Alice Waters attacks obesity

[MarketStEl]

The problem is not diet.  Never has been, and never was.

The difference between us now, and our parents then, is much more a difference of activity level.  Our parents never had the number cars we have, nor computers, nor telephones, nor e-mail.  Very few had riding lawnmowers.  And, a 6 block walk somewhere was not out of the question.  Elevators?  Hah!

So, what do we do?  We say, "why are we fat?"  In comes a stuffy labcoated nudnik who says, "well, fat is the long-term calorie storage molecule of the human body.  Calories eaten but not used are stored as fat."  So, what do we process that to mean?  Eat fewer calories.

The answer is and always should be "get more active".  Reducing calories does have its benefits, but sending the metabolism into starvation mode is not the correct answer to providing for adequate health.  Studies show that exercise helps protect neurological function into old age.  Exercise helps bolster the immune system.  Exercise reduces blood pressure and heart rate.  Exercise attenuates hunger.  Exercise moderates glucose, insulin, and serotonin levels.  Exercise helps maintain healthy skin and bone density.

Yes, I understand that proper nutrition is a part of this.  But, our physiology has been tuned over millions of years through feast times and famine times.  So, I'm betting that it can handle it, provided we do the maintenance exercise.

If 10 year old Sally or Johnny are fat, it's much more likely to be because they are sedentary than anything else.  So, send them out to build some permanent muscle mass, don't cut off their Oreos--even if they are the food of the debbil.  I assure you, it'll work.

←

I knew that sooner or later, we would eventually wind up in the "Do The Suburbs Make You Fat?" part of this argument.

This, in case you haven't heard of it, is the latest calf added to the herd of scapegoats for the obesity epidemic. This blame exercise argues that the physical arrangement of suburbia, with its strict segregation of uses and street systems designed so that it is all but impossible to walk from your house anywhere but to a neighbor's, has contributed to the obesity epidemic, and there are now studies floating around out there that show a correlation between lower residential density and increased incidence of obesity or overweight.

I'm sure that the lay of the suburban landscape does nothing to help matters any, but I also suspect that its contribution to the overall problem is a marginal one.

jsolomon has probably identified a culprit we don't talk about that much: namely, the engineering of exertion out of our lives. All those labor-saving devices have worked as intended--and if our level of physical exertion has gone down thanks to these devices, which I suspect it has, but our calorie intake remains the same as before, well, you do the math.

However, the "the suburbs make you fat" argument is not totally specious insofar as it points to a policy and/or planning decision that could help contribute to a counter-trend: namely, engineering opportunities for exertion back into our lives. We've--well, I've--occasionally chuckled about the folks who drive to the gym in order to ride the stationary bike there: Why not ride a real bike around your community instead? Or ride that bike to the gym and use another piece of equipment once there? If walking to the store is impractical because the street pattern in your subdivision requires you to walk for about a half-mile to the entrance, then another quarter-mile along a main road to reach a convenience store whose rear you can see from your back yard (or could if the fence weren't there), then you won't walk there.

(Of course, the short as-the-crow-flies walk really doesn't do much for your physical condition, while the three-quarter-mile walk in each direction might have a little benefit, but we will lay this inconvenient fact aside for now.)

The short of it is, as jsolomon said, we need to put some more physical work back into our lives. The easiest way to do it is to make it part of our other routines instead of separating it into its own sphere. But that might be a lot more difficult now than we might imagine or than it was even two decades ago.

[jsolomon]

jsolomon has probably identified a culprit we don't talk about that much:  namely, the engineering of exertion out of our lives. All those labor-saving devices have worked as intended--and if our level of physical exertion has gone down thanks to these devices, which I suspect it has, but our calorie intake remains the same as before, well, you do the math.

←

It's funny that you couch the argument in those terms. Quite simply, I can ride my bicycle to work in a shorter time than it took me to commute, park, and walk to my lab on campus. The two best parts: no gridlock ever stops me as I'm all of 3 feet wide; I get porn star parking, 10 feet from the door. When I wasn't working in pharmaceuticals, I could park my bike in my office.

