Americans scared of their dinner?

[Daddy-A]

... a fictitious contrast between alleged American food insanity and alleged European food sanity.

<SNIP>

I think the evidence is strong that Europeans are less obsessed with fat as such than Americans. And there are a number of American food fears that Europeans on the whole reject.

At the same time, Europeans have food fears that Americans reject.

←

Fat Guy makes a good point. My concern with the article, and indeed some of the posts in this thread, is the tendency to lump people into us & them. As a Canadian, I am particularly good at this. It ain't helpful.

But then we’re not really talking about food anymore.

←

And so we get to the crux of it all. It's not about food. Food just happens to be how the real problem manifests itself. The problem, in a word, is consumerism propelled by guilt and disatisfaction.

Diets aren't about food or losing weight ... they're about buying diet food. Ask the Atkins folks. Guilt is the grease that gets the wheels moving. Pretty soon, we'll become disatisfied with Atkins ... another diet will show itself to be the true way and a whole new industry will take over.

We don't eat crappy processed foods because life is getting busier . We were already busy. We feel guilty being busy about and somebody convinced us that buying Hungry Man dinners would buy us more time with the family.

Even "foodie-ism" is being sold back to us, showing us how much better our life would be if only we would crack open a nice Merlot and drizzle a little truffle oil on dinner. Hell, even my business is based on dissatisfaction. I blame Martha Stewart.

I know this is pretty conspiracy-minded, but the patterns haven't changed in 25 years. Those of us who have learned to stop and smell the roses along the way are fewer in number, but there's more food for us.

A.

[MarketStEl]

Pollan's essay is, however, an important step forward for the New York Times. Two years ago the Times finally caught up with the reality that Atkins was the dominant dietary trend of this era, and now the Times is finally realizing that Americans are food-phobic. Yet Pollan bizarrely claims, in Sunday's article, that the Johnny-come-lately recognition of Atkins's importance by the Times represented the beginning of a trend, rather than recognition of one. He writes, "it was an article in this magazine two years ago that almost singlehandedly ushered in today's carbophobia."

That's one of the sloppiest claims I've ever seen from Pollan, who is usually known for careful research and presentation of facts despite his political agendas. That indefensible statement combined with the recycling of Rozin and a generally loose train of thought indicates to me that Pollan's heart wasn't in this piece -- indeed most of the articles in this grandiose and self-important Sunday Times Magazine food package felt that way to me.

←

In the late 1970s, during a New York newspaper strike, a bunch of reporters put together a hilarious New York Times parody, Not the New York Times.

A "foreign dispatch" headlined "Nothing Much of Significance Happening in Africa of Late" caught this attitude well when, midway through the story, it quoted an unnamed African diplomat explaining why nothing was going on in Africa:

"'It's that newspaper strike,' he said. 'No New York Times, no news.'"

Yes, the Times is that self-important--so much so that it would run an assertion like the one you quote. But I don't think it so much untrue as an exaggeration. The Times does not launch trends, but it does ratify them and make them acceptable to a broader segment of the population. Yes, the Atkins diet had been gaining in popularity for quite some time before that famous New York Times Magazine cover story two years ago. But prior to that story, most mentions of the diet in the mainstream press were usually dismissive or negative. The positive treatment the Atkins diet received in that TimesMag article gave it a legitimacy it had not previously enjoyed in the rest of the press. For better or for worse, what the Times does still influences what other mainstream media organizations do.

[bloviatrix]

Whenever the Times has a food article I always read the letters and wonder if any of them are from egulleters. So imagine my suprise when I saw Steve Shaw's name in this week's letters about the Pollan article

Letters to the Editor You'll have to scroll down quite a ways.

[Fat Guy]

Needless to say, they edited out the part of the letter challenging the statement that "it was an article in this magazine two years ago that almost singlehandedly ushered in today's carbophobia."

MarketStEl, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation in this case or generally. But since I don't have free Lexis/Nexis, I probably shouldn't debate the specific contention that "prior to that story, most mentions of the diet in the mainstream press were usually dismissive or negative. The positive treatment the Atkins diet received in that TimesMag article gave it a legitimacy it had not previously enjoyed in the rest of the press." What I can say is that in general I do not find that the New York Times often fires first in granting legitimacy to underdog causes. In many instances I can recall in the area of food, the New York Times weighs in late, after the groundwork has been laid by other publications. At that point, with so little on the line, it's hard for me to credit the Times as a major force -- I think it more often serves to mark trends that are occurring anyway. It is an important trend marker, to be sure, though. I also think it's not entirely the case that the Times makes anything "acceptable to a broader segment of the population." The Times is read mostly by a narrow segment of the population. Making things acceptable to a broader segment of the population is the job of a lot of media outlets, but not necessarily the Times.

