Junk Food Is Satan's tool to make us fat

[Fat Guy]

considering that this is a website dedicated to the appreciation of food, and considering that you are a sponser, i guess i would have expected you to be more willing to engage in a critical discussion of the obesity epidemic as it is related to increasing portion sizes, availability of cheap high-fat low-nutrient foods, etc.  but your reaction seems to me to be two-fold:  to pooh-pooh the claims that this is anything more than some anti-american conspiracy, and to dismiss any evidence presented by anyone to the contrary.

While you continue to accuse us of being unwilling to engage in the discussion you want to have, I don't see you answering a single one of the statistical arguments I presented in my last post. Instead you reached back to an older post and answered a straw-man argument with hilariously inaccurate and baldly politicized information (Nixon made Polynesia fat! Come on, you must know Polynesians are fat because they're sedentary, they drink too much, they don't eat enough fruits and vegetables, they have poor mealtime habits so they get a large percentage of their calories from snacks, and yes they eat foods that are high in fat -- all kinds of fat -- as well as sugar). You are determined to lecture but you refuse to engage. Nobody is warning you against participation in this debate. Rather, I am suggesting that unless you actually participate in the debate you have no standing to lecture us -- and even then your shrill approach would be unacceptable. You came on this thread like gangbusters with broad claims and a superior attitude. But when you were called on it, instead of trying to back up your "arguments," you persistently resorted to arguments about the style of the debate. Whatever the source of your anger and frustration -- be it politics, the way you feel eGullet has treated you or your friends, or something else -- you can keep it to yourself from here on in. You are encouraged to participate in this debate but the lecturing ends now.

[Dave the Cook]

Just to clear up one point: palm oil is neither more nor less fattening than any other fat.

I won't open a discussion on saturated vs. unsaturated fats, except to say: although it has a negative reputation based on its proportion of saturated to unsaturated fats, palm oil is considered neutral in its effect on serum cholesterol.

Otherwise, fat saturation is not relevant to the debate at hand; it's a completely separate (though perhaps worthy) topic. For purposes of obesity causation, fat is fat is fat.

[Fat Guy]

On the follow-up thread to the Nina Planck soy article from TDG, Dave88 gave an excellent summary of the palm/coconut/tropical oils flap:

Didn't read all the articles so excuse me if they were discussed, but the whole soy lobby destroyed the "tropical oil" --a term they coined-- industry because of the lack of market share to be gained by the importers of "tropical oils." Tropical oils refers to oils made from palm, palm kernel and coconut oils. In the 1980s, the American soybean industry was worried that foreign tropical oils would replace their oils and take money from the American farmer. So a public relations firm working for the American soybean industry was concerned that "tropical" oil sales were going to surpass soybean oil as the number one fat. So many foods appeared with the label "contains no tropical oils." Later the U.S. Federal Trade Commission made that label illegal because there was an implied health claim that tropical oils are harmful and there is no evidence to back it up. In fact, the total amount of tropical oils in the U.S. diet was about 2%; substituting the most unsaturated fat would have a negligible effect on serum cholesterol. The whole issue was a trade war and not about health effects.

Tropical oils are used in foods for functional reasons. They are excellent for shortening because they don't get rancid easily, they produce flaky pastry and good color on fried foods, and they don't give a greasy feel to crackers. It is difficult to substitute most other vegetable oils for the tropical ones because their polyunsaturated fats have a short shelf life. To prolong the shelf life, manufacturers convert soybean oil in your food to partially hydrogenated which is harmful to your health because it may increase your risk for a heart attack and certain cancers.

The amount of tropical oils in the U.S. diet is so low that there is no reason to worry about it. The countries with the highest palm oil intakes in the world are Costa Rica and Malaysia. Their heart disease rates and serum cholesterol levels are much lower than in western nations. This never was a real health issue.

