Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Former Secretary of Torture to Obama: Dude, I thought you were cool Previous entry: Instapundit Is Russell Simmons

Rationalization and the “health aura”

FoodHealth Care

I’ve been sitting on this link for a bit, but I’m shaking out because it’s interesting—-researchers found that putting a salad on a menu make people more, not less, likely to order fries.  The working theory is that the mere presence of a salad gives people permission to eat the less healthy food (which is still technically a vegetable, which I suspect is their rationale, and has been mine before). From the NY Times coverage:

“When you consider the healthy option, you say, well, I could have that option,” said Keith Wilcox, a doctoral candidate at Baruch College who is one of the paper’s four authors. “That lowers your guard, leading to self-indulgent behavior.”

This research is going into consumer marketing publications, which should alarm anyone, since obviously the takeaway message for fast food places is to put more salads on their menu, with the realization they don’t have to pony that much for the lettuce because they’ll be moving that many more fries.  This study found that students who saw the salad on the menu were three times as likely to order fries, a number which should make anyone from McDonald’s or Burger King perk right up.  Of course, a lot of these places already knew this.  I was reading blogs and books last night while idly looking over at the basketball game on TV, and I noticed that most of the fast food ads showed a lot more healthy food on the screen than you could get in the restaurant.  The idea is clearly to make people think of their restaurants as a place where you get balanced meals instead of just junk food.  And you may go in intending to get some fresh vegetables, but by the time you order, most people will cave and get the fries.  And perhaps they’ll be more likely to with a salad on the menu.

This perked up my interest, because the standard diet (not dieting, which is a temporary restriction that people take on to lose weight at a rapid pace, and rarely works to keep the weight off, because they just return to old eating habits when they go back) advice from the nutritional experts has been simple in theory, if difficult in practice: complex carbohydrates, lots of vegetables and fruit, some protein (but less than most people think), restrict your exposure to HCF and refined sugar to “only on rare occasions, like when it’s a wedding and there’s cake”, and don’t drink your calories.  Diabetics obviously have a different diet, but this is standard for most everyone else.  But the calorie-drinking thing is, probably because the cola industry is so invested in it, a bit contentious.  While most research shows that calories you drink don’t register against your hunger and are therefore empty in every sense of the word, there was also a study that came out that was widely publicized (because it was a combination of being counter intuitive and what people want to hear—-a surefire media sensation) that said that people who switch to diet sodas often gain weight.


I’ve heard some unlikely theories as to why this must be so, the most popular being that diet sodas don’t satisfy, so you eat more to compensate.  Unfortunately, this is true of calorie-heavy drinks, which is why they say don’t drink your calories. The researchers didn’t rule out that sodas may prompt hunger, but while that’s a more pleasing theory, the psychological one makes more sense.

But why would diet soda make some people gain weight? There are only theories at this point but it may be as simple as people consciously eating more because they think they can.

Khristianne Corro says, “If I’m having one of those pig out days, then yeah, I figure maybe it’ll balance it out a little bit.”

And Tomczak says, “I’m drinking the diet soda and you know let me have that hamburger and fries, instead of just the hamburger alone.”

This research that shows that making people just think about a salad makes them more likely to order fries, because they adopt that “health aura”.  Imagine what actually drinking the diet soda does.  Obviously, there needs to be more research, but this particular study points to the rationalization model as the most likely reason for the effect.  What’s interesting is that if they do more research on this, they’ll probably learn a lot about rationalization alongside eating habits.

This is all very interesting, but the question is, what do we do about it?  On an individual level, the sad truth is that eating in more helps tremendously, especially if you plan your meals, shop when you’re not hungry (and therefore when you’re less tempted by fat-and-sugar-heavy foods), and make an effort to follow the nutritional guidelines.  But individual solutions only do so much, as I’m sure you all know.  I tend to think stricter labeling laws should apply in restaurants—-if your restaurant takes in over X amount of revenue per year, you should be required to prominently display the calorie information (and perhaps a couple of other relevant items, like fiber and whether there’s refined sugar or HCFs in the item) next to the item itself on the menu.  Putting it in a brochure that someone has to work to get won’t do, because few people are willing to puncture their rationalizations to look it up.  (I say this as someone who is guilty as hell of this.)  This will have a twofold benefit.  First of all, the numbers could discourage people from doing things like thinking, “I’m having a Diet Coke, so I can order the large fries.”  Second of all, it could drive business to smaller competitors.  Let’s face it—-people don’t usually enjoy knowing how many calories they’re consuming, and many will go out of their way not to know.  Which means that small, local restaurants who aren’t hit by the law could benefit by taking all the people who aren’t in the mood to go to Applebee’s and find out how much they’re actually eating. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:26 AM • (149) Comments

That’s the “standard diet” for sedentary people who drive their cars everywhere, including the gym three times a week.  I lose weight on 2500 calories a day - it doesn’t have to all be nutritious if you burn off a lot through daily activity like walking 2-4 miles or cycling 16 miles and coaching a soccer practice on top of it.

Comment #1: Ms Kate  on  04/20  at  11:33 AM

Oh, and don’t any of these “wow what are all of these stupid fatties thinking???” hypothesizers bothering to ask anybody about their choices?  Like, I don’t see anyone saying “I’m in a fast food restaurant and I’m not here to get a salad - I get those elsewhere”, and none of this “research” seems to be based on any actual research where they ask people themselves.

Comment #2: Ms Kate  on  04/20  at  11:37 AM

Anyone who’s ever worked in a movie theater has seen this first hand. People will order large popcorns, demand insane amounts of “butter”*, often complaining if you don’t put on ‘enough”, and then top the whole thing off with a diet pop. We tend to laugh about this later on. Do they really think that diet is going to make a difference?!


In our case, at least, the “butter” is actually artificially flavored soy-bean oil. I don’t know if that’s comparativly better or worse (or the same) as real butter, but either way most people think it’s real.

Comment #3: Ruby  on  04/20  at  11:40 AM

Getting accurate calorie information from restaurants is just about impossible unless it’s one of those restaurants with absolute regimens for the preparation of the food (think McDonald’s, but probably not even a huge chain such as Olive Garden.)  Just look at bacon and pancakes, for an easy example.  If the griddle is greasy, the pancakes will absorb some of that (and the griddle is almost always greasy.)  How greasy is the griddle?  How do you like your bacon cooked?  Do you like it soggy or crisp?  Is it a fatty slice?  The answer in regard to calories is: it all depends.  Also, one cook might make lighter pancakes than another, or bigger pancakes, or whatever.  On other foods, putting a napkin on top of that greasy slice of pizza takes away how many calories? changing the salad dressing from vinagrette to ranch equals what exactly? and how much is used?  I’m all for an informed public, but eating out shouldn’t involve an Excel spreadsheet to determine what should be ordered.  That’s about what it would take, so I’ll stick to the old-fashioned idea of eating until I’m not hungry and being okay with myself for not clearing the plate.  Some calorie information is helpful, but I take all of the listings with the grain of (added) sodium (that is put in to change the composition of the food to make it qualify as “low-fat”.)

Comment #4: 3letterjon  on  04/20  at  11:45 AM

You know how you have the six-piece nuggets? Can you give me just four nuggets? I’m trying to watch my calorie intake.
And can I have a JUNIOR Western Bacon Cheeseburger.  I’m trying to watch my figure.
And I’m gonna go with a filet of fish sandwich, since that has less calories ‘cause it’s fish.
Now if you could take a Coca-cola and just go half Coca-cola, half Diet Coke, because I’m trying to watch my figure. Gotta lose some of the weight.
And a SMALL chocolate shake ‘cause I’m trying to watch my figure. Also a SMALL seasoned curlies.

Comment #5: Cris  on  04/20  at  11:46 AM

Like, I don’t see anyone saying “I’m in a fast food restaurant and I’m not here to get a salad - I get those elsewhere”, and none of this “research” seems to be based on any actual research where they ask people themselves.

THIS.  It’s not like people are forced to eat at fast food restaurants, they are convenient and easier than bringing a lunch if you’re a slow-riser, but no one forces you to go to Micky Ds.  It is a choice.

You know, the kids like McDonald’s, and when there are good toys, we go.  As they are otherwise skinny and healthy kids, I don’t worry about it.

Sometimes the adults get food there, too.  I usually get a salad, but they put their chicken on it and I don’t think it’s really any healthier than their sandwiches.  And their salads aren’t very good, as far as salads go.

If I wanted a good salad, I’d make it at home.  When I eat at McDonald’s, I’m getting fries.  That’s the best thing they have.

Comment #6: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/20  at  11:47 AM

Eating in is pretty much the best way to go if you can find a place that sells decent produce (and meat, fish, and/or poultry if so inclined).  That way you control exactly what goes into the meal.

Comment #7: Richard Goblin  on  04/20  at  11:47 AM

That’s the “standard diet” for sedentary people who drive their cars everywhere, including the gym three times a week. 

No, that’s how you’re supposed to eat if you’re really active.  You may have to eat more, but exercise doesn’t move your bowels along.  And I exercise, but I still don’t feel good if I eat sugar.

Comment #8: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  11:51 AM

While I think that judgment (fair or unfair) has a lot to do with why these studies get publicized, the driving force behind a lot of them is an interest in public health.*

That said, to clarify something Ms Kate alluded to, the study was specifically designed to account for the fact that some people went to the restaurants intending to get unhealthy food and some did not.  The result shows that _all things being equal_, people will choose more unhealthy options when there are options perceived as healthy on the menu.  In fact, the first thing researchers have to do in these kinds of studies is to take intention out of the equation, by finding ways to control for it (most likely in this case by giving two sufficiently large samples of people similar menus, some with salads and some without).

On the other hand, I am a firm believer in the “not adding insult to injury” philosophy when drinking diet soda; I know what I’m eating is horrible for me, and I also know that sugary soda is horrible for me.  Since I don’t love sugary soda, but I do love fried food, I’ll eat the fried food (or popcorn, or whatever) and wash it down with a Coke Zero.  I can see, however, how someone who really loves sugary soda might do the whole unconscious rationalization thing and eat more bad food “in exchange for” drinking diet soda.

* I personally know people who are involved in this kind of research, and they are in no way driven by hate of “fatties”.

Comment #9: Dave Fried  on  04/20  at  11:52 AM

Ms Kate: No kidding. If I go to McDonald’s, I’m not looking for a salad because a) I came to get a Filet O’Fish and b) McDonald’s salads are pretty gross, and the Filet O’Fish, while objectively also gross, is comfort food to me.

Similarly, I order diet soda even when I’m eating some sort of gut-busting Ball O’Fat with a sugarbowl on the side because…I drink diet soda. I don’t know anyone who switches back and forth based on what they’re eating - people either drink diet and don’t drink the regular stuff, or they drink sugared soda and don’t drink the diet. I’m sure this games out very well in a controlled environment, but it doesn’t seem that applicable to the real world.

Comment #10: magistera  on  04/20  at  11:52 AM

Oh, and don’t any of these “wow what are all of these stupid fatties thinking???” hypothesizers bothering to ask anybody about their choices?

They did!  They asked people about how diet sodas influence their choices, right there in the article.  I was expecting someone to dismiss the real life experiences of people who are interviewed as “anecdotal”, but really, they did ask them.  It is, in fact, anecdotal, but I think these folks have a pretty good handle on what their eating habits are like.  It’s definitely a good stepping stone to refine research.

Comment #11: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  11:53 AM

Getting accurate calorie information from restaurants is just about impossible unless it’s one of those restaurants with absolute regimens for the preparation of the food (think McDonald’s, but probably not even a huge chain such as Olive Garden.)

Yep, that’s why I suggest the law should use revenue as a marker of who is big enough to be required.  It’s obviously too big a burden for people who can’t afford to have their menus analyzed.

Comment #12: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  11:54 AM

Offered as antidotal information only and thus not intended as “proof” or “evidence” but when I stopped drinking diet coke all the time, I noticed that I was way less hungry in the afternoons. I have read that some artificial sweetners have demonstrated increased appetite in test subjects, but I’m too lazy to go find the reference right now (its Monday, so I’m only allowed to procrastinate a little at work—the ratio of work to screwing around progresses throughout the week, but if I start heavy on Monday’s, its all over for the entire week).