[jbonne]

I also think about the 50s gee whiz convenience age, and the depression/war waste not want not hoarding mentality as factoring into the equation.  In a relatively short amount of time, less than 50 years, America has gone from being a country that had a lot of need to one of great plenty.

←

i'll maintain the 50s were perhaps the worst collective era for our nation's food history. all the essential compromises required for WWII were transformed into the commercial realm. canned and frozen food became hallmarks of convenience. aseptic processing became a commonplace thing. centralized industrial food manufacturing was stamped, firmly, as a good thing. it's one thing to make food that can survive the trenches of the South Pacific, quite another to make food that's healthy and helpful in the pantries of Milwaukee.

we don't conceive of automobiles or ovens the way we did then, so why should postwar science still be the operative mode for our commercial food industry?

back to the matter of lingering over our meals, i'm now thinking i should refit my dinner chairs ... with seatbelts.

[therese]

We're ahead of the curve when it comes to considering too much food "toxic" because we are ahead of the curve when it comes to wealth. Europeans, particularly southern Europeans (France, then Italy, then Spain) who've seen big leaps in recent decades are catching up in every way, including wide availability of crap processed food (which you won't see at the outdoor market, of course---check out Carrefour or Monoprix for the real story here).

An illustrative story (which I may have told before, so excuse me if I have):

When I first visited France as an exchange student, breakfast cereals were a specialty item. My host family had gone to some effort to find me a small box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes, which they presented to me at my first breakfast in their household (served with steaming hot milk, of course). I never finished the box, preferring their usual breakfast of bread and hot beverage.

On a visit a few years ago to the home of my exchange partner, now a wealthy lawyer and mother of four, I found her overweight (and believe me, she truly never thought she'd be even remotely plump) and her children eating sweetened cereals, preferably chocolate-flavored. They live in the countryside and so drive everywhere, and can afford every possible permutation of electronic entertainment.

At that time the children were all still slim, but as of last summer the 15 year old daughter (visiting me in the U.S.) was already heavier than ideal, and certainly heavier than the French norm of even a decade ago.

We are not idiots for realizing that too much food is toxic. Thin French women may well clean their plates in restaurants and at large communal meals, but their total caloric intake over a period of days is clearly not high enough to result in weight gain given their activity levels. Because otherwise they'd be fat, see?

[madziast]

i only have one food phobia -- of processed, conservative- and additive-laden, "enriched" gmo food

i grew up in europe where store-bought mayonnaise and frozen dumplings when mom was working late constituted "processed food." there may not have been a lot of food around or very fancy but it was pretty good, fresh and freshly made most of the time. i still prefer to cook from the scratch or eat a piece of bread & cheese when i'm too tired or don't have time. of course, i go out a lot, too. i think that home made meals, as others noted, tend to be healthier since they are simpler.

i agree with many things Pollan says in the article, even if it is rather skewed to prove a point. FG is certainly right about the french having their diets and following fads in that respect. the main difference is that the french tend to go on a diet for a limited period of time whereas americans seem to always be on one diet or another in the sense of restricted regimen. i think many americans look at food as something potentially evil and something to resist. i hear plenty of "i've been good/bad so i can/can't have a piece of cake," then again, i live in nyc and many people are pretty weight/health conscious. (sometimes ridiculously, i know a woman who will not touch carbs but drinking, smoking and snorting assorted substances is fine b/c it doesn't make her "bloated").

i'm amazed by the astounding influence of puritan values and how they affect attitudes towards food, among other things. i also see search for quick fixes and instant gratification. the issue of being in and out of control.

talking about obsession with fads - i will never forget my first trip to a supermarket when i came to nyc in '91. every item i put in the basket, my then-roommate took out and replaced with a "low fat," "no fat" or "reduced fat" item. that went for butter, bread, cheese, preserves (!! helpfully marked "no fat"!), etc. as a bonus, she said, i could get FAT FREE ice-cream!!! she bought some herself so i could try it - i didn't like it, it tasted like frozen water with sugar and cocoa. left it on a plate, sure enough, it melted to water with cocoa flecks floating in it... it was ben & jerry's for me from then on

[jgm]

I, on the other hand (while agreeing with many points in this intersting piece) believe that the American obsession with dieting (and the related guilt involved with dining)has more to do with the fact that most Americans just eat too much of everything and believe that's how it should be, as opposed to eating smaller portions of anything that crosses their plate, as much of the rest of the world does.