The only social problem with this, is a bicycle is seen as a child's toy, not a valid commuting device. But, by cutting 10 minutes each way off of my commute, I get over 60 minutes each day of high quality exercise.

Here's the really big kicker. I also save hundreds a month on gasoline and parking. If I didn't own a car, I would also save on insurance and loan payments. I still am waiting for someone to tell me how I, or anyone attempting this lose, even if they only do it during 4 or 5 nice months out of the year.

All of this in a "modern" city. I ride from one old edge of town through areas planned and built over the span of 100 years, to downtown, another old area. I go through residential, industrial, and commercial space. The only difference is that I have made the choice not to make excuses.

Edit to add food content: and because of it, I eat what I want when I want. I still don't lose. Mmmm...bacon... Yes, I'm cajoling more of you to try it.

Edited March 2, 2006 by jsolomon (log)

[JohnL]

I'll get out my dictionary, js. 

We'll soon discover who is responsible for all this grinding, won't we.

Sigh.

←

Gee we "solved" the obesity problem and now we are

going after poverty!?

I would find a discussion of political/economic systems a bit

hard to stomach here at eGullet--you know--hard to swallow!

Really--IMOP--this isn't the proper forum.

but that's just me!

[Carrot Top]

I will go back and delete all the posts I wrote that touched on it, John L.

[Carrot Top]

But of course that still leaves all the posts that speak indirectly of poverty or whatever causes it as one of the many different potential root causes of obesity in our culture, doesn't it.

And it leaves in any discussion above of the poor and how they do cope or do not cope, too - with obesity in their particular situation - and it leaves in whatever attitudes one has towards them.

Edited March 2, 2006 by Carrot Top (log)

[halloweencat]

it's not just exercise, and i don't think lack of activity is the +main+ problem for obesity, 'tho it seems to be a +major+ cause.

obesity certainly seems to have a lot of pressing factors. lack of activity is one, but diet is absolutely another major component.

i have worked out 5-7 times a week for about 20 years. hard exercise, strenuous dance (very strenuous dance), running, nordic track, the ellipse, for 45 minutes to an hour. it really worked wonders on my body and my mind.

however my weight still seemed to fluctuate inexplicably within a narrow band. during all these excercise years i've never been overweight and have ranged from slim to fit. but the regular up-and-downs of weight (invisible to others, probably, but noticable to me because, well, it's my body) were very fustrating.

i am not a starvation eater. the caloric intake wasn't the problem. in fact, i seemed to watch my diet much more closely than others (i certainly worked out a heck of a lot more). i don't drink alcohol. i don't eat a lot of crap (cookies, doughnuts are like once in a blue moon -- i'll buy a box of doughnuts maybe once or twice a year, eat two and throw the rest out -- and when i eat those two, i'll eat a quarter or half at a time, because that satisfies, that's enough).

i don't eat fast food, breakfast cereals, pasta, red meat and have mostly been vegetarian and vegan. i am an extremely healthy eater, if you examine my choices. i don't overdo healthy food (like peanut butter and nuts). i don't like or eat jelly (lots of sugar). i drink perhaps 5-10 cups of coffee year, and 90% of that is decaffeinated. i drink +lots+ of water. i don't drink any soda.

i'm also not a fad dieter, which is why i was unfamiliar with the science behind the south beach diet. i thought that with a name like that, it had to be that infomercial ilk. but reducing certain kinds of carbs has had a +definite+ effect.

i had already cut out pasta (which i love), but when i stopped eating processed foods that had high degrees of corn syrup in them (a lot of breads have it), when i stopped eating certain types of carbs, when i really monitored my sugar intake, and started eating lower on the glycemic index scale, there was a definite effect, and i became slimmer than i had been. i didn't drink a lot of juice (occasionally would buy orange juice and then have a few glasses during the day). cutting out/down orange juice also was a significant factor.

while i was engaging in the new dietary choices, i remembered a pediatrician's conversation with my mother, years back. he told her that my triglycerides were high. i know i didn't know what that meant, and i'm pretty sure my mother didn't either. i was healthy in every other way, so it seemed nothing to cause concern.

