french fries.

is the point that the portions are bigger (bad for fat, good for value) but maybe not as big as they are made to look (good marketing, good for profits)? thus customers buy the bigger sizes, seduced by the value, and eat more and get fatter.

maybe if portion sizes were even bigger custoemrs would buy one between two and eat less!!

.

[ballast_regime]

I will link this NY Times article, even though I'm sure most of you will see it by tomorrow. Just to add to the fire. Stoke, boy, stoke!

[Fat Guy]

i thought this article in today's NY Times was excellent - balanced and unhysterical - and quoting some research which i hadn't seen before.

Hysterical in tone and hysterical in content are two different things. The Times piece is certainly well-researched, but the research is all positioned so as to point to one inexorable conclusion: we haven't proven it yet, but we will! It's about as balanced as a reduced-calorie Twinkie.

I'd have liked to see that Times article explore a bit further the issue of the relatively low incidence of obesity in France relative to the US, especially since Paul Rozin is quoted. His quote early in the article seems rather detached from context. Given that he has done one of the more interesting food-psychology studies out there, and that it is on-point to the article, it would have made sense at least to mention it. Then again, Rozin's conclusions might have been uncomfortable. Here's a good summary:

Is nonstop noshing just an American thing? Paul Rozin, a psychology professor at the University of Pittsburgh, recently compared to the eating habits and attitudes of Americans to those of the French, Japanese, and Belgians. The verdict: The French are the most concerned with taste and enjoyment — the Americans the least. Instead, Americans say they're most concerned about health. Sounds good, except that we seem to be talking out of both sides of our overstuffed mouths. We health-obsessed Americans have significantly higher rates of heart disease and obesity than those hedonistic French. According to Rozin, beyond the obvious difference between Baked Lays and baked Brie lies this notion: "In France, people associate food with pleasure. In this country, we associate it with guilt." Thus, the French have highly structured meals of moderate total quantity (no wonder the word of the "etiquette" is French), while American's chow informally on less-palatable but "healthier" foods such as reduced-fat cheese or low-sodium crackers and place no limit on when, where, or how much they eat.

http://www.marthaschindler.com/NewFiles/h_n.html

[enthusiast]

yes, i guess it did play towards my prejudices. but when you're right, it's not always easy to see what adding more wrong-headed arguments adds to the debate!

one obvious difference between France and the USA is that in France McDonalds advertised that you shouldn't eat there more than once a week.

I'm not sure i believe the guilt v pleasure argument - the meat of that argument is more in the - "healthier" foods such as reduced-fat cheese - eating styles. where else but in the USA would a company advertise a snack product that you can eat "between snacks"?

my personal spin on this - with evidence particularly from ice-cream and chocolate - is that if you eat low quality (junk) food it is fundamentally unsatisfying; whereas if you eat good, high quality food, a little is enough. it is like panning for gold - the lower the richness of the seam the more you have to process to get your fix...

but i can't prove it

[Mottmott]

my personal spin on this - with evidence particularly from ice-cream and chocolate - is that if you eat low quality (junk) food it is fundamentally unsatisfying; whereas if you eat good, high quality food, a little is enough. it is like panning for gold - the lower the richness of the seam the more you have to process to get your fix...

enthusiast, my personal experience supports this notion. I'm an acknowledged sweets freak. My control of this is to get a large box of Valhrona feves, ostensibly for baking, but in fact to take the edge off my chocolate yen. Four of them = 1 oz. A half dozen of them is enough for me. And I don't even need to eat them every day. But if I were out and grabbed a bag of, say, Hershey's kisses, I'd go through the bag and still crave chocolate. Similarly with baked goods. If I make them at home or get them from a good bakery, I can be satisfied with small amounts, a couple canneles, a single scone and jam, a slice of rich pound cake, etc. But a box of Enterman chocolate covered donuts? Scarf time.