Read and discuss. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

←

[Carrot Top]

Great rant, jgm. I am in agreement with you.

[Chris Amirault]

Therese's tale about kids prompted me to share some research on food and children. I run a preschool and kindergarten in Providence RI, and we have to deal with adult (teacher and parent/caretaker) food issues all the time. But having done a bit of digging, we found out the following (which I paraphrase here for brevity), which has enabled us to focus on the way that our culture imposes all sorts of screwed-up meanings on consumption.

To state some obvious things: Kids control how much, if any, goes in, of any given thing. (They also control what comes out, but I'll save that for eLowerGI.) Unless you're commited to treating a child like a non-California goose, you can't force a kid to eat, or force her to eat things you want her to eat. Such impossible-to-enforce efforts just degenerate into the sort of battle from which eating disorders, among other things, grow. And, within this logic, using dessert as a bribe is a really counter-productive way to coerce a child to eat -- and to learn how to hate what he's eating on the way to the dessert. That is to say, it just continues the power struggle, instead of transcending it.

To transcend the power struggle, you need to ignore the things you can't control and pay attention to the things that you can control: what can be eaten, when it can be eaten, and how much is enough. This enables you to assert power while away from the table, and to avoid asserting power while at the table -- a crucial bait-and-switch that works wonders with the under-7 crowd.

If you take those things seriously, there's some pretty compelling research that says that three short weeks will get your kid eating healthy meals. Here are the rules:

(0) The first rule is that there are no consumption rules. You can have rules about passing things, or taking a few first and having more later, but the kid's consumption is entirely in her hands. This rule is titanically hard for many parents, raised on the idea of well-rounded meals, to accept.

(1) Choose whatever food you want. You want dessert, fine. Kid won't eat broccoli, so what. Gotta have chicken fingers, sure thing. Cook it up, plate/bowl it, and that's the night's meal.

(2) Put out all of the food that everyone will eat "family style," that is, in containers from which everyone serves themselves. This includes dessert, if you're having it; everything's on the table from the start of the meal (eating savory first and sweet last is controlling consumption). Make sure there's enough for everyone but not so much that you each get six supersized portions.

(3) Eat, and let the kid eat. Kid eats three slices of cake, go for it. Kid smears cake on her face and hands and makes a goofy smile, you ignore it. Kid tries to egg you on by pointing out that she's just eating slices of cake, you don't bite: "Yeah, we're not going to talk about food rules at the table any more." Just eat your broccoli and chill out, all the while marvelling at this miraculous process.

(4) Reinforce later, placing all of the control in the kid's hands. "Wow, you're hungry, huh? I'm not surprised. It's probably because you just ate three slices of cake for dinner. I guess you should remember that tomorrow. I'll remind you." Demonstrate repeatedly that you don't care a rat's ass if the kid does or doesn't eat. And remember: one night's empty stomach is a lesson for a lifetime, so don't worry if junior refuses to eat a thing; you'll have what we call a "teachable moment" around the breakfast table.

(5) Repeat for three weeks.

By the end of this span, about 80-90% of all kids will have given up the power struggle around food and will be gladly trying new stuff, talking about it, and generally eating well. Of course, if you only serve food that is good for them, then they'll have to eat well to survive, won't they?

We've transformed our entire preschool/kindergarten using this method, with kids from a wide variety of backgrounds and with radically different eating cultures. I'm not kiddin'. It really works.

[Jensen]

It is not possible to eat out as much as we do, and maintain a decent weight, unless we're blessed with an amazing metabolism.  Our national obesity and all of our other food quirks will subside substantially if we learn how to cook a few decent meals.

(End of rant.)

Rant on, girlfriend!

[bleudauvergne]

They don't turn away dessert... or leave a crumb, for that matter.

Yikes! When I saw those photos in the NYT article, one illustrating "The French Way" to eat chocolate cake and the other, "The American way" I was struck with the clear lack of understanding whatsoever that the author of the article has about the way the French approach food. I can positively say I have never seen anyone pick at their food and leave it uneaten in such a manner - it's considered crass.