So, in terms of the diet soda bit, I gotta say its probably mixed between psychological “permission” to eat more and actual chemical interactions (in some subjects, if not just me). The salad, thing, I think that it reminds us that we “should be doing good” (aka eating well), but the whole iceberg lettuce is way less tasty than the burger/fries.

Honestly, I think its best to avoid fast food for the politics of it* (if you can), let alone the health concerns.

*See Fast Food Nation, Hope’s Edge, Super Size Me, or anything Pollan.

Comment #13: Thealogian  on  04/20  at  11:57 AM

Oops, misspelled anecdotal, sorry!

Comment #14: Thealogian  on  04/20  at  12:00 PM

The thing that bugs me the most about not having the calorie info available (and some fast food chains do!) is that foods which might be relatively healthy at one place (or when made at home) might be loaded with calories at another.  Salads are some of the worst offenders, as are variations on the grilled chicken sandwich.

I tend to feel crummy if I eat too much rich food, especially when I’m traveling, since that’s when I’m most likely to eat out multiple times in a day.  A lot of the time, after one not-so-healty meal, I’ll try to pick something off the menu that’s not going to make me sick, but it’s a total crapshoot.  If there was nutritional info readily available at least I could make an educated guess as to what to order.

Comment #15: Dave Fried  on  04/20  at  12:01 PM

Yeah, I drink diet soda whatever I eat.  It’s just such a habit for me and I hate the way sugary drinks make me feel.  If I was ordering a beer, I’d probably eat the same. 

But when you’re talking about people who switch, which is what the study was interested in, you find an interesting bout of rationalization.  The existence of rationalization is not controversial in psychology, and so the “I’m being good by drinking diet like my doctor said, so I can have the large fries” mentality fits in with other research that’s been done. 

Part of the problem is characterizing some foods with a framework of morality instead of health.  People think “bad” and “good”, and not “too many empty calories for my health”, which is a better way to think about it.  And when it comes to morality, people tend to think of life as a ledger.  You do a bad, you make up for it with a good.  The karma thing, the balancing the scales, etc.  But you need to think of your body as a machine—-nutrients in, output out.  I know that sounds degrading, but it’s a reminder that you the person are defined by something other than your body, and your body is something you own that’s in service of your self.

Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  12:02 PM

also know that sugary soda is horrible for me

Not as bad as corn syrupy soda - corn syrup being the sweetening agent of choice in US soda.  I started cooking a few years ago because I got sick of corn syrup being in almost every damn item of processed food.

Comment #17: Richard Goblin  on  04/20  at  12:04 PM

I think there may be a few people who switch between diet soda and the regular kind, but most get usded to the taste of one or the other. Of course, then they also get used to the bias in their mental arithmetic.

I alternative between soda and juice, and there I have to make a very specific pause to recognize that a big glass of fruit juice, even thoroughly watered, is another 100-200 calories on top of everything else. (It’s sort of a double whammy, because I have the smug glow of having guzzled something full of vitamins and anti-oxidants, so I feel I should be able to eat at least another slice of cheese toast when in fact I should eat a slice less…)

Comment #18: paul  on  04/20  at  12:04 PM

From one of the linked articles:

““You know, much the same as when we went through the fat free craze, people overate – not because there was anything wrong with the products, but they overate,” says Rogers, the nutritionist. “So we’re wondering are we seeing a similar phenomenon with the diet soda.”“

You know, I remember the ‘fat-free craze.’ My mom bought a lot of that stuff.  Having read the nutrition labels on most of the products while trying to figure out why they all tasted so damned weird, I’d have to say that it’s bullshit to say there wasn’t anything wrong with the products and that it very well may not have had a goddamned thing to do with people overeating because of a ‘zomg fat-free!’ response.  They loaded those products up with so much processed sugar* to cover the funky taste of the fat-substitutes that most of them had about the same amount of calories as the regular stuff.

*And sodium.  Oh, god, the sodium content of those foods.  I’ve seen salt-licks with less sodium content than a box of fat-free cookies.

Comment #19: preying mantis  on  04/20  at  12:05 PM

Ruby, the soybean oil is way better for them than the real thing:

According to USDA figures, one tablespoon of butter (14 grams/0.5 ounces) contains 420 kilojoules (100 kcal), all from fat, 11 grams (0.4 oz) of fat, of which 7 grams (0.25 oz) are saturated fat, and 30 milligrams (0.46 gr) of cholesterol.[32] <u>In other words, butter consists mostly of saturated fat and is a significant source of dietary cholesterol.</u>

When I had the same job, we used a product that contained coconut oil, which is one of the worse kind of vegetable oil on account of it being mostly saturated fat.

Comment #20: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  04/20  at  12:14 PM

When I said “sugary soda” I was definitely referring to HFCS-loaded stuff.  The actually sugar-filled sugary soda in Central America and Europe is much more palatable - and satisfying.

And to the list of complaints about “low fat” foods… anything that wasn’t fat-free was loaded with trans fats as well as HFCS.  I actually have a theory that the recent upswing in abdominal obesity (you see a lot of teens and college kids who are otherwise pretty thin but who sport a sizable gut) is due to the glut of HFCS- and trans-fat-loaded “diet” foods we all stuffed ourselves with in the ‘90s.

At least when you’re eating real fat, (a) it fills you up, and (b) your body has a chance to process and store it normally, instead of cramming it all in your liver and viscera.

Comment #21: Dave Fried  on  04/20  at  12:15 PM

I don’t know anyone who switches back and forth based on what they’re eating - people either drink diet and don’t drink the regular stuff, or they drink sugared soda and don’t drink the diet.

This is, I think, not beside the point.  How many people switch to diet soda and change what they order from the McDonald’s menu, and how many just switch their soda and call it “healthy”?  Diet soda is no more “healthy” than regular soda, but people have this weird illusion that it’s better for you.

I’m getting ready to go on a crusade against artificial sweeteners because it creeps me the fuck out that they’re now putting them in kids’ drinks, and the only way you’ll know is if you read the label all the way to the end.  Seriously, WTF?

Comment #22: Mnemosyne  on  04/20  at  12:17 PM

The fat-free thing is a lot more troubling than the diet soda effect, because fat actually does go a long way to making you feel you ate something.  Plus, they load up a lot of “fat-free” foods with sugar.  Which just means you run up the sugar scale and then crash, and then you’ll probably eat something more to compensate for the sugar crash. 

There’s no substitute for flipping a product over and reading the nutritional information.  The biggies are calories and fiber grams.  Getting enough fiber is really hard to do, and you have to work at it.

Comment #23: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  12:19 PM

don’t drink your calories

I assumed this meant beer and whisky.  But soda?  I can’t think of anyone I know who drinks soda regularly, except as a mixer.

Comment #24: BABH  on  04/20  at  12:21 PM

Said product was for popping the corn, we probably used the same ‘butter’ topping smile

Comment #25: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  04/20  at  12:22 PM

Offered as antidotal information only and thus not intended as “proof” or “evidence” but when I stopped drinking diet coke all the time, I noticed that I was way less hungry in the afternoons.

THIS.
And yes to the “fat-free”, “Atkins” and other diet crazes.
I’m a baker but I also work out 5 days a week (1 1/2 - 2 hours each day- the benefits of not having kids!) and take the bus/walk to work, etc. etc.
I think that I’m getting better at balancing out my diet and my exercise levels as well as dropping “foods” that have made me feel like crap. (sodas of any kind- I like fizzy water a LOT more than I ever have before- Talking Rain FTW)
If I want a cookie, banana bread or cake I make a batch eat what I want- maybe save a few and take the rest in to work. It’s a good way to get points w/ co-workers, bosses, etc. when what you’r really doing is getting rid of the rest so it’s not sitting around your house. It’s not something that one tends to do with say a bag of Oreos or Doritos.
I think that the French way of eating is an inspiration. They ENJOY the food they eat and don’t guilt themselves over having the good stuff. A big part is also learning to make it for yourself and/or finding a good enough bakery, espresso place.
Sorry- bit of a ramble!

Comment #26: Danica Lefse Queen  on  04/20  at  12:23 PM

BABH, there are a lot of people who drink 2-3 sugar sodas a day, and some who drink even more.  I had a friend who probably drank half a dozen every day, and he switched (permanently) to diet drinks, lost a bunch of weight, and became a workout nut.  Of course, he’s an outlier by any measure, but the point is that some people drink a whole lot of soda.

Comment #27: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  12:24 PM

“I don’t know anyone who switches back and forth based on what they’re eating - people either drink diet and don’t drink the regular stuff, or they drink sugared soda and don’t drink the diet.”

I don’t either, but this wouldn’t be the first practice to sound completely alien to me and then turn out to be commonplace among dieters, so….

“Diet soda is no more “healthy” than regular soda, but people have this weird illusion that it’s better for you.”

The weird illusion that something with no caloric value and negligible negative effects is comparatively better than the regular version with, what, 45 grams of HFCS per 12 oz. can?  What a strange notion.

Comment #28: preying mantis  on  04/20  at  12:31 PM

Amanda, I’m always confused as to why it’s so “expensive” to do nutrition counts. There are calorie counting books everywhere. Plenty of people who for whatever reason don’t trust their natural satiety indicators analyze the recipes they cook every day. Unless everyone in your kitchen’s computer-illiterate, I just don’t understand why it would be so hard to do something more or less good-enough with a morning on nutritiondata.com, assuming the restaurant has recipes written down somewhere. Of course that doesn’t take into account the guy who puts twice the butter on everything or how stingy the line servers actually are with the sliced cucumbers, but it’s more then nothing, yes?

Comment #29: purpleshoes  on  04/20  at  12:38 PM

A diet heavy in HCFs has been linked strongly to diabetes.  A diet heavy in artificial sweeteners has been weakly linked to cancer.  If you want to play it very safe, you would only drink water, but yeah, I don’t think they’re equivalent.  Both kinds of soda are linked to loss of bone density.

Comment #30: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  12:38 PM

Also, I don’t switch between diet and regular, I water down restaurant soda half and half with water.

Comment #31: purpleshoes  on  04/20  at  12:47 PM

Amanda:  I know, and I guess I did know people who drank a lot of soda in college.  (Come to think of it, a 2-liter Mountain Dew was my way of pulling all-nighters when term papers were due.)  It’s just not really part of my culture.  My family and friends mostly drink water.  How strange to find that I belong to a sub-culture I wasn’t really aware of!

Comment #32: BABH  on  04/20  at  12:51 PM

What Caren said: I’d be more than happy to order a salad from McDonalds if the lettuce wasn’t brown.

It would be interesting to see studies on what early childhood intake of HFCS does to a person’s metabolism later in life, even if they cut out HFCS from their diet.

Comment #33: Mighty Ponygirl  on  04/20  at  01:08 PM

I just don’t understand why it would be so hard to do something more or less good-enough with a morning on nutritiondata.com, assuming the restaurant has recipes written down somewhere.

Suppose your best cook just came over from Shanghai, doesn’t speak a word of English, and doesn’t trust you putting in his recipes into a computer database because “the white devils want to steal everything good from us, and we’ll end up with nothing but Jackie Chan”?

Just saying.

Comment #34: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  04/20  at  01:13 PM

When Coke became popular in the first half of the Twentieth Century, the typical portion size was a 6 or 7 fl. oz. bottle. Now we have the 64 oz. Big Gulp. Ingesting ten times the amount of “sugar” contained in a normal portion makes no sense at all.

If you don’t want artificial sweeteners, I suggest drinking 6 oz. of Coke, and chasing it with two liters of plain water.

Comment #35: Hector B.  on  04/20  at  01:19 PM

The weird illusion that something with no caloric value and negligible negative effects is comparatively better than the regular version with, what, 45 grams of HFCS per 12 oz. can?  What a strange notion.

Yes, how odd that people might think that artificial sweeteners that make them feel sick and give them headaches might be worse for them than HFCS that at worst makes them feel a little wired.  I guess they should just accept that they’re imagining any bad effects from Splenda and Nutrasweet and keep drinking it to make you feel better about it.