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=21300

Another source regarding palm oil:

Adding palm oil to the list of "bad fats," with its saturate level averaging 51%, was a slightly different proposition. Although for a vegetable oil this level is relatively high, most industry sources suggest that the recommendation not to use it was politically motivated as a method to increase the demand for domestically produced oils.

http://www.foodproductdesign.com/archive/1...95/0595ap2.html

[Katherine]

Last year I went to a science fair of research exhibits by students at the university I attend. One of the students in the health sciences attempted to correlate dietary fat intake to bodyfat content in student volunteers. They found a slight but insignificant negative correlation between fat intake and bodyfat content.

In other words, contrary to what we would expect, from what we read in the media, there was no relationship found between the percentage of fat intake and the percentage of bodyfat in these volunteers.

[Jason Perlow]

Nixon made Polynesia fat! Come on, you must know Polynesians are fat because they're sedentary, they drink too much, they don't eat enough fruits and vegetables, they have poor mealtime habits so they get a large percentage of their calories from snacks, and yes they eat foods that are high in fat -- all kinds of fat -- as well as sugar.

I'm thinking it must have something to do with the fact that they are the largest SPAM consuming demographic in the world?

According to Hormel, Hawaii consumes the most Spam luncheon meat per capita, with residents eating a whopping 5.3 cans of Spam per person last year. (2000)

[Fat Guy]

Really? I just assumed that would be Hawaii. Cool. Given how much people eat all over the world, you've got to respect the world's leading consumer of anything. Isn't Utah the leader in ice-cream consumption or something?

[Dave the Cook]

Isn't Utah the leader in ice-cream consumption or something?

I thought that was Alaska, of all places.

[slkinsey]

Isn't Utah the leader in ice-cream consumption or something?

I thought that was Alaska, of all places.

I have always understood that the region with the highest per-capita consumption of icecream was New England. This was decently discussed in another thread where someone looked up the Federal statistics... and I believe Vermont edged Alaska in per capita consumption by state.

[Dave the Cook]

Isn't Utah the leader in ice-cream consumption or something?

I thought that was Alaska, of all places.

I have always understood that the region with the highest per-capita consumption of icecream was New England. This was decently discussed in another thread where someone looked up the Federal statistics... and I believe Vermont edged Alaska in per capita consumption by state.

OK. But it's not someplace gawdawful hot like Brownsville Station, which is what I'd expect.

[Fat Guy]

I don't care what the statistics say. I have two much more important points: 1) I was in Utah and the size of the ice cream portions were the largest I've ever seen anywhere. And I've been to Alaska and I lived in Vermont for 4 years and attended Ben & Jerry's University. I'm not talking about the special super-jumbo thing that lots of places have where if you finish it you keep the bowl or whatever. I'm talking about the standard servings. I'm talking mountains of ice cream here. 2) When in Utah, two extremely fat dudes told me people in Utah eat the most ice cream of anybody in the world. If you saw these guys, you'd realize they had to be taken seriously.

Please note the US quarter for size reference:

[gknl]

There was an earlier post that mentioned a school cafeteria offering two lunches, the "nutritious" school lunch served mostly to poor kids and largely discarded, and a la carte food served to and eaten by non-poor kids. So is it enough to offer "nutritious" food knowing it's not going to be eaten? That seems more to assuage the school board's guilt than anything else. An empty political gesture.

I think it was last year, or maybe the year before, Berkeley High School, at the behest of a small but vocal activist group (it's Berkeley, what do you expect?), offered a healthy, organic lunch menu in addition to the usual fast-food type fare. The healthy stuff went largely uneaten except by a select few. Berkeley is a much more diverse town that one might think, but still, this is telling. Fast food is prevalent because people like it. It's easy: it's cheap, it's convenient, and it tastes good enough for the people who like it.

[Katherine]

There was an earlier post that mentioned a school cafeteria offering two lunches, the "nutritious" school lunch served mostly to poor kids and largely discarded, and a la carte food served to and eaten by non-poor kids.  So is it enough to offer "nutritious" food knowing it's not going to be eaten?  That seems more to assuage the school board's guilt than anything else.  An empty political gesture.