different people process foods differently. it seems that mine does not process these types of carbs well. i have never been even close to obese and probably never will be. in my adult life i have always been athletic and strong and health-concious. but while i was following very general guidelines that were good, there was something that i had missed that was particular to my physiology. i'm glad i'm better informed now. if i had another person's physiology perhaps i'd be model-thin, from all the exercise i do and the general diet i keep.

btw, re the people not biking places...i've biked places (to work, to school, etc.), but i'm very reluctant to bike now. traffic is always a potential threat (at least around here). i've been hit by a speeding car as a pedestrian. i don't want to press my luck any further. i happen to be close enough to my gym that i can walk, but not everyone is. and i will take my car when its cold or rainy.

cheers -

[Timh]

The higher on economic ladder at least have the options of healthier diets and gym memberships, and various exercise classes. Those on the lower end of the scale don't always have the opportunities. I remember the absurdity of any of the benefits I was asked to participate in(one of many I did) for the local organisations helping the poor. I never saw any of these poor people there in attendance, not a single recipe i've ever seen was indicative of what might actually be in their meager pantry(White bread, canned fruits and veges, processed meats, snacks and beverages) That's what is stocked at their local markets and thats what they buy, Ain't no Whole Foods or Trader Joes in the projects.

[FabulousFoodBabe]

I wonder how depressed that woman was, that she couldn't do a simple thing that she knew in her heart was better for her kid.  Makes me very sad. Doing a little something in the kitchen together probably  made her feel like just one more demand on her time.

←

However badly I feel for this person, it doesn't erase the fact that she was well aware that she should and could be doing better for her kid. and herself. Suing McDonald's or Nabisco when her daughter winds up obese should not be an option.

[JohnL]

But of course that still leaves all the posts that speak indirectly of poverty or whatever causes it as one of the many different potential root causes of obesity in our culture, doesn't it.

And it leaves in any discussion above of the poor and how they do cope or do not cope, too - with obesity in their particular situation - and it leaves in whatever attitudes one has towards them.

←

Gee--I didn't mean you should delete anything.

(that is really up to you and the managers here at eGullet).

I just felt that if we veer off into a political discussion we would be

off on a tangent that is really somewhat off topic.

There is no question that hunger and poverty are huge political issues.

Any discussion would include some reference but this thread was initially

dealing with a solution that is education and food and nutrition oriented.

In truth I really believe that looking for political causes of hunger and poverty

is a discussion with much debate that leaves the realm of food and nutrition and

becomes better suited for a forum on politics and political theory.

I think we would all agree that no system is perfect--unfortunately poverty and hunger

have been existent under many different political/economic system.

...and leave it at that.

As for programs like the Alice Waters effort, I believe that these local community based

initiatives are really the way to go in targeting issues like obesity because most importantly

they involve motivated people getting together and devising solutions that work for their community and their communities socio- economic situations whatever that is rich, poor etc.

Whatever the root cause of obesity--IMOP--human behavior can be most easily changed by people's understanding the problem and then "wanting" to change.

Education and motivation.

We need to have compassion here but there also must be an element of "tough love."

In most circumstances people with motivation can do amazing things in the face of

adversity.

I am sure one could come up with a list of reasons why Alice Waters would not succeed

where others with more money and power had failed (sure Alice had some money and some power but I could list many many other community programs started by local people without "big" names).

she believed in what she is doing and moved forward. obviously the community is with her.

as for the kids Alice is working with--who here would argue that regardless of their social status or economic situation now or in the future, these kids will have a much better chance to grow up to be better more healthy persons and better parents.

(at least most of them).

[Carrot Top]

It wasn't me that first mentioned politics, JohnL. My initial post spoke of my feelings about the lives of those who live in long-term poverty, and it was a response to an earlier post that had been made by someone.

But it is my new resolution to stay away from saying anything at all that would upset anyone.

Might last five minutes, that resolution.

Edited March 3, 2006 by Carrot Top (log)

[Patrick S]

The higher on economic ladder at least have the options of healthier diets and gym memberships, and various exercise classes.