A couple other general observations:

First for those who hoot and holler about people ridiculous and/or greedy enough to sue mfgrs and ff venues for fattening foods, keep in mind that it has made people more aware of the issue generally. It has particularly highlighted the issue in regard to children's lunches.

Second we should note that food manufacturerers (ex: oreos) and ff chains (ex: McD) are changing what they are offering us. McD is even considering using only meat that has not been fed antibiotics for growth. And, btw, has anyone considered that the growth hormones in meat may be adding to our growth, too?

I agree with FG that all the evidence is not in yet, and perhaps in a matter such as this the evidence will never be complete. But I for one eat ff on the rarest of occasions, mostly on car trips, try to avoid processed foods as much as possible, and buy as much organic fruits and vegetables and meat, milk, eggs that are hormone and antibiotic free. Epidemiological "evidence" can be, I believe, a word to the wise in the absence of anything else.

Which brings me to my third point, that a lot of the problem comes from social conventions and economic constraints. Many people cannot afford to eat as I try to do or they may live in a social environment that does not support it.

[enthusiast]

enthusiast, my personal experience supports this notion. I'm an acknowledged sweets freak. My control of this is to get a large box of Valhrona feves, ostensibly for baking, but in fact to take the edge off my chocolate yen. Four of them = 1 oz. A half dozen of them is enough for me. And I don't even need to eat them every day. But if I were out and grabbed a bag of, say, Hershey's kisses, I'd go through the bag and still crave chocolate. Similarly with baked goods. If I make them at home or get them from a good bakery, I can be satisfied with small amounts, a couple canneles, a single scone and jam, a slice of rich pound cake, etc. But a box of Enterman chocolate covered donuts? Scarf time.

i'm very glad that i'm not alone on this one...

[SobaAddict70]

Coming soon your way....

the incredible, edible, fat-free, additive-free and salt-free Big Mac, Super-sized fries and sugar-free, caffeine-free Coke!!!

*GAG*

Soba

[KNorthrup]

1. I ate at a chain restaurant for the first time in ages this weekend (Tony Roma's) and was quite surprised and rather disappointed that the portions were quite reasonable. I was all prepared to get too much food and instead cleaned my plate with little effort. Shared appetizer too. Didn't particularly enjoy any of it, and it didn't settle well, but the amount was reasonable.

2. I'm starting to run into a dilemma that I haven't really seen come up here yet. Certainly agree that eating a natural, high-quality version of something (like chocolate) is both more satisfying and healthier than the processed varieties. But what about all natural vs the reduced-fat, light, etc versions? Cheese, yogurt, peanut butter. I can have more calories and fat or I can have chemicals. What do you pick then?

[Fat Guy]

Which brings me to my third point, that a lot of the problem comes from social conventions and economic constraints. Many people cannot afford to eat as I try to do or they may live in a social environment that does not support it.

Eat exactly as you do, maybe not. But anybody who can afford a Big Mac super-sized extra-value-meal can afford to eat, say, half a roasted chicken with rice and beans. The latter is probably going to be cheaper. As to the "social environment" not supporting it, that's certainly a factor -- though the question of "why" remains.

[Fat Guy]

Some interesting numbers just released from Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030721.asp

"according to the new poll, most U.S. adults appear to be generally aware that most fast food is not good for them"

"nearly 9 in 10 Americans (89%) oppose holding the fast-food industry legally responsible for the diet-related health problems of people who eat that kind of food on a regular basis. Just 9% are in favor. Those who describe themselves as overweight are no more likely than others to blame the fast-food industry for obesity-related health problems, or to favor lawsuits against the industry."

[Fat Guy]

First for those who hoot and holler about people ridiculous and/or greedy enough to sue mfgrs and ff venues for fattening foods, keep in mind that it has made people more aware of the issue generally.  It has particularly highlighted the issue in regard to children's lunches.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that people are more aware, on account of frivolous litigation, that junk food is bad for you if you eat too much of it? Is that even the message this litigation sends, or is the message, rather, "It's not your fault. Don't worry, we'll use the courts as a surrogate for personal responsibility"?

