Humans are cookivores

[yendi]

Fascinating article on our diet in general, the food industry, obesity, etc. Link ganked from thebaronofmspg.

Comments

[boutell.livejournal.com]

Yup.

This is why I'm still living in a pedestrian-friendly urban area and resisting buying a car.

The "we had lunch at burger king!" playdate thing was very familiar.

[yendi]

*nod* We try, but Atlanta is the least pedestrian-friendly "urban" area I know of.

The Burger King thing drives me nuts. Elayna eats enough pre-processed crap, but fast food just takes the cake. On the plus side, she's developed a nice dislike of french fries, somehow.

[divalea.livejournal.com]

I suggest you read "Losing It" before buying into anything in that article.

There's a not-so-subtle subtext of "poor people are icky AND fat" and "rich white ladies should be an example to us all".
It ignores that well-to-do white women are likely not "obese" not because they eat better, but because they don't eat much.
As for Spurlock's diet, on the very first day he orders a breakfast that doesn't even exist on the McD's menu: it has a hash brown, a sausage biscuit, and an Egg McMuffin. There is no such breakfast combo. Right there, he began to lose me. Part of his methodology, too, was to eat EVERYTHING he bought. As for the cost of the diet, no poor person could afford it. At $15. a day minimum (eating as Spurlock ate), they'd be laying out about $600. a month on meals. Even the people interviewed in the film who ate McD regularly, anecdotally, said they had it a couple times a week or so. And look at the Big Mac guy--he wasn't fat.
Spurlock's methodology is entertaining, but scientifically unsound and spurious.

[yendi]

What's Losing It?

The article starts with a Spurlock mention (likely to get people's attention), but spends most of the time focusing on other topics (and quoting people with a much more significant background in health and nutrition than Spurlock).

[divalea.livejournal.com]

I read the whole article. I was unimpressed with the "Booga booga fat'll kill ya" tone of it.
Losing It is a book by Laura Fraser which dissects not only the diet industry but also doctors who tout the "booga booga fat is bad for you" idea. It's an extremely enlightening read.
Bottom line is: too much of anything is shitty for you.
The salad that doctor was holding in the picture with the article was monstrous. I couldn't eat all of that.
I also took issue with the "French v. German" restaurants example. A plate of a modest-sized fish fillet and three pieces of asparagus is a bullshit meal, as crap as the "bad" German one of sausage and potatoes.

I realize Spurlock is only mentioned at the beginning of the article, but the whole article builds on that base: we eat too much fat and fast food is icky and fat people are icky. The truth is, we're on more DIETS than any other country, and THAT'S what has made us fat and sickly and likely to die of heart attacks, not eating.

[boutell.livejournal.com]

Eating more calories than you need is bad for you. So is failing to get proper nutrition in the process. If including meat and fat is what it takes to help a particular individual feel full after taking in a reasonable number of calories, then I guess that's what that individual needs to do, but I doubt any significant amount of McDonald's food is likely to fit into that. I do realize there can easily be a sexist component in "ideal" weight figures, but the kind of weight that limits one's activity level and choices in life just can't be justified by that argument.

Something I don't like about the article: the author tries to balance matters by talking about the Amish who maintain excellent health and reasonable weight without eating what most Americans think of as "diet food," because they get amounts of exercise that are reasonably compatible with what our bodies are actually engineered for. (In addition to eating a diet that provides them with proper nutrition as well as many calories, of course.) But somehow diet dominates the article in the end.

Still, it's not very realistic to say "the solution to all of your problems is to revert to an Amish-like or pseudo-paleolithic lifestyle" if an individual's life situation (e.g. job) simply doesn't permit them to walk nine miles a day. And for people in such situations it might be a real good idea to talk about, yes, appropriate portion sizes and complete nutrition.

[yendi]

The French/German thing annoyed me, too (if anyone served me just three spears of asparagus, I'd be annoyed as anything). But I didn't see the article as being truly opposed to eating fat nearly as much as being opposed to processed food in general. The biggest targets seemed to be the carbs, if anything.

The diet industry is pretty much living in symbiosis with the food industry in general. Dieting isn't the way to lose weight or stay healthy -- it's developing a healthy day-to-day diet. But that's what I got out of the article as well, to be honest. There's a little bit of a focus of being overweight, but being obese is a legitimate health concern in this country.

Thanks for the tip on Fraser. I'll have to check it out. Did you catch the Frontline special on the diet industry a few weeks back?

[pettyharvey.livejournal.com]

I have no idea who you are...but that Freakzoid picture reigns supreme.

-Harvey

[yendi]

Thanks -- credit for that one actually goes to taraljc, I believe. I've had it for a while now.