←

More money means more food options, sure, but for the vast majority of people there are plenty of low-cost healthy food options. As the USDA/ERS report I cited earlier pointed out, the average person in or near poverty can purchase all their recommended fruit and vegetables with only 16% of their food dollar. And in any event, if the problem we are trying to address is obesity (rather than nutritional deficiency), its not even 100% necessary to change the types of foods you buy eat -- whatever you choose to eat, just eat less of it. It never costs more to eat less. And while gym memberships and (some) exercise classes cost money, there are a million forms of exercise that cost nothing at all, and don't even require you to leave the house.

[jsolomon]

The higher on economic ladder at least have the options ...gym memberships, and various exercise classes. Those on the lower end of the scale don't always have the opportunities.

←

I don't think you need a gym membership or to take an exercise class to exercise. What is most helpful is having an exercise buddy, or buddies. Simply having someone who relies on you to exercise (usually mutual reliance) can be a great motivator.

But, all walking takes is feet, and most people happen to grow those. How fortunate.

Now, I'm all for giving people experience in food, food choosing, and food procurement, but on the other side of the coin, how many people who are pathologically obese really care about who Alice Waters is or give much credence to her credentials? My fat brother couldn't care less. But to have someone show him or his wife or his kids, would be very helpful.

But, you have to get people when they're accessible to new ideas, and it's rare that a project comes across to do that.

[JohnL]

The higher on economic ladder at least have the options of healthier diets and gym memberships, and various exercise classes. Those on the lower end of the scale don't always have the opportunities. I remember the absurdity of any of the benefits I was asked to participate in(one of many I did) for the local organisations helping the poor. I never saw any of these poor people there in attendance, not a single recipe i've ever seen was indicative of what might actually be in their meager pantry(White bread, canned fruits and veges, processed meats, snacks and beverages) That's what is stocked at their local markets and thats what they buy, Ain't no Whole Foods or Trader Joes in the projects.

←

Tim

As noted earlier in this thread--I believe PatrickS posted some stats.

The fastest growing segment of the population for obesity are people with moderate to high incomes.

So please explain this if income is a major causal factor in obesity.

The notion that one needs money to access a gym in order to exercise is absurd.

In fact--I would argue that people who live in inner cities have more playgrounds and athletic fields available for free. Also--historically, kids in big cities "invented" their own games--stickball, stoop ball, hand ball etc that made use of streets and buildings/walls.

What about walking--(not to speak of running)?

To say that one needs access to a gym, personal trainers, and IBEX machines to exercise is what I believe is too often fodder for an excuse.

It is arguable that exercise is more important than diet.

I would also argue that any person (save for a few exceptions) regardless of income status who does not want to be obese and is motivated will be able to balance their diet and exercise to at least have some control over their weight.

It isn't poor folks who are stuffing their faces at all you can eat buffets in Vegas or on cruise ships.--it is unmotivated people who have little self control.

As for the food issue-it is not really food we are talking about it is eating. We (all income levels) are eating too much-- good food or bad--we eat all day long--if everyone would eat less (fewer calories) of what they are currently eating things would start to improve. whether it is MacDonald's supersized meals or lobster poached in butter! fries at Burger King or pommes frites at Balthazar.

So first--education is important which leads to motivation and good choices.

that's why we are seeing a decrease in smoking and why the Alice waters approach is a good one.

I go back to the example I used earlier: In "Supersize Me" two inner city kids who are thin and appear to be in very good physical shape--they are certainly not obese --are interviewed. They say they eat at fast food restaurants a lot.

The key--they exercise!

If we continue to look for excuses for ourselves and worse--for others--then we will constantly wallow in intellectual debate or worse ill advised programs costing a lot of money that do not work.

Finally, availability of good quality food and diversity of items (choices) will improve because there is a market for these things. It has less to do with income than with demand. Witness that many of our poorest neighborhoods are rife with great food. Chinatowns, Little Italy's, latin neighborhoods--so why is there any obesity problem in many of these neighborhoods?