I think it was last year, or maybe the year before, Berkeley High School, at the behest of a small but vocal activist group (it's Berkeley, what do you expect?), offered a healthy, organic lunch menu in addition to the usual fast-food type fare.  The healthy stuff went largely uneaten except by a select few.  Berkeley is a much more diverse town that one might think, but still, this is telling.  Fast food is prevalent because people like it.  It's easy:  it's cheap, it's convenient, and it tastes good enough for the people who like it.

A long time ago I read about a school where they put together committees to decide what was going to be served in the cafeteria at lunchtime. The parents and food administrators would come up with ideas, the lunchroom would produce samples. But only after everyone agreed on the product was it ready to progress to the next step: the kids' committee. If it didn't pass there, it didn't get served. The only vegetable that was ever served was broccoli with cheese sauce, and they ate it every day. There was virtually no waste in that cafeteria.

[fifi]

My foggy brain doesn't remember enough details to do a good google, but I remember hearing on NPR (I think) not long ago about some chef in New York that was using a private school to try out the concept of serving healthy food that actually tastes good. I think he is out to prove a point. It would be interesting to have a link to that story. I am hoping that someone with more info than me can dig that one up.

[KNorthrup]

Specifically, people today are consuming on average 200 more calories per day than they did in the 1970s. However, the best data I've seen indicate that Americans are not consuming more calories at mealtimes than they did in the 1970s. In other words, even assuming the average person is getting more calories from fast food today than in the 1970s, that increase must be being offset by a reduction in calorie consumption at meals elsewhere. It seems most Americans are getting their extra 200 calories from between-meal snacks -- an area of the market in which fast-food restaurants are not heavy participants.

That is very interesting. New to me, at least. Are vending machines in offices more common now than they were in the 1970s? And has the diet industry's encouragement of people to eat six small meals and/or regular snacks in order to eat less during regular mealtimes actually backfired?

[Hobbes]

My foggy brain doesn't remember enough details to do a good google, but I remember hearing on NPR (I think) not long ago about some chef in New York that was using a private school to try out the concept of serving healthy food that actually tastes good. I think he is out to prove a point. It would be interesting to have a link to that story. I am hoping that someone with more info than me can dig that one up.

Look at this following post again and a link to such NPR story about Chef Bobo who indeed served healthy lunches to school kids with great success. Success not only in the press by NPR, The New Yorker and Fortune but also by the kids; they ate the "health food" up. I posted these articles so people could get a view of what schools are serving kids. And in many schools across the country are serving McDonald's or the like. As in this post usually school boards site the reason for serving such unhealthy foods is because that is all the kids will eat. That is just not so, or at least in the case of Chef Bobo. A real look needs to be had what we are feeding our children. By feeding them unhealthy food via contracts (see post) with fast food it only teaches the kid's pallets to eat more fat. If hard facts are needed look at the 2000 California High School Fast Food Survey. There are hard numbers in this survey detailing the breakdown and percentage of schools using a la carte fast food items. (Food sold individually and not part of a complete NSLP meal. A la carte items are exempt from the dietary guidelines to which the NLSP meals must adhere. A la carte items are the place where fast food enters the NLSP meal system). Any bold text in the excerpt bellow is what I have been referencing in this

particular post

The following is just an excerpt of my original post. There are other articles in that post that cover more about the quality of lunches in schools across America.