[enthusiast]

Some interesting numbers just released from Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030721.asp

"according to the new poll, most U.S. adults appear to be generally aware that most fast food is not good for them"

"nearly 9 in 10 Americans (89%) oppose holding the fast-food industry legally responsible for the diet-related health problems of people who eat that kind of food on a regular basis. Just 9% are in favor. Those who describe themselves as overweight are no more likely than others to blame the fast-food industry for obesity-related health problems, or to favor lawsuits against the industry."

so why do people get so upset about lawyers suing McDonalds? quite clearly they're never going to win and it will cost them a lot of money. unless of course when the arguments are presented in court US adults take a different view than when presented with a question from Gallup

[Fat Guy]

so why do people get so upset about lawyers suing McDonalds? quite clearly they're never going to win and it will cost them a lot of money. unless of course when the arguments are presented in court US adults take a different view than when presented with a question from Gallup

Because "people" pay for the legal system that allows this nonsense to occur; because the whole thing seems more like a racket or extortion effort than an attempt to obtain justice; because many people are offended by the "we're going to sue them and sue them and sue them" ( http://banzhaf.net/docs/cbsmorn.html ) rhetoric of the trial lawyers; because it's an abdication of individual responsibility which is still a core American value even if it gets eroded more each day; and I'm sure for many other reasons.

[Hobbes]

I will link this NY Times article, even though I'm sure most of you will see it by tomorrow.  Just to add to the fire.  Stoke, boy, stoke!

Great find ballast_regime.

This NYtimes article captures the reason I posted the thread in the first place. It brings to the table theories why America's waist line is expanding. The article cited "environmental factors, portion size, price, advertising, the availability of food and the number of food choices presented— can influence the amount the average person consumes." It cites many prominent medical researchers whit most of them agreeing that, "increasing number of studies show that how food is served, presented and sold plays at least some role in what and how much people eat." The article even cites "Price is a powerful influence;" hence my concern with consumer manipulation.

I brought these concerns to the table here on egullet before this NYtimes article was written so I did not have it to post. But What I did was post other articles and research to the Nytimes article's affect. No, what I posted was not written as well as the Nytimes article but it was proving the same points or at least divulging a concern for "environmental factors" and consumer manipulation. But when I posted I did not even get one response like the following given by Fat-Guy:

we haven't proven it yet, but we will! It's about as balanced as a reduced-calorie Twinkie.

I must have been speaking greek. No support for the same information one minute and then the next support. Very interesting? I guess the messenger is important in this thread not what he carries.

No hard feelings.

The debate continues I am just adding more wood to the fire so to speak.

Hobbes

[foodE]

Have any of you read Fat Land, by Greg Critser? It explains the social, economic, commercial, and even political reasons that the obesity rate in America has skyrocketed over the last 2 decades. It is depressing and shocking!

BTW, this is my first post.

[Fat Guy]

In that case, welcome!

[oraklet]

Some interesting numbers just released from Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030721.asp

"according to the new poll, most U.S. adults appear to be generally aware that most fast food is not good for them"

and yet they eat it. so,

1) either they wish to be fat, or

2) they can't control themselves, or

3) they are victims of some force majeure.

lets rule out 1)

2) would tell us that most americans are not very good at being true americans in your sense. they should all go through therapy. of course, they must pay for it themselves.

3) would tell us that something has to be done by your government about some of the structures in your society. this is radical socialist thinking, so that leaves us with 2).

heh.

[KNorthrup]

Well but eating it and eating it to an unhealthy extent are two different things. I know it's bad for me but that doesn't mean I wish to be fat etc. It does mean I eat the stuff less than once a month and never ever supersize. Certainly not everyone who eats at McDonald's is obese.