There are many neighborhoods where the choices are few and far between but forcing the issue will not work IMOP--just because something is available does not mean people will choose it.

farmer's markets and inner city gardens are not growing exponentially because the farmers are forcing us to buy fresh lettuce or people in cities are suddenly deciding to take up gardening as a hobby.

When people are ready to change their diets--the food will be there in most cases.

[Angela Alaimo]

Here's a newsflash--this story suggests people are fat because they like to eat and don't like to exercise! Shock and awe!

Fat 'N Happy!

[JohnL]

Here's a newsflash--this story suggests people are fat because they like to eat and don't like to exercise!  Shock and awe! 

Fat 'N Happy!

←

Great stuff!

thanks

Just goes to show you--it's all about human nature and we are all human regarldess of race, creed or socio economic status!

also at the bottom of the Yahoo page is a link to a piece:

from the Guardian (UK)

entitled:

"Japanese Grab Girdles as Obesity Crisis Looms"

priceless!

It also reminds me of a bit by Richard Jenni who

did a late nite infomercial touting his new guaranteed to work diet tape.

no not a VHS cassette--Scotch tape!

"you put it over your mouth to keep the ring dings out!"

[Patrick S]

What's more remarkable is that there seems to be a decline in concern about nutrition. This page discusses survey data from the Food Marketing Institute and NDP Group showing that the percentage of people who say they try to limit their calories actually declined significantly during the 90's. In the NDP Group's 1998 survey, only 29% of the respondants said they limit snacking, down from 41% in 1990.

[lperry]

Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this discussion. I originally posted the article because it came on the heels of my surprise in a department store when I saw a "junior plus" clothing section. It seems to me that addressing obesity in children is more important than in adults because children have less control over what they eat.

I don't know the answer(s) to what is such a complicated health issue, but I do believe that Alice Waters is genuinely trying to help in the best way she knows. I hope more people take it up in their communities.

[MarketStEl]

The higher on economic ladder at least have the options of healthier diets and gym memberships, and various exercise classes. Those on the lower end of the scale don't always have the opportunities. I remember the absurdity of any of the benefits I was asked to participate in(one of many I did) for the local organisations helping the poor. I never saw any of these poor people there in attendance, not a single recipe i've ever seen was indicative of what might actually be in their meager pantry(White bread, canned fruits and veges, processed meats, snacks and beverages) That's what is stocked at their local markets and thats what they buy, Ain't no Whole Foods or Trader Joes in the projects.

←

Tim

As noted earlier in this thread--I believe PatrickS posted some stats.

The fastest growing segment of the population for obesity are people with moderate to high incomes.

So please explain this if income is a major causal factor in obesity.

←

From what followed this, I'm sure you do not believe that it is, but it's still worth passing on this old saying among social scientists:

"Correlation is not causation."

Historically, there has been a strong correlation between income and obesity. But just as the rapid rise in out-of-wedlock births among white teenagers about a decade ago diminished the correlation between race and out-of-wedlock births, so this statistic that you cite will diminish the correlation between income and obesity.

I think we can all agree on the base causal factor. It hasn't changed in centuries:

Calories in > calories burned = weight gain; gain enough weight and you become obese.

What we are arguing over is not the cause of obesity, but the contributing factors that might lead people to consume more than they burn or expend less physical energy than they used to.

And yes, one contributing factor is biological: Most people's metabolism slows down as they get older. This is why the phenomenon used to be called "middle-age spread."

But that indeed does not explain the rise in childhood obesity. A bunch of factors contribute to that, all of which have been mentioned here already.

And to freely adapt Voltaire: Modern mores and marketing, in their infinite majesty, encourage the rich as well as the poor to stuff themselves full of junk food, veg out in front of the television and surf the Internet for recreation instead of exercise.

[Angela Alaimo]

JohnL,

The Japanese and girdle-grabbing caught my attention, because I had a Japanese roommate (boarding school) when I was a Senior in high school and she got really fat (sorry, but she did) the year she was in this country. Simply, she liked the food offered more than she could exercise off. I, OTOH, will forever be indebted to her for my love of Hello Kitty stuff.