                               

Hobbes Posted: Jul 20 2003, 06:45 PM

----->2000 California High School Fast Food Survey

Excerpt from above survey:

Concerned about the record level of youth obesity, the Public Health Institute conducted the first study in the state to research the prevalence of fast foods on California high school campuses and student access to healthy foods at school.  The study, conducted by Samuels and Associates, describes the:

**Types of fast foods being sold on California high school campuses;

  

**Factors that influence fast food sales; and the

 

**Economic and policy issues associated with them.

"Despite the obvious nutritional concerns, schools have their reasons for putting Big Macs and candy on the menu. A questionnaire distributed to California schools by the Public Health Institute in 2000 [survey linked above] turned up the classic rationales: Kids won't eat anything else. They don't have enough time for a real meal. Above all else, fast food makes money, especially when it comes with a brand name. The same arguments are made all over the country. And in the eyes of one food service director, they're all bunk."

To see why "they're all bunk" see this NPR New article.

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP)

BTW:

Fat Guy Posted: Jul 25 2003, 09:00 PM

                                   

If you have nothing to contribute, and indeed refuse to contribute any information, you shouldn't participate in this discussion. Either present your arguments and evidence, or don't.

I beg to differ Fat Guy that stellabella is not offering valid infromation to this post. Stellabella, as long as with any egullet member is free to post and speak their mind. The eGullet.com User Agreement and Privacy Policy , which I am sure Fat Guy you are well versed in because you are a moderator of this forum states, "The eGullet.com team is dedicated to the principles of free expression. There are no right or wrong opinions on eGullet, and there is no culture of political correctness about food. Your messages will not be edited or deleted for content-based reasons, so long as they are germane to the subject of food, free of unlawful material, and otherwise comply with this agreement." And the point stellabella was making in the post on Jul 25 2003, 10:57 AM was clear and germane to me and the bylaws; "I posed a very difficult and very important question--why are the economically disadvantaged disproportionately obese? the answer is extraordinarily complex....." Since the egullet team is "dedicated to the principles of free expression" this allows many types of threads to be formed. Since this is a thread I created I will tell you my intention to create it. I wanted a place for people to discuss the obesity problem open and freely. So this may mean that some people want to add more observations than facts but either one is not wrong to do. This is an open forum and not a dissertation. We are not experts on this issue, even the experts have their doubts about the source of obesity. Let this forum be a place to discuss this very complex issue be it a factual debate or statement of concern or viewpoint. Lets debate and hash out the issues at hand but let people speak their mind without them feeling they have to defend themselves personally from attack.

Hobbes

[Jason Perlow]

I don't care what the statistics say. I have two much more important points: 1) I was in Utah and the size of the ice cream portions were the largest I've ever seen anywhere. And I've been to Alaska and I lived in Vermont for 4 years and attended Ben & Jerry's University. I'm not talking about the special super-jumbo thing that lots of places have where if you finish it you keep the bowl or whatever. I'm talking about the standard servings. I'm talking mountains of ice cream here. 2) When in Utah, two extremely fat dudes told me people in Utah eat the most ice cream of anybody in the world. If you saw these guys, you'd realize they had to be taken seriously.

Well, this is likely due to the fact that in Utah:

1) Its nearly impossible to get hard alcohol

2) The beer is 3 percent

3) Most people are Mormons, and arent known to be serious partygoers or ones that engage in diversions such as, well, recreational sex. This is despite the fact that up until recently, polygamy was tolerated.

So I think the gigantic piles of ice cream are likely compensating for a lot of deficiencies in Utah, period.

[Fat Guy]

Stellabella, as long as with any egullet member is free to post and speak their mind.

About food, yes. Insulting us, no. As the user agreement further states:

Although this is a free speech zone, we must have rules. This is a food website, and the exercise of free speech should stay within the reasonable confines of that subject, which does not include mean-spirited insults or other disruptive posts. We will remove harassing or disruptive messages that bear no substantive connection to topics germane to these message boards, and users who engage in persistent patterns of harassment or disruption will be removed from the site, have their posts deleted, or have their conduct otherwise curtailed, at eGullet's discretion.