For me, although the essay may bring up the point that the French approach food differently, the blundering false assumptions made by the author, and quick conclusions made from the "studies" and finally in clearly improbable scenario presented in the photos, discredits any expertise that the author could hold on the topic.

The first thing to realise is that the French pride themselves on living without complexes, and will do whatever they can to hide the ones they have. The French way is to pretend you don't care while at the same time being very meticulous about every detail.

Just about all of the French women in my entourage (I eat and discuss food with various members of a regular group daily) are continually obscessed with their weight and constantly share methods to keep it under control amongst themselves - they consider it a symptom of their species, and accept this openly behind closed doors. Add a man to the group and all discussion of the topic stops.

French society puts strict moral codes around a woman's size, as a definition of her self control. Whereas Americans are raised in collective tolerance with the notion that they are loved just the way they are, whatever size, and then slammed with the reality of obesity once they reach the age where they are making decisions for themselves, the French little girls are being taught early on that they must exercise self control, and quietly and systematically praised by others for making "reasonable choices". I hear my co-workers discuss this as a child rearing issue constantly.

In the States, such societal policing of women's weight is not generally accepted. It's against the rules to criticize - it's a cultural taboo, maybe it comes from our need to negotiate from school age groups of people with basic cultural and physical differences. Tolerance in this area is the norm in the U.S. On the other hand, French women count everything from fat grams to carbs, and keep each other in check, constantly. They comment on each other's plates and waistlines at every meal.

About the magnificent specimen who devours her chocolate cake with gusto at the restaurant table - psst! She knows it's sexy and enjoys the attention it brings. Being sexy is the style here! And that means no complex! Don't even kid yourself with the idea that she's not calculating each and every crumb. The typical woman you see eating chocolate cake in the presence of others will most likely will be dining on a plate of steamed veggies in the privacy of her home at the end of the day.

The difference is that it's stylish in the States to be publicly obscessed with obesity as a public health problem, and answers to association questions are likely to reflect the general themes being reinforced - no wonder Americans answered "unhealthy" when asked what they associate with "heavy cream". In France it's stylish to look like you have no food complex. The person associating "chantilly" with heavy cream is dutifully answering precisely as their society dictates.

[therese]

About the magnificent specimen who devours her chocolate cake with gusto at the restaurant table - psst!  She knows it's sexy and enjoys the attention it brings. Being sexy is the style here! And that means no complex! Don't even kid yourself with the idea that she's not calculating each and every crumb. The typical woman you see eating chocolate cake in the presence of others will most likely will be dining on a plate of steamed veggies in the privacy of her home at the end of the day.

Bleudauvergne nails this precisely, and I'll point out that some French (and Italian) women will make a particular point of eating more than usual in front of Americans, particularly if the Americans in question are overweight.

My French "mother" and her sister-in-law (both extremely soignee) routinely ate pate and bread and cheese and mousse au chocolat in company, but switched to steamed fish and spinach in private (including most family dinners). When we ate at the grandmother's house she prepared a special meal for the women "of a certain age" who'd gotten to the point that they needed to watch their intake to maintain their tidy silhouettes.

All that said, the diet and lifestlye were overall better at that time (several decades ago) in France than in the U.S. in my opinion. But that's all changing, and it's reflected in the demographics.

[therese]

Oh, and ditto on jgm's rant. Twinkie's and instant chocolate pudding. Eeeew. Was the pudding actually "made" by the chef? Or did it also come in a can or a tub?

As for using chrisamirault's technique to end food battles, I guess I'd have to start serving dessert routinely. Which I don't, and certainly wouldn't consider using it as a bribe.

[Carrot Top]

Therese's tale about kids prompted me to share some research on food and children. I run a preschool and kindergarten in Providence RI, and we have to deal with adult (teacher and parent/caretaker) food issues all the time. But having done a bit of digging, we found out the following (which I paraphrase here for brevity), which has enabled us to focus on the way that our culture imposes all sorts of screwed-up meanings on consumption. 