[Angela Alaimo]

PS: I would suggest to all that the rise in Childhood Obesity is directly linked to no one does the "go outside and play" any longer. Call it it's too scarey outside or too much gaming technology inside, but I have kids and they never played outside the way I did, even at my encouragement.

Kids just don't "go outside and play" the way we used to. And that is to their sorrow.

[Timh]

The higher on economic ladder at least have the options of healthier diets and gym memberships, and various exercise classes. Those on the lower end of the scale don't always have the opportunities. I remember the absurdity of any of the benefits I was asked to participate in(one of many I did) for the local organisations helping the poor. I never saw any of these poor people there in attendance, not a single recipe i've ever seen was indicative of what might actually be in their meager pantry(White bread, canned fruits and veges, processed meats, snacks and beverages) That's what is stocked at their local markets and thats what they buy, Ain't no Whole Foods or Trader Joes in the projects.

←

Tim

As noted earlier in this thread--I believe PatrickS posted some stats.

The fastest growing segment of the population for obesity are people with moderate to high incomes.

So please explain this if income is a major causal factor in obesity.

The notion that one needs money to access a gym in order to exercise is absurd.

In fact--I would argue that people who live in inner cities have more playgrounds and athletic fields available for free. Also--historically, kids in big cities "invented" their own games--stickball, stoop ball, hand ball etc that made use of streets and buildings/walls.

What about walking--(not to speak of running)?

To say that one needs access to a gym, personal trainers, and IBEX machines to exercise is what I believe is too often fodder for an excuse.

It is arguable that exercise is more important than diet.

I would also argue that any person (save for a few exceptions) regardless of income status who does not want to be obese and is motivated will be able to balance their diet and exercise to at least have some control over their weight.

It isn't poor folks who are stuffing their faces at all you can eat buffets in Vegas or on cruise ships.--it is unmotivated people who have little self control.

As for the food issue-it is not really food we are talking about it is eating. We (all income levels) are eating too much-- good food or bad--we eat all day long--if everyone would eat less (fewer calories) of what they are currently eating things would start to improve. whether it is MacDonald's supersized meals or lobster poached in butter! fries at Burger King or pommes frites at Balthazar.

So first--education is important which leads to motivation and good choices.

that's why we are seeing a decrease in smoking and why the Alice waters approach is a good one.

I go back to the example I used earlier: In "Supersize Me" two inner city kids who are thin and appear to be in very good physical shape--they are certainly not obese --are interviewed. They say they eat at fast food restaurants a lot.

The key--they exercise!

If we continue to look for excuses for ourselves and worse--for others--then we will constantly wallow in intellectual debate or worse ill advised programs costing a lot of money that do not work.

Finally, availability of good quality food and diversity of items (choices) will improve because there is a market for these things. It has less to do with income than with demand. Witness that many of our poorest neighborhoods are rife with great food. Chinatowns, Little Italy's, latin neighborhoods--so why is there any obesity problem in many of these neighborhoods?

There are many neighborhoods where the choices are few and far between but forcing the issue will not work IMOP--just because something is available does not mean people will choose it.

farmer's markets and inner city gardens are not growing exponentially because the farmers are forcing us to buy fresh lettuce or people in cities are suddenly deciding to take up gardening as a hobby.

When people are ready to change their diets--the food will be there in most cases.

←

I don't argue the point of lack of exercise for either the wealthy or poor. That fact crosses all economic lines. My point was that the poor don't have the opportunities that the middle and upper classes have(generally speaking). So then concerning nutrition, your example of great restaurants in ethnic neighborhoods means what? Can the dishwasher afford to eat in these places regularly? Would that be adviseable? I agree that education is the key, but then social and ethnic habits will almost always trump what ever the new shape of nutrition diagrams take. Poor people will buy what is cheap and what gives them satisfaction first, The last thing I think they are thinking about is achieving proper proprtions of the pyramid.

[Timh]

At one point when I was living in New Orleans and during conversations with a local SOS activist, I proposed the radical idea of creating cafeterias in each project development, the same as any college. The benefits would be resident involvement, job training, consistent nutritional meals, potential reduction in food stamp expense, etc...