[divalea.livejournal.com]

For a chef's perspective on how French REALLY eat:

http://theflamingtoque.blogspot.com/2004/11/fucking-french.html (http://theflamingtoque.blogspot.com/2004/11/fucking-french.html)

The problem with our obesity statitics and the studies cited about same (and obesity coupled with higher death rates), is that they're flawed. For instance, the Harvard study of the nurses that "showed" obesity led to a higher death rate? It showed no such thing, and, put to defending it, the author admitted as much. The number of "overweight" women who died during the stuidy was actually statistically insignificant.
The nurses in that study were followed for seventeen years, and they actually had a LOWER death rate than the general population. What the author chose to ignore was that of the nurses who died during the study, most were SMOKERS.

I myself am fat, and I can out-run, out-lift, out-dance, and out-walk many thinner friends. Because what I am that they're not is fit.

The only thing I don't like about the size I am now is that it's a bitch to find clothes that aren't either a) ugly or b) cutesey-poo.

Processed food: the hell of it is that most of it tastes like all of it. You can go to your typical fast food place and just pick one thing and have the taste of the whole menu. The difference after that is texture.

[yendi]

Very true about processed food.

And there's definitely a difference between fat/thin and fit/unfit. The article skirted this one (the guy talking about farmers, and how even his grandfather worked out more than he did, was the major concession), but certainly cast a large focus on the need for exercise, something that's as important to health and fitness as diet.

With obesity statistics (and I write this as someone who entered the realm of the officially obese this past year), I'm concerned less with the "omg, being fat will kill you now" stuff than the studies that link obesity to diabetes, degenerative heart disease, etc. But I'm also willing to admit at least some level of ignorance on the various studies that have been done (and any problems with them).

Loved the Angry Chef rant (although I'd hoped it was Anthony Bourdain when I saw the title of the blog)!

[ptitdo.livejournal.com]

I myself am fat, and I can out-run, out-lift, out-dance, and out-walk many thinner friends. Because what I am that they're not is fit.
Well, if you say so. You'll forgive me my scepticism.

First of all, why do the sentences along the likes of "oh, being fat is not as bad as they say" only come from the mouths of fat people ?
If you think you're fit, good for you really. But don't expect me to believe that being fat has no incidence on health. Being fat is unnatural. Our bodies aren't designed for that.

I'm slim, and you know why ? Because I eat healthy food (always had) and not some fast-food shit (although I do occasionnaly indulge myself and have a McD -typically once a month), and practice sports.

Don't you find it strange that Americans are so much fatter than the rest of the world ? I've been in the USA several times and I can tell you that it's easy to understand why !

[divalea.livejournal.com]

I seem to have either not posted my response to this, or Yendi's decided to delete it--either is okay.

Your post is so full of bigotry it's difficult to even know where to start. While it's true you only have my word that I'm fat and fit, I find it interesting you can believe I'm fat, but not that I'm also fit. That's some interesting pick-and-choose there.

Anyway, my longer response is moved elsewhere. Suffice it to say that you don't exactly make a case for the allegedly better manners Europeans have--although you do play straight to the notion that the French are rude snobs.

[ptitdo.livejournal.com]

I don't want to engage in a LJ war with you. I voluntarily used that tone in my post 'cos I found the tone in your posts infuriating. Differences in PoV. Plus I found that the 'AngryChief' was an obnoxious bastard.

Fat and fit are IMHO antinomic words. Of course it depends on the definition you use for the word 'fat'. But I know by experience that it's easier to be considered 'fat' for us French (ie the 'fat' limit is lower). Which fuels my doubt even more, not particularly about what you claim anyway but more generally about the fact that you can be fat and fit. Ah well, you'll forgive me for that.

And it's not a problem of manners, come on. I'm not politically correct. I hate political correctness. And French are snob, take my word for it. But when it comes to food, we have every right to be, don't you think ?

[divalea.livejournal.com]

You don't have to be rude because you find my posts infuriating.

It is possible to be "fat" and fit. It's also possible to be phobic about bodies that don't fall into one's aesthetic range.

French have the right to be snobs about their breads.

[ptitdo.livejournal.com]

You don't have to be rude because you find my posts infuriating.
I didn't thought I was being particularly rude. You get upset too easily. Whatever. Political incorrectness is funnier.

It is possible to be "fat" and fit.
Oh, well. Fat and fit are relative words. Everything is possible. Let's just say it's improbable. As far as health is concerned, I find it plainly wrong to say, "it's ok to be fat".

It's also possible to be phobic about bodies that don't fall into one's aesthetic range.
Ah well, let's discuss this. While it's true that I don't find fat people aesthetically pleasing, I've got no problem with people who are -what's the right word in Eng- chubby ? Not slim ? Whatever. It's all a matter of proportions. Everything in moderation, it's better like that.
And I don't think it's wrong or offensive to say that it's unnatural for the human body to be fat. That's a fact.

French have the right to be snobs about their breads.
Oh, I beg to differ. We have the right to be snob about our breads, our cakes, our chocolate, our wines, our meat, our delicatessen, our different recipes and everything that makes French cuisine ! :D

[thebaronofmspg.livejournal.com]

Yes, Atlanta is definitely not a ped-friendly urban environment. Though things are improving -- more and more bike lanes, MARTA accepts bicycles on both trains and buses... I wish we had more train coverage. The buses suck.