Comment #36: Mnemosyne  on  04/20  at  01:30 PM

Of course, back in the day Coca-Cola also contained that very effective diet aid, cocaine.  Coca-Cola still contains extracts of the coca leaf (for flavor only, these days).  Its supplier is the only authorized importer of coca leaves in the United States.

Comment #37: BABH  on  04/20  at  01:32 PM

A few years back, I made the decision to totally cut fast food out of my diet.  About 3 weeks into this lifestyle change, it was my birthday, so I totally indulged in my old habits… and felt like shit.  Which made me realize that I felt like shit very often after meals in my old diet, and didn’t really feel like that now.  What I had presumed was me having a poor digestive system (like much of my genetically unhealthy family) was just the effects of eating like crap.  That was a huge eye-opener.

A few years later, quite proud of my new ways, a friend pointed out “for someone who tries to eat healthy, you drink an awful lot of soda.”  Which was true.  Even though I was making my own meals or eating at healthy-ish restaurants, I was still drinking 2-5 sodas a day.  Breaking that was reeaaally hard.  I took one huge jump and cut down to one soda a day, drinking lots of green tea to fight caffiene withdrawal.  Then one diet soda a day.  Then just the green tea.  I lost weight pretty quickly after that, and generally felt calmer, without the caffiene and sugar.  Then, unfortunately, I started to treat myself to those desert-like coffee drinks every now and then.  Then daily.  Then I had to make a new effort to get off mochas.  Mission mostly accomplished.  Dammit.

Not sure what I’m trying to say here.  I guess as a guy who’s not really a young man any more, I see that what you eat is not only about health or weight, but about how you actually feel from hour to hour.  You don’t always feel the changes right away (it took me weeks to notice that my new non-burger/pizza diet was making me feel better), but it’s significant.  It’s stupid that it took me so long to figure this out, but some people have to learn things the hard way.

Comment #38: Jake  on  04/20  at  01:34 PM

“You may have to eat more, but exercise doesn’t move your bowels along.”


Actually, it does.  (Though your point is taken about fiber.)

Comment #39: rowmyboat  on  04/20  at  01:44 PM

Yes, the French do enjoy their food.  Some of that enjoyment manifests as eating smaller portions of very good food.  They also, until recently, smoked cigarettes rather a lot; I vaguely recall hearing that as the French anti-smoking campaigns became more effective, average weight increased.  Nicotine is an outstanding appetite suppressant.

Comment #40: kaninchen  on  04/20  at  01:44 PM

Mnemosyne,

Regarding those kids drinks, I knew it!  The school I work at has those, and I drank one the other day because I ran out of tea.  I knew from the first taste that it had artificial sugar in it, but couldn’t tell for sure because the ingredients weren’t printed on the pouch.

Comment #41: laterose  on  04/20  at  01:55 PM

Point taken, row, but if you don’t eat your fiber, exercise can only do so much. 

Jake, I hear you.  I don’t know if it’s psychological or what, but I find the older I get, the more impact eating right has on how I feel on an hour-by-hour basis.  Over time, it’s actually managed to move my preferences to a point where heavy, greasy food isn’t as tasty as it used to be.

Comment #42: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  01:58 PM

“A diet heavy in HCFs has been linked strongly to diabetes.  A diet heavy in artificial sweeteners has been weakly linked to cancer.  If you want to play it very safe, you would only drink water, but yeah, I don’t think they’re equivalent.  Both kinds of soda are linked to loss of bone density.”

There’s someone in my office who genuinely HATES the taste of water, but luckily, I like it. Since going off the diet coke, I started making iced tea (really, iced infusions like Red Zinger or this True Blueberry tea from Celestial Seasonings) by making 8 cups of hot tea, letting the bags stay in the water until it cools, then combining it in a pitcher with 8oz of juice (like cranberry or similar) and then adding a bit of stevia (liquid extract, not that powdered crap that they are calling truvia) and its great when I want something to “taste” other than water. If I want a caffeine kick, I mix green tea (though I brew that for only 3-4 minutes).

Now, when I’m out with my colleagues at a restaurant in the small southern town I work in (outside of the city I live in), the town’s water tastes disgusting, so I’ll get diet coke because I do do that gamble Amanda mentioned above about cancer vs real calories in coke. I used to get nervous if I didn’t have diet coke in the house and I felt slightly dependent on the stuff and I hate that feeling, so detoxing from the diet coke and now being able to have it occasionally when situations dictate is much better than before. But, I gotta say, I do notice the spike in hunger when I have the diet coke, so I think that at least for me, the crap has consequences as a habit that I’m not willing to pay. Though, I don’t want to be some sort of convert/food police of others.

Comment #43: Thealogian  on  04/20  at  02:00 PM

Wow!  In 2003, the US consumed 46 gallons of soda per capita.  After correcting for infants, old people, and weirdos like me, that means that the average soda-drinker drinks more than a gallon of soda a week.  I don’t go through that much milk!

Comment #44: BABH  on  04/20  at  02:01 PM

Somebody probably already said this but, Michael Pollan’s five rules ought to be memorized along with the pledge of alliance.  From the simple “Eat food.  Not too much.  Mostly plants.” which I love, he ends (IIRC) in these main five:
 
1) Don’t eat anything your great-grand mother wouldn’t have recognized as food.  (squirtable cheese, sprayable oil, margarine, splenda, nutrition bars are all in this category)
2) Don’t eat anything that makes a health claim on the box. (like light, low calorie, sugar free, AHA approved)
3) Don’t eat any processed food that lists more then five ingredients on the box.
4) Don’t eat anything with HFCS in it.
5) Don’t eat anything with ingredients you can’t pronounce.

I really loved In Defense of Food, and he had all these other really helpful tips that we’ve all heard before, like “Try not to eat alone”, “Eat in season”.  I think sticking to these guidelines helped my husband, who is a fit guy in his thirties with a cholesterol heredity, lower his cholesterol without losing any weight.  And this might be TMI, but our farts stopped stinking.  smile

Comment #45: raspberryjamba  on  04/20  at  02:02 PM

Of course, I realize another useful policy thing they could do is change the subsidy structure.  The reason fast food places push HCF-laden food, hamburgers and french fries is that those foods are so cheap.

Comment #46: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  02:04 PM

“THIS.  It’s not like people are forced to eat at fast food restaurants, they are convenient and easier than bringing a lunch if you’re a slow-riser, but no one forces you to go to Micky Ds.  It is a choice.”

This is not true.  I go on tour every year, we visit a lot of states and cities.  Sometimes we can only eat at fast food restaurants, therefore, by the end of the tour we are each 12 lbs heavier.

What makes me angry is that a lot of times you will go in a McDonald’s to have their salad, and they DON’T HAVE IT.  They advertise it so you will go in there, but then they don’t stock it.  Don’t carry it.  And it is not just McDonald’s.  This has happened to s so many times, I wonder if it is throwing off the numbers on those studies.  How many of the people scrounged up the will-power to order salad only to be told that they don’t have it?

Comment #47: raspberryjamba  on  04/20  at  02:09 PM

Pollan’s list is great, but for a lot of people, it would double the amount of money that goes to food, and that’s a serious problem.  Still, there are ways around the expense.  Frozen and canned vegetables aren’t as great as fresh, but they will do and they are inexpensive.  I was spending way too much on fresh tomatoes, so I’m experimenting with canned in a lot of stuff I would throw fresh tomatoes on.

Comment #48: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  02:10 PM

“[...] it’s a reminder that you the person are defined by something other than your body, and your body is something you own that’s in service of your self.”

Very much this.

The best way to somplify one’s relationship with food, and avoid the need for rationalisation and self-delusion along the way, is to realise that you are in control of your appetite and not the other way around. Some of this is to do with reducing sugar to avoid insulin spikes, eating more fibre etc.; but the main body of work is in the initial paradigm shift.

Comment #49: MarinaS  on  04/20  at  02:13 PM

“But you need to think of your body as a machine—-nutrients in, output out.  I know that sounds degrading, but it’s a reminder that you the person are defined by something other than your body, and your body is something you own that’s in service of your self.”

I think this is wrong.  I can’t quite put my finger on it, but these feels like the wrong thing to think when one is thinking about eating.  The food is more than the sum of nutrients and most people derive a whole lot of pleasure from eating.  Thinking a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, or even a gram of fiber is a gram of fiber is a gram of fiber doesn’t seem like a healthy thing to think.

Comment #50: raspberryjamba  on  04/20  at  02:19 PM

“Yes, how odd that people might think that artificial sweeteners that make them feel sick and give them headaches might be worse for them than HFCS that at worst makes them feel a little wired.”

You’re conflating individual with general, though.  When you say “people,” I have to assume you’re not talking about just Leslie Johanson of Delray Beach, FL, for whom a Diet Coke is a guaranteed trip to Migrainesville.  Artificial sweeteners giving people headaches or making them feel sick is not anything even close to a universal.  Hell, for most individuals, it’s not even a problem with “artificial sweeteners”—it’s a problem with aspartame or sucralose or saccharine.  People who routinely drink regular soda having some issue with HFCS, if only from the massive added caloric intake, is far, far, far more common. 

“I guess they should just accept that they’re imagining any bad effects from Splenda and Nutrasweet and keep drinking it to make you feel better about it.”

If we’re going to extrapolate general advice from me personally, I’d have to say that they’re just imagining any bad effects from aspartame, and that both HFCS and Splenda are of the devil.  I would not, however, really recommend anybody do that.

Comment #51: preying mantis  on  04/20  at  02:19 PM

Once per semester, I get exasperated with every single student having some kind of awful “diet” beverage sitting on their desks. I collect the drinks and read the ingredients out loud and ask whether anyone knows what that particular substance is. Since my field doesn’t get a lot of chem majors crossing over, nobody ever does. But I spent a couple of hours looking up the most common ones once, and can tell them just what awful crap all those artificial sweeteners are and what they do to young bodies. Then, once somebody whines “But I liiiike it!” we get into corporate marketing, collusion between conservative governments and corporations, the HFCS story, the dreadfulness of bottled water, how much the beverages cost, etc.

It has nothing to do with what I’m supposed to teach, but I often get remarks on student evaluations that that particular class was one that opened their eyes. Maybe 20% of students change their habits significantly, but that’s more than I would have expected before I started doing it. The trick is to suggest alternatives: there are lots of impoverished college students out there, and when you do some basic arithmetic and show how they can save themselves a couple of hundred bucks every semester, a lot of them figure out that keeping a plastic bag full of herbal tea bags in their backpack and using the drinking fountain is both healthier and cheaper, once they wean themselves from the sweet habit.

Comment #52: felagund  on  04/20  at  02:19 PM

Hey, Cris, don’t knock the “bad foods in smaller portions” method.  If you are somebody who really loves curly fries with a chocolate shake, you will have a lot more diet/health improvement success letting yourself have a small order once a week, rather than telling yourself you will never eat it again, avoiding it successfully for a while, then splurging on a giant order and being disgusted with yourself, feeling like crap for a day, falling off the wagon and taking weeks to get back on, then starting over with the same cycle and never really getting anywhere.

And if you are a frequent consumer of fast food and don’t feel ready to really quit, you could probably see big improvement over time if you adjusted your regular order to diet soda, small fries and hold the mayo.  It might me a (less than) half-measure, but I bet you could at least stick to it.

Comment #53: GumbyAnne  on  04/20  at  02:28 PM

“There’s no substitute for flipping a product over and reading the nutritional information. “

Buying the things that don’t have the nutritional information on them.  The onions, peppers, potatoes, carrots, lettuces, mushrooms, rice in bulk, apples, oranges, etc.  I mean, a lot of these come in bags with nutritional information now a days, specially if they come in cans, or frozen, but grabbing a box of nutrition bars or fruit punch and scanning the nutritional information should be a last resort.  What they should be doing is push for more and cheaper fresh produce in all neighborhoods.

Comment #54: raspberryjamba  on  04/20  at  02:28 PM

You should all switch from HFCS to honey!