To state some obvious things: Kids control how much, if any, goes in, of any given thing. (They also control what comes out, but I'll save that for eLowerGI.) Unless you're commited to treating a child like a non-California goose, you can't force a kid to eat, or force her to eat things you want her to eat. Such impossible-to-enforce efforts just degenerate into the sort of battle from which eating disorders, among other things, grow. And, within this logic, using dessert as a bribe is a really counter-productive way to coerce a child to eat -- and to learn how to hate what he's eating on the way to the dessert. That is to say, it just continues the power struggle, instead of transcending it.

To transcend the power struggle, you need to ignore the things you can't control and pay attention to the things that you can control: what can be eaten, when it can be eaten, and how much is enough. This enables you to assert power while away from the table, and to avoid asserting power while at the table -- a crucial bait-and-switch that works wonders with the under-7 crowd.

If you take those things seriously, there's some pretty compelling research that says that three short weeks will get your kid eating healthy meals. Here are the rules:

(0) The first rule is that there are no consumption rules. You can have rules about passing things, or taking a few first and having more later, but the kid's consumption is entirely in her hands. This rule is titanically hard for many parents, raised on the idea of well-rounded meals, to accept.

(1) Choose whatever food you want. You want dessert, fine. Kid won't eat broccoli, so what. Gotta have chicken fingers, sure thing. Cook it up, plate/bowl it, and that's the night's meal.

(2) Put out all of the food that everyone will eat "family style," that is, in containers from which everyone serves themselves. This includes dessert, if you're having it; everything's on the table from the start of the meal (eating savory first and sweet last is controlling consumption). Make sure there's enough for everyone but not so much that you each get six supersized portions.

(3) Eat, and let the kid eat. Kid eats three slices of cake, go for it. Kid smears cake on her face and hands and makes a goofy smile, you ignore it. Kid tries to egg you on by pointing out that she's just eating slices of cake, you don't bite: "Yeah, we're not going to talk about food rules at the table any more." Just eat your broccoli and chill out, all the while marvelling at this miraculous process.

(4) Reinforce later, placing all of the control in the kid's hands. "Wow, you're hungry, huh? I'm not surprised. It's probably because you just ate three slices of cake for dinner. I guess you should remember that tomorrow. I'll remind you." Demonstrate repeatedly that you don't care a rat's ass if the kid does or doesn't eat. And remember: one night's empty stomach is a lesson for a lifetime, so don't worry if junior refuses to eat a thing; you'll have what we call a "teachable moment" around the breakfast table.

(5) Repeat for three weeks.

By the end of this span, about 80-90% of all kids will have given up the power struggle around food and will be gladly trying new stuff, talking about it, and generally eating well. Of course, if you only serve food that is good for them, then they'll have to eat well to survive, won't they? 

We've transformed our entire preschool/kindergarten using this method, with kids from a wide variety of backgrounds and with radically different eating cultures. I'm not kiddin'. It really works.

←

Great stuff, chrisamirault. My children have been brought up with most of this in place since the beginning (but for the fact that I just can't take the sight of TOO much chocolate cake on the face and will send the do-er off to get cleaned up! but I understand the initial issue here is not food but the control interaction between child and parent...the constant power struggle....that if once engaged in, increases! - P.S. I am searching for a 'tired', very tired, smilie face here but find none -)

In my opinion, I've seen the idea you present work, both here and the few times I've seen someone try to take the time to implement it in schools. Problem is, often there is not a lot of supervision while the children are eating 'nowadays' in the way of being at table together.

I actually see more kids being put on diets by their parents who are also on the same diets. Which seems to last about a week or two.

It is really sad and rather stunning, this nationwide obesity problem. But as you stated about children, it is the same with adults. They also have control over what goes in their mouths.

And there is certainly enough education out there. But of course it is often conflicting, too. And then the human mind wants to go for the 'quick fix' and I can't say that that helps either...does it? Is there a 'quick fix'...for lots of real problems?

jgm brought to attention the fact that many Americans have forgotten how to cook. In my children's schools I see this every day, when I go to volunteer or offer a cooking class that interacts with the curriculum. The most recent experience that I had was with a group of forty-two 6th Grade students of whom only twelve had ever held an ear of fresh corn in their hands in their entire eleven years on this earth, to shuck it.

This is serious disconnection from food, from the earth that produces it, and finally from real and good, tastes.

Food feeds us in many ways and lots of these ways are ephemeral. There is a sense of reality...a sense of connectedness...a sense of worth and of pride...that comes from good tasting food fresh from the earth and not from a can or a box. This has been lost, here...now...to a lot of people.