All are free to debate and discuss the substance of this topic. Further comments regarding site policy should be taken to the Site Talk board -- they are off-topic on a food thread and posts containing such comments will be removed. Additional posts that include denigrating comments about the manner in which those of us who have contributed to this thread have chosen to express ourselves, or that persist in continuing a personal debate unrelated to the subject-matter of this thread and our boards, will be removed in their entirety.

[fresco]

I would have guessed that the U.S. led the world in per capita ice cream consumption, but that honor goes to New Zealand:

http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/icdata.html

[Fat Guy]

That is very interesting.  New to me, at least.  Are vending machines in offices more common now than they were in the 1970s?  And has the diet industry's encouragement of people to eat six small meals and/or regular snacks in order to eat less during regular mealtimes actually backfired?

Don't know for sure.

Information they analyzed came from the 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey and both the 1989-91 and 1994-96 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals.

"Back in the 1970s, some 80 percent of U.S. children snacked daily, and we found that now more than 90 percent do," Popkin said. "A more pronounced change, however, is that their total daily energy intake from snacks has risen from about 18 percent to about 25 percent. Whereas two decades ago they were taking in 450 kilocalories of energy in this way, now they’re getting 600 kilocalories."

Also, kilocalories per gram -- what nutritionists call "energy density" -- have risen significantly, from 1.35 to 1.54, the scientist said.

"What’s important about that is that other researchers have found small increases in energy densities lead to a large increase in total energy," he said. "So not only are children -- and adults -- eating a lot more snacks, but we’re also getting more calories because we’re eating different kinds of foods that are more energy-dense. That’s a bad sign and a clear indication that increased snacking contributes to the overweight increases in the United States."

http://www.unc.edu/news/newsserv/research/...opkin040601.htm

What Then Is Making Us Fat?

The study [from the US Chamber of Commerce] cites complex factors. Americans are eating an average of 200 more calories per day while getting less physical activity. More calories come from increased snacking - so perhaps it is the vending machines and the grande lattes that are adding to our waistlines? For children, especially, lack of exercise is the chief culprit in obesity. Food is also relatively less expensive, the prices having held firm or gone down while our incomes have increased.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest countered that the report ignores the effects of eating fast food every day and how children consume twice as many calories in a fast food meal as they do in a home meal.

http://walking.about.com/cs/howtoloseweigh...fooddefense.htm

Though Americans have been consuming

somewhat more fast food at mealtime, they have reduced their home consumption at

mealtime. Americans have cut back their home meals by about 228 calories for men

and 177 for women, offsetting the rise in fast food calories.11 In total, mealtime

calories have not budged much, and mealtimes are when consumers generally visit FF

restaurants. So where are the 200 additional calories coming from? The U.S. Department

of Agriculture has compiled the “Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals,”

which collects information on where a food was purchased, how it was prepared, and

where it was eaten, in addition to demographic information, such as race, income,

age and sex. The Survey shows us that Americans are not eating bigger breakfasts,

lunches or dinners. But they are noshing and nibbling like never before. Between the

1970s and the 1990s, men and women essentially doubled the calories consumed

between meals (by between 160 and 240 calories). In 1987-88 Americans typically

snacked less than once a day; by 1994 they were snacking 1.6 times per day. But

surely, the FF critics would argue, those FF cookies and pre-wrapped FF apple pies

must account for calories. Again the data fails to make their case. Women ate only

about six more snack calories at fast food restaurants, while men ate eight more snack

calories over the past two decades. That is roughly equal to one cracker or a few

raisins. Where do Americans eat their between-meal calories? Mostly at home.

http://www.legalreformnow.com/resources/burgers.pdf

Those last two sources being partisan, I also tried to make my way through the USDA primary source material referenced in the endnotes -- "Trends in Food and Nutrient Intakes by Adults: NFCS 1977-78, CSFII 1989-91, and CSFII 1994-95" -- but there's too much data for me to analyze. I also checked CSPI's site to see if they had any convincing responses -- they would be the ones to cite any responsive statistics -- and there was nothing other than a blanket denial, basically an expanded version of the meaningless quote above (plus some hilarious commentary like, "The key way to help people to eat better when they eat out is to require fast-food and other chain restaurants to provide calorie counts right on menus and menu boards." http://www.cspinet.org/new/200307031.html ). I did notice this interesting tidbit in the USDA report, though:

The proportion of energy from fat was

lower and that from carbohydrate higher

in 1994-95 than in 1977-78. This shift

was consistent with other national data

showing a decrease in the average blood

cholesterol level among adults. On the

other hand, more adults were overweight

in 1994-95 than before.

http://www.barc.usda.gov/bhnrc/foodsurvey/.../pdf/Trends.pdf

[hjshorter]

Thinking back, selling fast-food type items in school cafeterias is nothing new. When I was in high school during 1980-84, in addition to the regular lunch, my school had a cart that sold hamburgers and french fries. The burgers and fries consistently outsold the more nutritious lunch fare. Vending machines selling soda were freely available, too.

This wasn't the slightest bit controversial, so have our perceptions changed? Certainly we know more about what constitutes a healthy diet - why are kids so much heavier these days? This is just my opinion, but it may have less to do with what kids are eating and much more to do with much lower activity levels. Most kids in my area do not play outside unless directly supervised, are not encouraged to ride bikes around the neighborhood - video games, computers and TV take up most of their time not spent in school.

[SobaAddict70]

That is very interesting.  New to me, at least.  Are vending machines in offices more common now than they were in the 1970s?  And has the diet industry's encouragement of people to eat six small meals and/or regular snacks in order to eat less during regular mealtimes actually backfired?

Don't know for sure.

It's certainly been a trend at our corporate cafeteria. My firm's been pushing all these wellness plans (i.e., WW classes and low-fat meal options) and lifestyle choices (e.g., subsidized gym memberships) on the staff, although pls note its interesting that the sole vending machine in the entire firm is located in the cafeteria, and besides the "healthy" choices presented (i.e., granola, peanuts, dried fruit), there are the typical junk food options.

Soba

[Fat Guy]

From The Daily Telegraph (UK): "Would you like a lawyer with that?"

Three years ago a story in the satirical online magazine The Onion was headlined: "Hershey's ordered to pay obese Americans $135 billion."

Hershey's had been found guilty of "knowingly and willfully marketing rich, fatty candy bars containing chocolate and other ingredients of negligible nutritional value".

What looked like a joke is now rapidly becoming a distinct possibility, as lawyers scramble to take bites out of the companies behind the world's favourite burgers, biscuits and chocolates.

[jhlurie]

Hot off the ticker, seems that the ubiquitous "Dr. Phil" is making weight management a focus during the second year of his successful daytime program.

No plans for Oprah to participate. 

Ahem.

Dr. Phil ain't exactly skinny himself.

[winodj]

I was reading Newsweek International while waiting for my trail this week.... and I did see the destructuring argument and it makes sense. Since in the stats, I sit on my ass all day, I find myself eating crap all the time.... oral fixation I think

Maybe I should just smoke more.

[laurenmilan]

Well, this is likely due to the fact that in Utah:

1) Its nearly impossible to get hard alcohol

2) The beer is 3 percent

3) Most people are Mormons, and arent known to be serious partygoers or ones that engage in diversions such as, well, recreational sex. This is despite the fact that up until recently, polygamy was tolerated.

So I think the gigantic piles of ice cream are likely compensating for a lot of deficiencies in Utah, period.

Very good point... in areas of the US where alcohol consumption is culturally/legally restricted, I've seen the sugar/grease consumption go way off the scale (my experience of such has been mainly with travels in sections of Eastern PA, and the Carolinas - man oh man, if they could batter & deep-fry butter, they would!)

I truly believe in my heart that those who lack alcohol in their diets 1) are craving SOMETHING soul-satisying in its place, and 2) have little/no taste due to the lack of stimulation that comes from fine spirits. ;-)