Comment #55: Entomologista  on  04/20  at  02:29 PM

“A few years back, I made the decision to totally cut fast food out of my diet.  About 3 weeks into this lifestyle change, it was my birthday, so I totally indulged in my old habits… and felt like shit.”

This is totally true.  Not to belabor the fart point, but whenever we eat out, the farts start smelling again.  And my husband hasn’t had a migraine since we switched to following the Pollan guidelines (I wonder if this poor guide cringes when he finds out we kinda wrote a diet book).  And it is not that we ate a lot of junk before.  We just quit eating processed things (like breakfast cereals, nutrition bars, even organic Trader Joe’s ready made mushroom ravioli had ingredients we couldn’t pronounce!)

Comment #56: raspberryjamba  on  04/20  at  02:38 PM

I heard of a study a while ago that shows that the fake sweeteners in diet soda make people crave sugar more.  So, ironically, when you drink diet, you’re supposedly more likely to load up on candy, cookies, ice cream, and other sweets.

It does annoy me, however, when people in this country give each other guff over drinking diet while eating pizza, hamburgers and fries, and other junk food.  Like, once you’ve decided to eat junk food, you should just go all out and eat 2,000 calories in one go rather than 1,200.  I think that attitude is far more harmful than any health aura effect.

Comment #57: keshmeshi  on  04/20  at  02:42 PM

1) Don’t eat anything your great-grand mother wouldn’t have recognized as food.  (squirtable cheese, sprayable oil, margarine, splenda, nutrition bars are all in this category)
2) Don’t eat anything that makes a health claim on the box. (like light, low calorie, sugar free, AHA approved)

My problem with this mode of thinking is that it’s far oversimplifying what kinds of “food” was normal in the past. For instance, I love old cookbooks but a lot of the time there will be a recipe in there that calls for something disgusting levitating in pectin. No way in hell am I going to eat that - nor would most people I know. (and the photos of those dishes- put one on your fridge and you’re not going to have much of an appetite for what’s in there unless you avert your eyes)

For more info about how sometimes awful food could be back then read Swindled: The Dark History of Food Fraud, from Poisoned Candy to Counterfeit Coffee: by Bee Wilson. It’s great- very eye opening since most of us know about cocaine and etc. in drinks but to realize the extent that the Swill Milk scandals of the 1800s devastated people’s lives…

Comment #58: Danica Lefse Queen  on  04/20  at  02:45 PM

Gah. Thank FSM for the fatosphere. Looks like there’s nowhere on the progressive blogs one can get away from being shamed and chided for not eating like Michael Fucking Pollan. Let alone not being thin.

Comment #59: Nobody in Particular  on  04/20  at  02:46 PM

Also, the self-righteous self-congratulation in this thread is really making me jones for a bacon double cheeseburger. Y’all sound like fundies patting themselves on the back for having given up masturbation.

Comment #60: Nobody in Particular  on  04/20  at  02:47 PM

“Gah. Thank FSM for the fatosphere. Looks like there’s nowhere on the progressive blogs one can get away from being shamed and chided for not eating like Michael Fucking Pollan. Let alone not being thin.”

Haha.  This made me laugh out loud.  Sorry to have brought up Michael Pollan.

Did Fast Food Nation gave anyone else the sickest McDonald’s craving ever?

Comment #61: raspberryjamba  on  04/20  at  02:51 PM

What makes me angry is that a lot of times you will go in a McDonald’s to have their salad, and they DON’T HAVE IT.

McDonald’s will frequently offer those kinds of “extras” only at specific locations, possibly wherever it’s been tested to sell well.  Those McDonalds along highways in flyover country probably wouldn’t sell many salads if they offered them, so they just don’t put them on the menu.

Comment #62: keshmeshi  on  04/20  at  02:54 PM

I love old cookbooks but a lot of the time there will be a recipe in there that calls for something disgusting levitating in pectin. No way in hell am I going to eat that - nor would most people I know. (and the photos of those dishes- put one on your fridge and you’re not going to have much of an appetite for what’s in there unless you avert your eyes)

Well, that might be an effective way to lose weight.

Aren’t most of those cookbooks from the ‘50s and ‘60s?  That’s not what Pollan’s talking about.

Comment #63: keshmeshi  on  04/20  at  02:56 PM

purple shoes says: Amanda, I’m always confused as to why it’s so “expensive” to do nutrition counts. There are calorie counting books everywhere….Unless everyone in your kitchen’s computer-illiterate, I just don’t understand why it would be so hard to do something more or less good-enough with a morning on nutritiondata.com

When nutrition data is required by law (local, FDA, USDA) companies contract with indepedent labs to develop the data.  First the actual ingredients have to be confirmed, then recipes quantified.  Depending on the complexity, cost can run above $1000 per recipe/product.

Comment #64: CParis  on  04/20  at  03:01 PM

“Those McDonalds along highways in flyover country probably wouldn’t sell many salads if they offered them, so they just don’t put them on the menu.”

But flyover country is where they are desperately needed!  Sometimes the choice is between Greasy Spoons #1, #2 and #3.  Sometimes the best choice is to go into a supermarket and do the dreaded label scan for the best choice of sliced bread and ham and a box of strawberries.  But that kind of dedication doesn’t last 8 weeks.  What if you had to live in those conditions?  Always buying food from stores with nothing fresh?

Comment #65: raspberryjamba  on  04/20  at  03:02 PM

I can’t quite put my finger on it, but these feels like the wrong thing to think when one is thinking about eating.  The food is more than the sum of nutrients and most people derive a whole lot of pleasure from eating.

Well, just because you think of it that way doesn’t mean you can’t have fun, though it’s true that most Americans assume right away that fun is bad for you and the opposite of health.  But exercise works better if you find something to enjoy, and same goes for eating right.  Thinking that being mindful of your body as an organism is the opposite of pleasure is exactly the sort of dichotomized thinking that leads people to just give up.

Comment #66: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  03:07 PM

I eat a lot of “low-fat” or “fat-free” foods.  I read the labels, choose products with no trans fats and low calories.  This works for helping me maintain my weight, because these foods come in preset portion sizes.  Those of us for whom portion size is the main cause of weight gain, and not lack of exercise or generally poor food choices, can really benefit from prepackaged, and yes, processed foods. 

If I had countless hours of free time in which to tend a large garden and not just a container garden, or I had the time to make my own cottage cheese then I’m sure my food choices would be wonderfully label-less, but as it is, I work full-time and go to school.  Grabbing a protein bar, banana, orange, low-fat yogurt, pudding cup and leftover chicken from the night before is pretty much all I have time to do 5 days a week when I’m running to catch the bus to work.  It’s especially a helluva lot better than the large veal parm sub I’d get from the sandwich shop down the street, or the large chicken salad with feta and greek dressing and an oversized pita from a place 500 ft. away.  Or worse:  Anything from Dunkin Donuts that isn’t a liquid.

Irrelevant yet still relevant:  You know what the biggest enemy of a dieter is?  Croutons.  Fuckers are like, a million calories.  Evil.

Comment #67: deep6  on  04/20  at  03:12 PM

Also, the self-righteous self-congratulation in this thread is really making me jones for a bacon double cheeseburger.

I guess I should only write about how smoking is bad for you, because no matter how much I say health is not a moral issue, no one will believe me.

Comment #68: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  03:19 PM

. . . shamed and chided for not eating like Michael Fucking Pollan.  Let alone not being thin.

Damn.

Project much?

True, this isn’t a fat-positive blog, but short of feministing, which is superlative on the subject, I think Amanda does a pretty good job addressing body shaming tactics and how they’re used by the patriarchy.  I’d like to see more on the subject, but this isn’t a one-issue blog.

Comment #69: deep6  on  04/20  at  03:21 PM

If I didn’t eat anything my greatgrandmother wouldn’t recognize as food, I would be eating pork, potatoes, rye bread slathered with butter, sauerkraut, unrecognizable turnips and I’m not sure what else. Although pollan has a point, he either had a different set of greatgrandmothers or is a little in denial about some of the things people used to eat.

Comment #70: paul  on  04/20  at  03:26 PM

Yeah, you know, for some reason, I thought this was a feminist blog. You know, a place to get away from the constant blather about ZOMG OBESITY CRISIS!! and how women should constantly scrutinize how we look. Instead, we’ve got Amanda wanking over teh ebyl fat… oh, and chiding us not to wear schlumpy clothing around the house because it’s so unfair to our partners if we’re not aesthetically pleasing 24/7.

Then again, I live in the Northeast, where there’s no shortage of skinny white feminists with gigantic blind spots due to unacknowledged body (and often economic) privilege.

Give me Molly Ivins any day.

Comment #71: Nobody in Particular  on  04/20  at  03:31 PM

Yeah, but I’ve always been wary of the “calories in, calories out” thing.  I doubt that it is true. 

My sister started calorie counting in high school.  She fainted a couple of times.  She still calorie counts, and is overweight.  My other sister started calorie counting in middle school (I know this because my mom found her calorie counting book, some days she would only have a glass of milk and a mango).  Ten years later, she skips meals, says she has IBS and takes laxatives.  I’ve tried to stay mentally healthy, and not calorie count, or try to calculate the amount of calories burned in exercise, but I still write down my weight every day, I’ve been tracking it for years.  To the decimal point.  I think this shit has got to be a form of crazy.

Comment #72: raspberryjamba  on  04/20  at  03:32 PM

“Those of us for whom portion size is the main cause of weight gain, and not lack of exercise or generally poor food choices, can really benefit from prepackaged, and yes, processed foods.”

This.  I have 3 jobs and my husband has 2 (ain’t that America) and what helps me eat better are things like 100 calorie packs of cookies, individual ounces of cheese, and individual servings of microwavable soups, as well as naturally serving-sized things like oranges and bananas.  I wish I could cook healthy stir frys on brown rice and yummy roasted things all the time but alas, I gotta keep my head above water financially and when I am not working I gotta sleep.

Comment #73: GumbyAnne  on  04/20  at  03:40 PM

“If I didn’t eat anything my greatgrandmother wouldn’t recognize as food, I would be eating pork, potatoes, rye bread slathered with butter, sauerkraut, unrecognizable turnips and I’m not sure what else. Although pollan has a point, he either had a different set of greatgrandmothers or is a little in denial about some of the things people used to eat.”

You’d probably do better with that diet than what Americans usually eat.  You are much better off slathering your bread with butter than with hydrogenated soybean oil.

Comment #74: raspberryjamba  on  04/20  at  03:42 PM

“Frozen and canned vegetables aren’t as great as fresh, but they will do and they are inexpensive.  I was spending way too much on fresh tomatoes, so I’m experimenting with canned in a lot of stuff I would throw fresh tomatoes on. “

Tomatoes are one of the cases where canned can be better…  when you compare a canned tomato to one from the produce section, odds are the canned tomato (a) was riper and in-season when picked, (b) was grown closer to the cannery than fresh tomato was to your grocery, and (c) was bred more for flavor than for appearance and transportability.

Comment #75: Dirty Davey  on  04/20  at  03:42 PM

raspberryjamba:

Yeah, but I’ve always been wary of the “calories in, calories out” thing.  I doubt that it is true.

I have two main issues with that phrase:

1) It reduces the human body to a simplistic GIGO machine, which is both silly in the extreme and wrong to boot.  It doesn’t take into account other factors that influence how the calories get processed - like sickness, PCOS, metabolism differences, class issues, food availability, pre-existing bodily suck that can prevent exercising, and so forth.

2) It’s often used to shame the hell out of fat people.  The phrase itself carries the assumptions from point 1, and so the speaker uses that to say, “...and therefore, if you’re fat, it’s because you’re eating way more than you’re exercising.”  With massive implications of laziness and overeating and suchlike.

Comment #76: XtinaS  on  04/20  at  03:44 PM

I don’t think that just discussing healthier eating automatically equals insensitivity or shaming toward fat people (I am fat myself, for the record).

Comment #77: GumbyAnne  on  04/20  at  03:52 PM

I suddenly wonder if this study would produce the same results in an older test group.  The subjects they used were college students; presumably most were in the 18-22 range.  Your eating habits tend to be fairly unstable at that age, and it’s not like there aren’t plenty of young adults reacting against past parental behavior wrt food choice, portion control, appetite shaming, etc.