Of course the final problem in all this is even finding decent, full-tasting fruit, veggies, even meats and poultry in the average grocery store. But that's another whole issue, isn't it.

[Chris Amirault]

As for using chrisamirault's technique to end food battles, I guess I'd have to start serving dessert routinely. Which I don't, and certainly wouldn't consider using it as a bribe.

←

No, you don't have to serve dessert to do this. In fact, it's much easier without dessert. You just treat food as food, whether sweet or savory.

Also, the comments about gender and eating are fascinating!!

[therese]

No, you don't have to serve dessert to do this. In fact, it's much easier without dessert. You just treat food as food, whether sweet or savory.

Whew, that's a relief. We'll be doing without the chicken fingers as well.

[Chris Amirault]

Great stuff, chrisamirault.

←

Thanks!!

jgm brought to attention the fact that many Americans have forgotten how to cook. In my children's schools I see this every day, when I go to volunteer or offer a cooking class that interacts with the curriculum. The most recent experience that I had was with a group of forty-two 6th Grade students of whom only twelve had ever held an ear of fresh corn in their hands in their entire eleven years on this earth, to shuck it.

This is serious disconnection from food, from the earth that produces it, and finally from real and good, tastes.

←

Yes, I think that that's right on the money. We do an enormous amount of cooking here at Brown/Fox Point, and the kids regularly make things that they eat. Some are sweets (cookies, etc.) but many are other food items that become part of their meals, especially in winter. One teacher makes johnnycakes every third Friday or so, which fills the building with that amazing RI aroma.

So the kids learn about the work of making food, and the ways that food changes when cooked, and what ingredients are and what heat does -- all of which contribute not only to their knowledge of food but to their understanding of math, science, collaboration, you name it.

I daresay that this experience is unusual... which is a sad thing.

[phaelon56]

I, on the other hand (while agreeing with many points in this intersting piece) believe that the American obsession with dieting (and the related guilt involved with dining)has more to do with the fact that most Americans just eat too much of everything and believe that's how it should be, as opposed to eating smaller portions of anything that crosses their plate, as much of the rest of the world does.

I definitely want to return to my regularly scheduled program. Heck... I was raised Catholic - guilt is not something I've ever found to be in short supply but I don't need it in regards to my food. I just don't think that many of us active in these forums are a representative cross-sampling of eating attitudes in America.

My mother has a cool little list of aphorisms on her refrigerator door that come from some ancient Chinese sage. The one in particular that sticks with me and really works (when I remember to observe it) is "Eat slowly and stop eating when you feel 2/3 full". It's remarkable how well it works and it's totally unrelated to portion size.

[laurenmilan]

Yikes!  When I saw those photos in the NYT article, one illustrating "The French Way" to eat chocolate cake and the other, "The American way" I was struck with the clear lack of understanding whatsoever that the author of the article has about the way the French approach food.  I can positively say I have never seen anyone pick at their food and leave it uneaten in such a manner - it's considered crass. 

LOL, thanks for clearing up the myth regarding French women's dining habits. OK, so maybe they ARE obsessive after all, but at least effectively so, I'll give them that.

One never sees a person obsessed with cleanliness who's slovenly, or a person obsessed with organization with a cluttered house. But the number of overweight or even obese people that are obsessed with health, dieting and fitness in the US is legion (yes, I've been lectured by a 300+ lb diabetic about my sugar intake, among other intriguing experiences. Really wears down one's patience.)

From the examples on this thread, I'm guessing the corrected stereotype would be: a French woman generally eats with gusto in public, then goes home and eats steamed fish and vegetables for the rest of the week... the American woman eats steamed fish and vegatables in public, then goes home and sprays Reddi-Whip in her mouth (with gusto!)

For what it's worth, the Europeans I mentioned not leaving a crumb on their plates: 5 Swedes and 1 Dane.

Edited November 3, 2004 by laurenmilan (log)

[bleudauvergne]

From the examples on this thread, I'm guessing the corrected stereotype would be: a French woman generally eats with gusto in public, then goes home and eats steamed fish and vegetables for the rest of the week... the American woman eats steamed fish and vegatables in public, then goes home and sprays Reddi-Whip in her mouth (with gusto!)

←

Yep, that's about right.

[TheFoodTutor]

And so we get to the crux of it all.  It's not about food.  Food just happens to be how the real problem manifests itself.  The problem, in a word, is consumerism  propelled by guilt and disatisfaction. 