[Hest88]

I'm afraid that what the NY Times article reveals is that Americans lack self-control and are completely oblivious on all but a philosophical basis of what they put in their mouths.

I'm all for clear and proper labeling, and I do enjoy watching corporations juggle lawsuits, but portion size?!? I read and adored Fast Food Nation, but with all the info out there I can only blame consumers if they choose to remain ignorant.

Personally, if we're keeping score, I eat as much butter as possible, drink full fat milk, when I drink milk, never turn down a good dessert, and would never steam a vegetable when I can stir-fry it in as much olive oil as my wok can hold. (Steamed veggies? Yuuuck!) I also rarely eat processed foods. After all, if I'm going to eat fat I want it to be deeply satisfying.

[oraklet]

Well but eating it and eating it to an unhealthy extent are two different things.  I know it's bad for me but that doesn't mean I wish to be fat etc. It does mean I eat the stuff less than once a month and never ever supersize. Certainly not everyone who eats at McDonald's is obese.

but i wasn't talking about you. it's all the others.

[tommy]

I'm afraid that what the NY Times article reveals is that Americans lack self-control and are completely oblivious on all but a philosophical basis of what they put in their mouths.

i didn't catch that part. perhaps they were talking about some americans and not all, or even most, though.

[Katherine]

This is part of a series on obesity in America. Very interesting.

[fifi]

"Today's celebrities wear sizes 0 or 2, as compared to a normal size 12 a few generations ago."

I beg to differ with the "few generations" statement. I was born in 1946. As I was coming up, my older sister (7 years older) competed in beauty contests. She was the "perfect size 10". That was the ideal in the fifties.

Scary article.

[Fat Guy]

Very interesting indeed, Katherine. Thanks for that link, which leads to some refreshingly independent thinking. I'm going to read the whole series tonight.

The overt anti-Americanism in many discussions of obesity is rather pathetic. In any nation where famine isn't an issue, there will be percentages of people who are underweight, "normal" weight, overweight, obese, and morbidly obese. Obesity is not an American problem, it is a human problem. America has a higher percentage of obese citizens than, say, Australia, but not by much. I'll be interested to see what will happen to the rhetoric when Australia surpasses the US in obesity -- something that should happen very soon if current trends continue. Maybe the US will be blamed anyway.

From our friends at the BBC:

Obesity

Country % Men % Women

Finland 19 19

Russia 10.8 27.9

England 17 20

Germany 17.2 19.3

Czech Republic 16.3 20.2

Scotland 15.9 17.3

Belgium 12.1 18.4

Spain 11.5 15.2

Sweden 10 11.9

France 9.6 10.5

Denmark 10 9

Netherlands 8.4 8.3

Italy 6.5 6.3

USA 19.5 25

Australia 18 18

[enthusiast]

Very interesting indeed, Katherine. Thanks for that link, which leads to some refreshingly independent thinking. I'm going to read the whole series tonight.

i agree, very interesting series.

It doesn't conform to my views and i think there are as many holes in her arguments as there are on the other side. the arguments - as they tend to on both sides - are very selctive of the scientific "evidence". and whereas the author is highly dismissive of the "its obvious" arguments of the "helath lobby", she is not above using them herself when it suits her case.

i think the biggest (and strangest) suggestion is that the advocates for doing something about the obesity problem are in favour of "dieting". I think, to the extent that any consensus is possible on this diverse subject, the key is always moderation. or appropriate consumption. i don't think any sane person would expect a crash diet to be good in any way whatsoever. but gradually changing your eating habits to eliminate obvious over consumption, shifting to more "healthy" foodstuffs can only be beneficial. and, hey, lets take a more eGullet view of things, wouldn't it be wonderful if instead of mcDonalds (and all its variants) on every street corner, there were fast food joints serving fresh oysters, slow braised lamb chucks, grilled fish etc all at prices benefitting from mass production/consumption.