Comment #78: preying mantis  on  04/20  at  03:57 PM

But flyover country is where they are desperately needed!  Sometimes the choice is between Greasy Spoons #1, #2 and #3.

Don’t I know it.  I haven’t been on a road trip in years, but you know something’s wrong when Taco Bell is your best option for miles.  But it’s just been my experience that when McDonald’s offers anything other than burgers and fries, it’s usually really limited.  When they first offered a veggie burger, I think they only offered it in Manhattan.  That was ten years ago, and I doubt McD’s veggie burgers are any easier to get.  They could have pulled them entirely for all I know.

Comment #79: keshmeshi  on  04/20  at  04:15 PM

Nobody in Particular - try rereading the post.  It’s about the psychology of food choices, not the obesity crisis.  And overwhelmingly (like all posts about food, health or sex) is filled with comments attesting to personal stories and choices, not fat-shaming or insults.

How can you not see the difference between the attitude of this blog’s writers and, say, your average ABC news special or article in a woman’s mag?

Discussing food and why we eat what we do is NOT anti-feminist.

Comment #80: deep6  on  04/20  at  04:15 PM

Where did I say “OMG OBESITY CRISIS”, Nobody?  I am sticking to what I was told was not controversial—-that diet and exercise are important factors in diabetes and heart disease, and this is true regardless of what’s on the scale.  Do you disagree that diabetes and heart disease are major health problems, or do you disagree that diet and exercise has any relationship to what’s clogging arteries/screwing up pancreases?

Comment #81: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  04:16 PM

I think this is feminist topic for two reasons:

1) Most women I know have very strange relationships with food.  Some talk about it, some don’t, but most of them do strange things.  This food problem is fucking us up in the head, and it’s important to talk about it.

2) It’s the poorest and busiest people who get cheated out of a healthy diet because of government subsidies on HFCS. 

In fact, I think NOT talking about this is more fat shaming.  Not talking involves thinking that the problem is of lazy individuals.  Talking about it involves realizing the common problems that have made it possible for so many people in this very wealthy country to be obese and malnourished all at once.

Comment #82: raspberryjamba  on  04/20  at  04:32 PM

Aren’t most of those cookbooks from the ‘50s and ‘60s?  That’s not what Pollan’s talking about.

No, there was a lot of pecin-type things going on in the late 1800’s cookbook I have too- I chalk that up to having no refrigeration.
Also- LARD.
I might consider using it for pie crusts though I haven’t yet but that’s one of those great-grandmother/grandmother type of ingredients that I could do without. I’m going to stick w/ Crisco (veggie shortening)! smile

Comment #83: Danica Lefse Queen  on  04/20  at  04:32 PM

Taking the ugliness of the “obesity crisis” rhetoric and allowing it to cloud one’s view of diabetes and heart disease prevention is literal suicide.

Comment #84: Auguste  on  04/20  at  04:38 PM

I think the main problem with the whole “calories in/calories” thing is that it sounds so simple, and it’s really, really not. Pollan’s whole “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants,” is really a good idea, but the truth is that most of us have no idea what “too much” really looks like. It’s honestly really hard to eyeball what a normal-sized portion of chicken or fish is. Even if you’re counting calories, your logs are probably going to be inaccurate if you have no idea what a serving size is supposed to look like. Making sure you’re getting all the nutrients you need without exceeding your daily calorie limit takes a lot of practice. I mean it’s really, really not easy. And most people will roll their eyes at you like you’re a self-important twit if you decline another slice of pie or helping of bread pudding. That’s what’s impossible—the pressure on all sides to be thin combined with the social pressure to eat whatever you’re offered. If you happen to be thin but show evidence of having to work at it expect a lot of shit from a lot of people. It’s unfortunate that the issue is this complicated. I’ve been fat and thin and there were lots of moral judgments about my eating at both ends of the spectrum, from all kinds of people, including strangers.

Comment #85: Jenny Dreadful  on  04/20  at  04:41 PM

“I don’t think that just discussing healthier eating automatically equals insensitivity or shaming toward fat people (I am fat myself, for the record).”

The problem is that in our culture the definition of “healthy” has changed dramatically, and is totally arbitrary. This decade it’s low carb, last it was low fat. Regardless, it’s generally at ‘not much.’ And if you’re fat there’s the assumption that you MUST be eating unhealthily, even if you aren’t.

Personally, I’m more in the Michael Pollan school of eating. Which means that I think bacon is pretty healthy, and lean cuisine isn’t.

Amanda, diabetes and heart disease have strong genetic components, occur in the thin as well as fat (1/3 of Type II diabetics are thin, despite popular belief that it’s a fat disease), and as for diabetes the mortality rate is at a historic low and going down, and you’re more likely to survive heart disease if you’re overweight.

It’s really not as simple as diet, at all.

Comment #86: Ashley  on  04/20  at  04:45 PM

Jenny Dreadful, it’s called intuitive eating, and it works. Eat what you want, when you want, how much you want. it takes a few months to deprogram from a lifetime of restricting and counting and all that, but once you do it’s rather simple. I stop eating when I’m full, I eat what I’m craving.

For instance, right now I’m hungry and I want protein. I’ll probably eat some leftover chicken parmesan, maybe with some pesto on it. Do I have any idea what the official recommended serving size of chicken parmesan is? No. Will I stop eating when I’m full? Yes. Now, if I eat more than the official recommended size, maybe it’s because I was hungry. But I’m not going to sit around hungry all the time, all day, no matter what because some board has decided I should only eat x amount, and no more.

And Auguste: “Taking the ugliness of the “obesity crisis” rhetoric and allowing it to cloud one’s view of diabetes and heart disease prevention…” is pretty much impossible. I have PCOS, which has made me officially obese by BMI standards though I’m really not fat. I’m also 8 months pregnant and on metformin, an anti-diabetes drug that works really well for women with PCOS. Despite the fact that I have a 33 inch waist (pre-pregnancy; I currently have no waist), fit into a size 12 or 14, eat and exercise moderately, I literally can’t walk into a doctor’s office without getting yelled at about my weight. I get letters from my insurance about “managing my diabetes” even though I don’t have it, letters from them exhorting me to lose “even 5% of your body weight” WHILE PREGNANT, and told that if I don’t I’ll die of heart disease young, even though there is NO history of heart disease or diabetes in my family. Alcoholism, yes. Alzheimers, yes. Diabetes, no. But I’m treated as a fatty fat fat diabetic because of the rhetoric of the obesity crisis. I’m literally getting substandard and irrelevant medical care/advice because of this. And my health suffered because of it. Until I pushed and pushed ot get an actual diagnosis and treatment, I was routinely dismissed by doctors and told to lose weight. As if that would solve all of my problems. They didn’t ask how i was eating, what I was eating, what my exercise habits were like, how they compared to when I was thinner. They literally just said ‘eat less and exercise more.’

You literally cannot separate the rhetoric from the reality, because the rhetoric has made the reality.

Comment #87: Ashley  on  04/20  at  04:54 PM

Artificial sweeteners giving people headaches or making them feel sick is not anything even close to a universal.

And yet most people I know who used to use them and then stop realize that they feel much better without them and start avoiding them like the plague.  Frankly, I can’t stand the taste of any artificial sweetener—including stevia—and I find it hard to believe that 1 50-calorie tablespoon of sugar is going to kill me faster than Splenda since I don’t have Type I diabetes.

Seriously, people, sugar is not poison.  It’s not going to kill you, no matter what Sugar Busters tries to tell you.

Comment #88: Mnemosyne  on  04/20  at  05:02 PM

<blockquote>I don’t think that just discussing healthier eating automatically equals insensitivity or shaming toward fat people (I am fat myself, for the record). </a>

This.  I didn’t detect anything judgmental in the post or the comments.  (I am fat, my husband is scary thin, neither of us have any body shame issues that we know of.)

Oh, and Danica, you should totally try cooking with lard.  Awesome.

Comment #89: BABH  on  04/20  at  05:08 PM

Do I have any idea what the official recommended serving size of chicken parmesan is? No. Will I stop eating when I’m full? Yes.

I’m glad this works for you, but compulsive overeaters DON’T stop when they’re full.  They keep eating past the point of fullness, the same way alcoholics drink past the point of tipsiness.  The many anxieties expressed through food addiction and compulsive overeating are not properly treated through “intuitive eating”: they require counseling.

Comment #90: deep6  on  04/20  at  05:10 PM

And I’m not armchair diagnosing your food issues as compulsive overeating - from your comments that’s not the issue at all - merely pointing out that the solution you offer is not appropriate for certain kinds of eating disorders, particularly the most common.

Comment #91: deep6  on  04/20  at  05:13 PM

They literally just said ‘eat less and exercise more.’

And yet, ironically, there are some pretty major studies that show that overweight and/or obese people often eat fewer calories than they actually need, which is why simply telling people to “eat less” is in many cases counterproductive.  If you’re already not eating enough and your body is convinced that it’s in famine conditions and needs to hang on to every calorie you do take in, eating even less is going to make things worse.

I do have to say, though, the whole “food density”/Volumetrics fad is the one that seems to make sense, though I’m sure that one will also be shown to be fatally flawed at some point.  Eating a larger portion/volume of lower-calorie foods (like fruits, veggies, lean protein, etc.) does seem to work for a lot of people.

Comment #92: Mnemosyne  on  04/20  at  05:13 PM

@Danica,
I agree with BABH, try using lard.  It is yummier than Crisco and probably better for you than Crisco.

Comment #93: raspberryjamba  on  04/20  at  05:15 PM

You know, I try not to think about my body as a possession, period. I don’t own it. I am it. My brain is the part of my body that does the thinking but it’s made of the same goop as my pancreas when you get right down to it. This is why I hate the “food as fuel” thing: my body is not an engine for carrying my brain around. I am this body which is living this life that I’m living and I only get to be this living body for like seven decades at the outside, so thank you kindly, I will not be subsisting on salad and protein shakes today. I am trying not to put myself in opposition to any of my nerve endings, including the ones in my mouth. Incidentally, when I pay attention to those, they tell me that sucralose is disgusting and HFCS is only occasionally tolerable.

I think women’s issues with food come from the constant pressure to separate their personhood from their bodies and treat their bodies as commodities that can be optimized as tools to carry the person which is hidden somewhere in that commodity to its life goals. Which, I blame the patriarchy, but also I would just plain like to work on not thinking this way.

Comment #94: purpleshoes  on  04/20  at  05:16 PM

I guess you interpreted the post differently than I did, Ashley. I didn’t see Amanda saying that diet is the solution to all our problems-of course genetics will always be a factor. But if you are looking for something you *can* control, diet is a biggie.

Comment #95: Zef  on  04/20  at  05:16 PM

deep6: Way to completely come out of nowhere with that. Did I mention compulsive overeaters. Did I once say that every person, no matter what, should do x thing? No. I’m speaking in generalities and principles, which apply pretty damn well to the vast majority of the population.

It’s like I said “amputation is a bad thing” and you came in and said “but it’s necessary for gangrene!”

Comment #96: Ashley  on  04/20  at  05:20 PM

“Intuitive eating” can work the other way, too. Personally, I have this tendency *not* to eat as much as I should, so making myself eat right feels…wrong. (It’s not that I’m anorexic; I don’t consciously make a decision not to eat a lot because I think I’m overweight, or something)

Comment #97: Zef  on  04/20  at  05:22 PM

Zef, I responded to this:

“I am sticking to what I was told was not controversial—-that diet and exercise are important factors in diabetes and heart disease, and this is true regardless of what’s on the scale.  Do you disagree that diabetes and heart disease are major health problems, or do you disagree that diet and exercise has any relationship to what’s clogging arteries/screwing up pancreases? “

Diet and exercise may indeed be important factors, HOWEVER they are given a disproportionate emphasis in our culture, both socially and medically, to the point that your average person believes that diabetes and heart disease are caused by being fat which is caused by bad diet and being sedentary. What is controversial, very much so, is the degree to which diet and exercise are relevant to the discussion of diabetes and heart disease, largely because the popular rhetoric is that it’s all that matters, but the research shows that it’s far less important than genetic predisposition.