Diets aren't about food or losing weight ... they're about buying diet food.  Ask the Atkins folks. 

←

I agree with your consumerism suggestion, and that really is the case, but I'll disagree with the comment about diets. There have been lots and lots of fad diets that have been about selling books, not food, and generally selling an idea. In the case of the late Dr. Atkins, I've read his books and I genuinely think that he started his movement based on a desire to improve the health of the people who would follow his plan. And he was ridiculed by much of his profession, dietitians and the general public for well over 20 years for it. In the earlier years, he lamented the fact that there weren't enough people interested in low-carb eating for there to be a market for things like low-carb ice cream, but that the grocery store shelves were filled with low fat ice creams. I find it supremely ironic that much of the overwhelming popularity of the diet has happened since his death, and he hasn't been able to see this success.

And I agree with Fat Guy that trend watchers the world over saw this coming long before the specific article mentioned in the New York Times Magazine. I, myself, wrote about it on the Internet as much as 7 years ago and who am I? Basically nobody.

And the general conclusion of the article is also wrong. Many of you who are upper-middle-class and above, or who travel in educated circles, see lots of women who seem to be afraid of food, so they just pick at a small salad and totally shun dessert. But I see plenty of grossly overweight people who aren't the slightest bit afraid of fat, carbs, calories, chemicals or genetically modified anything. I wait on them every day, my friends. There is no shortage of people who are not afraid to ask for as many as 6 sides of dressing for a single salad. And that's the salad they're having before getting a huge steak with a loaded baked potato, and bring extra "loaded" on the side, please and thank you.

That's just the segment of the population I wait on, however. The one thing they do seem scared of is food that hasn't had the living daylights cooked out of it. Make that extra-extra-well-done, thanks. Burn the crap out of it.

[NulloModo]

I agree with FoodTutor here. In the end, managing one's weight just comes down to a matter of personal responsibility. When I was grossly obese, it was because I didn't care what I ate. I ate anything that tasted good, and huge portions of all of it, thus I became very very fat. When I started actually looking at what I was eating, and cutting out certain things, and finding a regimen that worked for me, I was able to lose the pounds and regain a normal body size - anyone can do it, it just takes some willpower and sacrifice. Food and eating can be a passion, and is a passion for many of us, but any passion can quickly become a vice. Those who overindulge in drugs, sex, alcohol, etc also eventually have to pay the piper. In the end cheesesteaks and cocaine likely aren't all that different, won't kill you in moderation, but if desires are left unchecked, you will eventually have hell to pay.

[Susan in FL]

It is not possible to eat out as much as we do, and maintain a decent weight, unless we're blessed with an amazing metabolism. Our national obesity and all of our other food quirks will subside substantially if we learn how to cook a few decent meals.

I agree with most of this, and especially agree with NulloModo about personal responsibility; however, I want to add the factor of exercise and physical activity to being able to eat a lot, out or at home. Many of us who are not blessed with an amazing metabolism (I'm one of those not blessed) can eat a lot of food because of including workouts, walking or running, swimming, whatever into the lifestyle.

[Fat Guy]

I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, but I also believe in being right. Some things are clearly matters of personal choice, other things are clearly determined by external factors, some are a combination of the two, and some are of unknown origin. We do a grave disservice to everyone if we assume something is a matter of choice for everyone when there is no proof one way or the other.

We used to think that people who were depressed should just exercise personal responsibility and stop being depressed -- that they should choose to be happy. Now we know that most depression can't be addressed that way. Some people respond to psychoanalysis or to the "just choose to be happy" approach, but not many. We now have better scientific knowledge that tells us fairly conclusively that people who are depressed have a disease and need medicine to cure it -- that it isn't their choice, that it's most likely a chemical imbalance or physical condition that is in turn most likely genetic.

So let's not tell fat people "just choose to be thin" until we have a similar level of knowledge. Because right now we don't. We know there are a few people who choose to be thin and it works. We also know that 90+ percent of fat people say they really want to be thin but can't seem to make it work. Whether that is a simple matter of choice or a more complex combination of genetics, chemistry, and limited choice is still an open question. We have some good scientists -- not a majority, but then again science isn't democratic -- saying that weight is no more a matter of choice for most people than height. I'd rather see that question left open, not as an excuse but as a realistic acknowledgment of the possibilities.