Comment #98: Ashley  on  04/20  at  05:23 PM

Eating a larger portion/volume of lower-calorie foods (like fruits, veggies, lean protein, etc.) does seem to work for a lot of people.

Yes, if you fill up on vegetables, and only eat four-six ounces of animal protein a day, you will lose weight, if that’s what you want to do.

Let’s look at the (European) Grandma diet. They did not eat a lot of animal protein—the pig raised on scraps was slaughtered once a year. One day a week they refrained from meat entirely. Forty days each winter/spring they cut down on food enough to feel it. The only way to preserve foods were salting, smoking, fermenting, and drying, so all winter we ate slices of salami and ham with our sauerkraut and bread slathered with butter.

Comment #99: Hector B.  on  04/20  at  05:25 PM

Zef, where do you come up with how much you “should” eat? How do you know that if you listen to your body you won’t nourish yourself enough?

Personally, I have days where I’m starving and days where I’m not. Some days I eat a lot more than others, and if I ignored this tendency in my body I’d feel terrible. As I said above, I’m pregnant now, and I actually eat less than I did pre-pregnancy. This is partially a side effect of the medication, as I became pregnant shortly after getting on it and a known side effect is decreased appetite (considering one of the most distressing symptoms of PCOS for me was my totally insane appetite that had no bearing on what I ate, this is an improvement). But, the first half of pregnancy I was too sick to eat, and the 2nd half my stomach is too squished to fit much food in there. I eat when I’m hungry, stop when I’m full, and eat what I’m craving. Accordingly, I’ve gained very little weight in pregnancy (I was only up 4 pounds at 25 weeks, and now at 33 I’m probably not up more than 15), but my uterus/baby is measuring right on target, if not a little big.

Comment #100: Ashley  on  04/20  at  05:27 PM

Intuitive eating doesn’t work for me, either. And personally, my cravings are never for actual nutrients like protein, iron, or vitamin C, but for salty stuff, crunchy stuff, greasy stuff. I don’t think I should be made to feel embarrassed because I have to work at eathing healthy—like I’m just not in touch with my body or whatever. For some of us, it’s hard work. It’s okay to admit that.

Comment #101: Jenny Dreadful  on  04/20  at  05:28 PM

Jenny Dreadful, it’s called intuitive eating, and it works. Eat what you want, when you want, how much you want. it takes a few months to deprogram from a lifetime of restricting and counting and all that, but once you do it’s rather simple. I stop eating when I’m full, I eat what I’m craving.

Did I mention compulsive overeaters.

No, I mentioned compulsive overeaters and explained why.  Your defensiveness is unnecessary.

Comment #102: deep6  on  04/20  at  05:28 PM

After reading your last couple posts, I see where you’re coming from, Ashley. That is extremely frustrating. :(

Comment #103: Zef  on  04/20  at  05:29 PM

Well, in answer to your question, Ashley:

I am often low-energy and head-achy, and my doctor (rightly, I think) has pointed to lack of nutrition as the main culprit. I don’t eat enough nutritious foods, or get enough calories, to sustain myself…but my body’s response is usually to lie down and take a nap, which really isn’t helpful. So…yeah.

Comment #104: Zef  on  04/20  at  05:33 PM

Hector, that’s a very unrealistic picture. Going back to the 1700s or so most Europeans bought their meat from the local butcher. Now, slaughtering, curing, and storing your own pig was more common for the isolated American farmer, but they wouldn’t have only had one pig unless they were extremely poor. Charles Ingalls had several, when they had pigs. But, anyways, as someone who does buy my meat by the animal, cooking meat 3 times a week, a pig would only last our 2 person family 4 months. We order 1/2 a pig every 3 monthsish and 1/2 a cow every 5-7 months, which means we usually eat 1 cow a year and less than 2 pigs. Obviously, if we had a bunch of children we’d be eating more.

Comment #105: Ashley  on  04/20  at  05:33 PM

Zef, I have days like that, and it sucks. One of the best ways I can tell I"m not eating enough is if I’m depressed for no reason :/

Jenny: I will crave salty, or crunchy, or sweet, as often as I crave protein (my usual craving) or tomatoes. I have low blood pressure, so I crave salt a lot because my body needs more. Popular opinion says that my craving salt is bad. Sometimes I’ll crave both protein and sweetness at the same time, so I eat peanut butter. And then some days I just crave oreos. Cuz they’re tasty smile And then I have a few oreos and I’m happy and full and no big deal. It’s taken me a few years, but one thing I’ve noticed is that if I’m craving carbs and soda, it usually means I’ve taken too much iron, as I have an iron sensitivity which causes severe nausea. My craving of carbs and soda is often the first sign that I have a problem.

deep6: the context of my comment was general, and you came in with a tangential and totally irrelevant topic. What the heck?

Comment #106: Ashley  on  04/20  at  05:39 PM

What has helped me was to make an effort to enjoy and appreciate a wider variety of foods, especially whole grains, vegetables, etc.  I don’t avoid ordering the fries because they’re not healthy—I choose the salad because it sounds tasty.  Of course all of this requires certain prerequisites—the budget, access, and ability to prepare/find a variety of good quality foods like veggies and nice hearty breads. 

But I kind of wish we could all make a collective effort to shift our thinking about food, so that instead of it coming down to a question of responsibility/guilt (Well, I really SHOULD eat the salad….  and then I’ll reward myself with cake!) it becomes a positive choice to enjoy foods that also happen to be healthful (Mmmm, those beets look awesome!)

Comment #107: ladybronwyn  on  04/20  at  05:40 PM

Ashley - it really is simple.  Jenny commented that it’s hard to know and constantly practice eating proper portion sizes, especially when there’s so much pressure on both sides: to eat and not to eat.

Then you commented that you’re an “intuitive eater”.  You eat what you want, when you want, however much you want, and stop when you’re full.

So I commented that that’s fabulous for you, but (as you were speaking in generalities) is a bad lifestyle choice for many people, particularly those with certain kinds of eating disorders, and mentioned compulsive overeating specifically.

You’ve characterized my comment as “irrelevant”, which is funny.  Since you’ve turned the end of this thread into an impressive “all about me”, the likes of which I haven’t seen on pandagon in some time, maybe unless someone specifically talks about you, you THINK it’s irrelevant?  Congrats.

Comment #108: deep6  on  04/20  at  05:56 PM

The thing about intuitive eating that I don’t get is that not all foods are equal when it comes to satiety. Depending on the content of one’s diet, calories could vary quite a bit. I know a lot of people who use the intuitive eating approach aren’t concerned with calories, but when I started tracking intake one of the first things I noticed was how the same amount of energy could be barely filling or be enough to last me through several hours depending on the amounts of different macronutrients and fiber present.

That said, I found intuitive eating very good for some things (helping to control the tendency to be all or nothing when it came to ‘bad’ foods) but very bad for ensuring a well-balanced diet. And completely useless when I wanted to lose weight.

Comment #109: attrice  on  04/20  at  06:24 PM

It doesn’t take into account other factors that influence how the calories get processed - like sickness, PCOS, metabolism differences, class issues, food availability, pre-existing bodily suck that can prevent exercising, and so forth.

Somehow my comment got lost.  Anyway, these complexities are all important, but they do not actually change the calories in/calories out formula.  These are all factors that change how the calories get in and out.  They should be looked at as complexities that affect people’s ability to eat and exercise.  That’s why I try to blog about this—-until we examine the complexities, we can’t even begin to think of useful policy ideas.

Comment #110: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  06:26 PM

“It doesn’t take into account other factors that influence how the calories get processed - like sickness, PCOS, metabolism differences, class issues, food availability, pre-existing bodily suck that can prevent exercising, and so forth.”

But this doesn’t mean that calories in/out is not true, it just means that it is complex. All the energy that goes into the body has to be accounted for somehow. Maybe the person who can’t gain weight has a hyperactive thyroid or the fat person tends to push slightly more energy into fat storage, but it all still has to balance.

Comment #111: attrice  on  04/20  at  06:31 PM

Amanda, diabetes and heart disease have strong genetic components, occur in the thin as well as fat (1/3 of Type II diabetics are thin, despite popular belief that it’s a fat disease),

Definitely, and that’s why I repeatedly agree with fat activists that being skinny is not de facto evidence you eat right.  But that it has a genetic component is actually all the more reason to be careful about what you eat.  Because if you have a gene that leans you in that direction, unhealthy eating is going to catch up with you a lot faster.  Believe me, knowing people who were lucky enough to have doctors start testing for cholesterol and tendencies towards diabetes because of family history means knowing people whose doctors have put them on a strict diet at a young age so they don’t get sick. 

Maybe the way to look at is that we all have a genetic tendency towards heart disease and diabetes, but some of us have a little more genetic give than others.

Comment #112: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  06:32 PM

Oh, or what Amanda said. I need to learn to refresh before I comment.

Comment #113: attrice  on  04/20  at  06:32 PM

Oh for fuck’s sake. Seriously? Perhaps the sentence in question ought to have been “...Food that SOMEBODY’S grandmother would recognize.” But I really feel like to not get that is to miss the whole fucking point of the book and perhaps to have not read it.

His point is that there are people around the world surviving healthily on traditional diets of all types. Really. Some people eat mostly meats, others no meats and as long as they’re not eating highly refined carbohydrates and HFC, they don’t have Western diseases like Diabetes and Obesity, among others.

People are not widgets. If some foods make you feel poorly, don’t eat them. Doesn’t mean they make everyone feel poorly. I have a friend for whom carbs like pasta knock her out cold. I don’t have that problem, but that doesn’t make me doubt her, or question her decision to watch her carbs if she wants to remain conscious. Part of the problem is that your personal gut is fine-tuned to eat the foods your ancestors ate. As in, this is why diabetes is such an huge problem among Native Americans (to name a single group). Europeans had generations to get OK with eating lots of carbs from wheat. Natives peoples didn’t.

Also: Jenny Dreadful has an excellent point: calling for portion control when no one knows what it looks like is hard and leads to failure.

Comment #114: wreckerofplans  on  04/20  at  06:38 PM

Jenny, from what I understand, the standard portion of meat is a size of a deck of cards.  Obviously, most people eat more than that at a meal, and you’re right, that makes it hard to tell what the right portion is. 

Ashley, I’m glad you’re in tune with the oceans and the seas, but the scientific evidence shows that most people’s nervous systems don’t register satiation until about 20 minutes after you actually hit it, which is how people can eat a bunch and then, 15 minutes later, start suffering from having eaten too much.  Which means that either you eat a lot slower than most people have time for at most meals, or you learn to portion your food out before hand.  The advantage to the latter is also that it’s less wasteful.

Comment #115: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  06:39 PM

Going back to the 1700s or so most Europeans bought their meat from the local butcher.

I think you may need to review your history a bit.  Upper-class Europeans may have bought their meat from the local butcher, but until you had the majority of the population living in large cities, most people grew their own meat by keeping chickens (for both meat and eggs) or going in on a pig or cow together.  It wasn’t until populations became very urbanized within the last 60 or 70 years that most people got their stuff from the store.

My Italian ancestors were sheepherders less than a hundred years ago, so I’m pretty sure they weren’t buying their meat from a butcher shop.

Comment #116: Mnemosyne  on  04/20  at  06:44 PM

@ attrice and amanda

I disagree with calories in/calories out not because I think it’s untrue, or complex.  I agree that if you cut calories and exercise, and you are a healthy person, you will lose some weight.  However, that is no way to live life.  I would never tell someone that counting calories is healthy.  Not mentally healthy, anyway.

And it is specially something that will not help children in the least.  You go tell a thirteen year old that calorie counting is a great way to prevent weight gain, and she’s going to count her breakfast glass of milk, her lunchtime cheesefries and diet soda, and a bag of Doritos on the school bus, and call it a day.  Of course you’re going to say that that’s where the complexity comes in, and not all calories are the same, blah blah, but to the calorie counting teenager calorie counting makes sense precisely because it equalizes all calories.  A calorie from celery is equal to a calorie from cheesefries, so she’ll have the cheesefries in front of her friends and then starve with celery sticks at home.

Comment #117: raspberryjamba  on  04/20  at  06:50 PM

People who feel crap if you eat sugar, don’t eat it. You’re missing out on one of life’s great pleasures (it’s a real shame you can’t drink alcohol, chock full of sugar, or fruit juice, likewise) but if Bucks fizz makes you feel grim then stick to diet soda. I don’t like sweeteners, so I won’t be joining you.

MY body loves sugar. It likes fat, too. Sweets, cakes, butter, chocolate, cheese, meat, and a lot more than once a year at Christmas. My doctor and dentist like my body on this diet, too – excellent teeth, BMI of 20, stable weight for the last decade (since I stopped growing). Oh, and I had some medical tests recently - low cholesterol, excellent liver function, good blood pressure and the like.  Clearly my body is perfectly happy with the bag of sweets in my desk drawer. No early death is waving at me because I don’t always choose the healthy option, and really don’t like lettuce. So you’ll understand that I am unimpressed with people who think it is not right that I don’t worry about my weight every time I eat something and want me to choose food not by whether I like it and it forms part of a good balanced diet, but by whether it is the “right choice” in a restaurant and that I shouldn’t be able to order the food that I like without society and the waiter wagging their fingers at me.

It sounds like “intuitive eating” is what I practice, though I would just call it eating normally.  Re. The portion control, I don’t _need_ to measure it every time.  I know more or less how much pasta, potatoes, cheese, meat, vegetables etc. suits me at a normal meal, and if I am more or less hungry then I can add a bit more or have less.  I don’t need to track calories to know that certain foods fill me up more and that if I have low-fat porridge for breakfast my stomach will be dissolving itself by mid-morning. The much-touted grandmother didn’t weigh her food according to government guidelines – she knew more or less what people needed to eat to feel full and hoped that she had it.

Comment #118: Nineveh  on  04/20  at  06:54 PM

Obviously, raspberry, the emphasis on calories above all other considerations is just dumb. We should teach good, healthy eating habits to kids.  Frankly, I think a girl who eats like that will be starving by dinner and will pig out, so that’s the link between not over-eating and eating well.  If you eat well, it’s easier to avoid eating too much, because you ramp up on the sugars and then crash and you’re starving and you pig out. 

Pollan’s advice is an updated variation of the old “you are what you eat”.  This is in no way incompatible with valuing moderation.  For some people living in our screwed-up culture, moderation can only be achieved by calorie counting.  Shaming them about taking productive steps towards moderation because they’re imperfect human beings who can’t accurately guess strikes me as unfair.  Few people can achieve that level of perfection, especially with all the cultural pressures.

But it’s true that calories aren’t enough, and balance is the priority.  Luckily, eating right and not eating too much work well together.  Which is why Matt Yglesias was wrong when he said tossing some veggies in a dish doesn’t make it healthier.  Of course it does—-anyone with experience will tell you that upping the amount of veggies in a dish means that you make more of the food but with fewer calories per serving.  So you can eat the same amount, ounce-wise, but you are eating a more balanced and lower calorie meal.

Comment #119: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  06:59 PM

Good for you, Nin.  Most people aren’t blessed with your lucky roll in the genetic dice game, though, and they have to be more mindful of what they eat.  It’s unfair, sure, but it’s life. I wish I could shovel junk food all day and be fine, but I can’t.

Comment #120: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  07:01 PM

I agree with BABH, try using lard.  It is yummier than Crisco and probably better for you than Crisco.

Nah, but thanks. I make maybe 2 pies a year and maybe 1 pot pie where I make the crust (unless like @ Thanksgiving or Xmas when I have tons going on and have sometimes just caved and did the store bought pie crust/phyllo dough thing.
I don’t like the smell or the taste- maybe it’s from making soap with my mom @ pioneer fairs - heat of summer in the midwest + rendering lard = barf.

Comment #121: Danica Lefse Queen  on  04/20  at  07:03 PM

Amanda,

How crappy some of those things are depends on the body you get. Native Alaskans traditionally eat almost NO vegetables of fruit and don’t suffer for it with cancers and such. This is at least in part because their bodies have evolved to make the best of the diet they *do* have.

Comment #122: wreckerofplans  on  04/20  at  07:06 PM

Of course it does—-anyone with experience will tell you that upping the amount of veggies in a dish means that you make more of the food but with fewer calories per serving.  So you can eat the same amount, ounce-wise, but you are eating a more balanced and lower calorie meal.

Upping the numbers of veggies in the dish means you can decrease the amount of protein, and chances are that nobody is going to notice. Us Americans get more than enough protein to spare in our standard diet.

When I do stir fry, beef/chicken stew, or really dish in which I cut up the meat and have control over the amount of veggies going into it, I only have to use 1 chicken breast, or 1 piece of top round to feed 3 people.

My dad taught me that, a long time ago, when he got into making various forms of Asian dishes. Many of those dishes are food-all-together.  Good, lean protein is high-cost, and the amount of protein (like a whole steak or chicken breast per person) is probably more than any particular person needs for that meal.  Making something that is food-all-together means that nobody really has that psychological reaction of “OMG you’re not feeding me what I consider to be a full portion”.

Comment #123: hp  on  04/20  at  07:30 PM

I strongly disagree, purpleshoes, by the way.  Treating women like they are their bodies is the purest form of objectification.  It’s why women are judged primarily by their weight and the number of penises that have touched them instead of things like what they think and what they do.  It’s why so many people find contraception and abortion repulsive, because they indicate that a woman is control of her body, and not just a passive piece of flesh.  It’s why female pleasure is considered suspect—-because it reminds people that there’s a subjective being inside that flesh, one who experiences what her body does, one who controls it.  We prefer to equate a woman with her body.

Feeling that your body belongs to you is a male privilege, and I fully intend to claim it.

As for the notion that planning for and moderating your meals deprives one of the pleasure taken in it, I say, that reminds me of people who object to condoms because they detract from the pleasure.  I find pleasure far more pleasurable if I play safely, and don’t have post-event concerns that I put my health in danger by not taking basic precautions.

Comment #124: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  07:34 PM

Perhaps, wrecker, but then they still shouldn’t live on a diet of sugary cakes and cookies.

Comment #125: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/20  at  07:45 PM

I’ve recently discovered, as I age, that I have two options when it comes to food: I can eat intuitively, which usually means normal, healthy portions (a sandwich for lunch; soup or pasta for dinner, few snacks). In this mode, I eat well, I make my own foods, I have plenty of energy,  walk everywhere I go and am happily active. 

However. If I do this, I’ll weigh 75 pounds more than I did when I was 23; I bobble and I chafe and need to buy underwear in a specialty store. I do not recognize myself, when glimpsed in mirrors. My old friends do not recognize me. Bluntly put, I look and feel like farking hell. But I’m resoundingly healthy and this is where my body comes back to like a cork in a tub of water, the minute I stop making the food I eat the central focus of my day.

This is a relatively new one on me: I’m menopausal, which I suppose accounts for it. 

Or I can practice ‘portion control’, which at this point means that I eat well under 1000 calories a day: anything over that & I continue to gain 5 pounds a month. If I eat 1/4 of a sandwich for lunch and an undressed salad for dinner and I’ll be within spitting distance of the weight I was in my 20s. But I will also have no energy, intellectual or physical, to do much.  I’m doing that at the moment, but I’m worried about the intellectual effects: I have work to do, dammit, and I need my brain. But I’d like to have both that and a body that does not resemble a captive balloon poised for flight.

Trust me on this one, just cutting down isn’t really the answer.

Comment #126: jrochest  on  04/20  at  07:54 PM

But I’m not shovelling junk food all day. I don’t want to shovel junk food all day. I don’t want to shovel junk food at all. I eat a mixture of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. I eat breakfast, cereal and fruit, a sandwich, biscuit and fruit at lunch, maybe some elevenses or afternoon snack, and an evening meal of [meat] and two veg. This is the classic western European diet (OK, maybe with something in place of the sandwich), and it can be achieved without counting calories or an orgy of quasi-virtuous self-denial. Yes, some people have disordered eating habits, and need to follow a stricter regime, but this doesn’t mean that the ideal is for everyone to be feeling guilty every time they have a square of chocolate.

The choice is not between shovel junk food all day or eat loads of green vegetables, a bit of lean meat, and almost no fats or sugars any more than Madonna/whore is a realistic representation of female sexuality.

And no nicknames, thanks, Mandy. Or are you infantalising a woman because you don’t like her argument?

Comment #127: Nineveh  on  04/20  at  07:59 PM

Once per semester, I get exasperated with every single student having some kind of awful “diet” beverage sitting on their desks. I collect the drinks and read the ingredients out loud and ask whether anyone knows what that particular substance is.

I’m sorry, I got stuck on this. People are *okay* with you taking their food and turning it into a public ordeal? It does not *trouble* them in any way for you to use their stuff as an example of what is wrong with kids these days?

‘Cause that sounds waaay more fat-shamey than anything Amanda’s said so far. I would be humiliated if a teacher did that to me, and yeah, I drink “diet” beverages sometimes and I actually often have a reason for doing so that maybe you won’t always be privy to. And when I drank stuff like that as a kid sometimes I had reasons then too, and it wasn’t because I was too stupid to know any chemistry. That kind of crap would’ve given me a *complex.* The last thing kids (or college students) need is a self-important lecture from a teacher about how shitty their decisions about food are.

Regarding Ashley’s point, intuitive eating doesn’t really work for me. I *never* crave healthy stuff (seriously, I could pretty much live off of chocolate, Power Bars and Vitamin Water all day) and when I don’t make a conscious effort to include some fruits or veggies in my diet they just don’t get eaten. It’s also tough in a college setting; everyone’s on the meal plan and pretty much all food has to be eaten in a certain place at a certain time, so I always feel anxious and like I need to “stock up” on calories because it’ll be hours until I have a chance to eat anything again, and in the meantime I have to stay alert and focus on work without thinking about being hungry. I get into that thing where I’m all “well, I’m not hungry right now but I have lab this afternoon and the dining hall isn’t open until 6, so I’d better finish this sandwich or I’ll regret it later…”

Comment #128: Bagelsan  on  04/20  at  08:10 PM

My dad taught me that, a long time ago, when he got into making various forms of Asian dishes. Many of those dishes are food-all-together.

I love stir-fry type stuff! It’s one of the only meals where I really get enough veggies without having to sort of guilt myself into it. :p (I don’t want to think about how much salt I get from it, however…) I don’t eat too much meat but I’m a total carbovore, so I like it when I can sneak plants in with my noodles and make myself just a little bit healthier.

Part of my eating thing might be not-diet-related-but-still-mental, in that I was one of those kids who had pretty specific foods that they would eat. I spent an entire school year having *only* plain bagels (with nothing on them) for lunch every day, and the year after that was entirely ham sandwiches (as in, a plain slice of ham between 2 pieces of dry bread.) So it’s hard for me to eat things outside of a limited range sometimes. Making the meal all-in-one, like with stir-fry, lets me homogenize it sufficiently that I don’t start trying to pick out the peas or nibble the pizza into a perfect circle or eat exactly 1 flavor of Luna Bars for a year (that was another set of lunches. It wasn’t related to trying to lose weight either; I just really really liked Luna Bars for a while.)

Comment #129: Bagelsan  on  04/20  at  08:20 PM

<blockquoteJenny Dreadful, it’s called intuitive eating, and it works. Eat what you want, when you want, how much you want. it takes a few months to deprogram from a lifetime of restricting and counting and all that, but once you do it’s rather simple. I stop eating when I’m full, I eat what I’m craving.</blockquote>

THANK you.

Why do we have to “do something” about the way people eat?

How’s about this: how’s about we stop companies from lying about what’s in food, make ingredients transparent for those who are interested in them, and then LET PEOPLE ENJOY EATING what they want, and how much they want. Yes, even McDonald’s. And sugary soda. All that stuff can be damntasty.

Gah.

Comment #130: kristin  on  04/20  at  08:23 PM

I fail at tags, clearly.

Also: the chimera of “healthy eating” (which is so often code for “don’t pig out, fatty fat nation that’s getting fat”) usually ignores that health includes mental health. You’d have to go a long way to convince me that it serves anyone’s mental health to constantly be policing, limiting and rationalizing what they eat in order to adhere to an external “food authority”.

Comment #131: kristin  on  04/20  at  08:26 PM

No, there was a lot of pecin-type things going on in the late 1800’s cookbook I have too- I chalk that up to having no refrigeration.

Oh, okay.  I thought you were talking about those terrifying recipes with olives suspended in green Jello.

What’s funny is that those pectin recipes might likely be “fancy” foods that you’d serve to guests.  Eep!

Comment #132: keshmeshi  on  04/20  at  08:40 PM

I’m not happy with Pollan’s “Eat plants, mostly leaves” (as I recall it, from a different page of In Defense of Food; I may be wrong). No traditional culture eats this way by preference. Granted, many “traditional culture” recipes are festival dishes, but the original diners still would not have eaten mainly leaves unless they were starving.

(I also remember a very bad head-space in which, though I was not overweight, I adopted the low-fat craze at its height, ate mainly low-fat carbohydrates and vegetables, no protein, 15 hours of exercise a week, my weight dropped from 104 to 91 pounds, the school psychologist started hounding me about EDs, and I HATED everyone around me who was not following my idea of a diet. I was a very immature and literal-minded 22 year old reentering college after two gap years.)

The problem is with American post-industrial society, in which people work 60 to 80-hour weeks (or two or three part-time jobs) or, even if they have a 40-hour week, commute two hours a day in cars or on the bus to get to work. They have no time for exercise or for cooking healthy food.The problem is societal and ecological and much larger than individual physiology or psychology.

I figure that to be as healthy as possible, I’d have to marry a man and become a stay-at-home wife who trains for marathons and cooks the way Pollan envisions. Or I’d become a gatherer-hunter.

Comment #133: sara  on  04/20  at  08:56 PM

But I’d like to have both that and a body that does not resemble a captive balloon poised for flight.

Two words:  weight training.  You start losing muscle mass at menopause, which is why your metabolism crashes.  Do some weight training (even yoga or Pilates can count) and you can reverse the trend.  And, no, you won’t end up looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger unless you have an unusually high testosterone count.

Comment #134: Mnemosyne  on  04/20  at  09:06 PM

No traditional culture eats this way by preference. Granted, many “traditional culture” recipes are festival dishes, but the original diners still would not have eaten mainly leaves unless they were starving.

True, but most traditional cultures are filled with back-breaking work, whether it’s agriculture or herding animals.  You need a heck of a lot more than lettuce leaves to keep up the level of labor that’s required in traditional cultures. 

If you’re spending your day out on the back 40 driving your mule or oxen to plant your wheat crop—and then weeding it, and then harvesting it—you can eat 3,000 or 4,000 calories a day and stay reasonably healthy.  It’s the fact that we’re continuing to eat those same traditional meals that used to provide fuel for hard labor while sitting at a desk all day that’s causing problems in the West.

Comment #135: Mnemosyne  on  04/20  at  09:11 PM

It’s the fact that we’re continuing to eat those same traditional meals that used to provide fuel for hard labor while sitting at a desk all day that’s causing problems in the West.

Maybe or maybe not.

There were a lot of obese people in the 19th century.  I’ve seen their photographs.  And I’ve seen drawings of obese people from the 18th century, the 17th century, the 16th century, and so on. 

The issue may not be that there’s more risk of obesity per capita at all—the issue may be that a) more people live long enough to gain midlife weight, and b) more people have enough to eat, so a certain percentage of them are obese.

The whole idea that “nobody was obese before the Industrial Revolution” is completely false.

Comment #136: JupiterPluvius  on  04/20  at  09:42 PM

Going back to the 1700s or so most Europeans bought their meat from the local butcher.

Well, not the Irish in the 1800s. They starved because their potato crop failed, not because they forgot to go to the butcher.

In Central Europe, assuming you were a peasant, as most folks were, cows turned grass into milk (and thus butter and cheese), while pigs fattened on scraps. Chickens laid eggs. You ate a mostly vegetarian diet out of grim necessity. Meat went along with feasts. The male calves became veal, and chickens too old to be efficient layers went into the stewpot. Wild game belonged to the lord of the land, so only poachers ate meat they hadn’t raised.

From time to time my mother would make us the farm meals of her mother’s youth. One favorite was cabbage and noodle bake, or greens with a hot baconfat-vinegar dressing poured on.

Comment #137: Hector B.  on  04/20  at  09:56 PM

There were a lot of obese people in the 19th century.  I’ve seen their photographs.  And I’ve seen drawings of obese people from the 18th century, the 17th century, the 16th century, and so on.

Since obesity was a sign of wealth until fairly recently, I’d be curious to find out how many of those pictures are of peasants and/or working-class people and how many are of wealthy and/or upper-class people.  There’s a reason they called the eventual King George IV the “Prince of Whales” while he was the Prince Regent.

On the other hand, since we know that a certain percentage of the human population is naturally thin/underweight, it stands to reason that we also have a certain percentage of the human population that is naturally fat/overweight, and the rest of us will fall somewhere in between those two extremes.  I’m definitely not arguing on the side that everyone would automatically have a BMI of 20 if not for our horrible, horrible eating habits.  Some people are bigger, some people are smaller, some people are taller, some people are shorter.  Yay humans!

Comment #138: Mnemosyne  on  04/20  at  09:56 PM

I think this is feminist topic for two reasons:

You forgot reason #3: June Cleaver ain’t living with me or you or most working families to take up the slack on the domestic front.

There is always a hidden subtext in just about every discussion of how fat Americans have gotten or how awful we eat or even “slow food” evangelizing: who the hell has the time to plan, shop, and cook when it takes 40-60 minutes to commute 8 miles to work and 40-75 to get back; when work spills over into home time and travel time eats your weekend and isn’t even allowed to show up on your 60 hour time card; when there are kid activities to get kids to and soccer practices to coach; when there are school issues to deal with - often during the day because somebody is always at home doing this shit, right?  And, no, spouse is doing his part - he just likes having a job and works 50 hours or more a week too!

I find lectures about what we all should do to be better because it’s just so fucking easy coming from single people without children or parents to care for who either do not work full time or who have flexible hours to be bogus in the extreme.  If any of those who think it is so goddamn simple want to fucking shop and cook for me for just one fucking week, you are more than welcome to do so.  Otherwise, consider this: we all do the best that we can.

Comment #139: Ms Kate  on  04/20  at  11:27 PM

Ms Kate—I agree whole-heartedly. I’m very lucky to have the time and money to cook for myself and cook what I want. I can stop and buy fresh produce every day because I live six blocks from work and there are a number of ethnic/organic/traditional groceries within walking distance (I even have an organic butcher and a real fishmonger). If I don’t bring my lunch to work, I have many choices of places to get fresh, healthy lunches because I live in a rich government town. And if I look at how different my sister’s situation is from mine—she has kids and a mortgage and commutes—I can see it’s significantly different. As someone who has been poor with four jobs, I do appreciate how lucky I am.

I think where this conversation needs to go is, how do we make policy changes that make it easier for people not in my situation? What do we need to push politicians to do that will make eating whatever healthy way works for people possible?

Comment #140: RacyT  on  04/21  at  01:01 AM

Uh, point above not to be bragging but pointing out that the ideal situation is not the reality for most people. Just in case it comes across as obnoxious.

Comment #141: RacyT  on  04/21  at  01:02 AM

some people have disordered eating habits, and need to follow a stricter regime

Actually people who have disordered eating or are recovering from eating disorders are probably better served by intuitive eating than a strict regime. Assigning moral values to food is very risky territory for someone with an eating disorder or a history of disordered eating. (For anyone else, it’s just stupid.)

Comment #142: kristin  on  04/21  at  01:07 AM

Assigning moral values to food is very risky territory for someone with an eating disorder or a history of disordered eating. (For anyone else, it’s just stupid.)

You’d have to go a long way to convince me that it serves anyone’s mental health to constantly be policing, limiting and rationalizing what they eat in order to adhere to an external “food authority”.

But I kind of feel like assigning *caloric* values to food *isn’t* a bad idea. Acknowledging that a food is bad for you doesn’t make it a “bad food” or anyone eating it a “bad person.” Obsessing over the trendy “evil” food of the week in Cosmo or something is a terrible idea, but if the external food authority is *biology* I don’t really have a problem with people trying to adhere to it, yanno? Like, it’s not good to worry about your weight constantly but trying to ignore *physics* and pretend you don’t even *have* a gravitational attraction to the Earth is pretty dumb too. I see it the same way with eating; don’t freak out about having a cookie or something, but don’t try to pretend that that cheeseburger-with-fries is health-neutral either.

Comment #143: Bagelsan  on  04/21  at  02:40 AM

Actually people who have disordered eating or are recovering from eating disorders are probably better served by intuitive eating than a strict regime.

Wouldn’t “disordered eating” suggest that their intuition is *wrong* though? I mean, maybe intuitive eating is a good long-term goal for how to eat in the future, but someone who’s been celebrating hunger pangs as a virtue might have a tough time knowing when to eat without some kind of input about what would be considered “normal” or correct. (A girl I know who’s recovering from an eating disorder asked me one time before she ate if I thought her bagel counted as a “big” bagel or a “medium” bagel. I had no idea what to tell her, so I pretty much just said that it looked like the kind of bagel I eat all the time, and that I considered it a fairly typical size. I know she’s actively working on eating more and not feeling guilty about it, and I thought it kind of made sense for her to try and get an idea about what other young women thought was a “normal” amount of food—she knew her own idea of normal was too small, but that didn’t tell her how big “normal” normal was. I imagine that double-checking her food with other people is not a great long-term strategy mental-health-wise, but if the next time she has a bagel she can reassure herself that other girls eat bagels that size I feel like that might be a helpful starting place.)

Comment #144: Bagelsan  on  04/21  at  02:52 AM

(Not to pick on you, kristin. You just keep saying interesting things. :p)

Comment #145: Bagelsan  on  04/21  at  02:54 AM

Personally, I find that my intuition tells me to eat too much.  I loves me some food and I eat way more than the proper serving of things like cheese and pasta.  Yet I somehow don’t have the same instinct regarding healthier things like friut or fresh veggies which are more nutritious so if I my body were really giving me the healthiest signals, I would desire those more.

And it is not like I have a history of serious eating disorders or anything, I am just your run-of-the-mill fat girl from a fat family and grew up with a habit of eating too much of the wrong things.  Meal planning and portion control do me a lot more good than I think intuitive eating ever will until I really change my relationship with food, which it a lifelong project and not just something I can decide to do overnight.

Comment #146: GumbyAnne  on  04/21  at  08:57 AM

Wouldn’t “disordered eating” suggest that their intuition is *wrong* though?

i wouldn’t say so. often disorders arise from the disconnect between our instincts/intuitions and the cultural messages we are given…

Comment #147: sophiefair  on  04/21  at  02:18 PM

I totally agree.  This whole “intuitive eating” makes no sense to me, because if I ate what I intuitively wanted to eat, I’d be 300 pounds.  I also wouldn’t move or engage in physical activity either.  I think it’s great if it works for some people, but not me, thanks.

BTW, eating disorders have a strong genetic component to them (chromosome #1) and for many anorexics, they actually are better once they are given a specific calorie count to achieve to restore their weight.  Of course, long term that’s not the goal, but for some anorexics, it’s more reassuring to know that they are supposed to eat (say) 3500 calories a day and track accordingly, than just to be told “eat to fullness.”

Comment #148: Susanne  on  04/21  at  06:03 PM

The thought of a recovering or recovered anorexic or bulimic, or compulsive overeater, being “called out” publicly on his or her food choices (whether diet soda or a bacon cheeseburger) in a college-class setting really concerns me.  Very, very triggering.  I urge the poster who does this to reconsider.

Comment #149: Susanne  on  04/21  at  06:08 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.