fast food nation

Regulation and education. Sounds good on paper, but what about in practice? We’ve been trying to educate people to eat healthy for as long as I can remember, and it doesn’t work. Your tobacco analogy is telling.

Yes, the tobacco companies actively worked to hide knowledge of just how bad smoking was for you. But at the same time, nobody with a gram of smarts didn’t know for at least 20 years that smoking was bad for you, VERY bad. And people still smoked, in huge numbers.

The same holds true for food. People know the Big Mac is bad for them, but they eat it anyway. They know they shouldn’t put all that ranch dressing on the salad, but they do it anyway.

I’m not sure just how much more you could educate people, or what good it would do.

As for regulation, that’s easy enough to say, but you need to provide specifics. Regulating what gets served (and what snacks are readily available) in public schools is easy enough, but that only scratches the surface. What other types of regulation do you have in mind?

The same holds true for food. People know the Big Mac is bad for them, but they eat it anyway. They know they shouldn’t put all that ranch dressing on the salad, but they do it anyway.

I don’t think they know as much as you might think. Disclaimer: this is coming from an inveterate low-carb advocate. The low-fat model for dieting has dominated for decades, yet we’ve steadily gotten fatter. The problem is not that people know that the Big Mac is bad for them but eat it anyway. The problem is that they skip the Big Mac and get the McChicken, and still down the biggie size fry. Both meals make you fat.

As for regulation, that’s easy enough to say, but you need to provide specifics. Regulating what gets served (and what snacks are readily available) in public schools is easy enough, but that only scratches the surface. What other types of regulation do you have in mind?

This is a terribly complicated and depressing problem. There are entire industries revolving around the profit from food that is bad for us. (Indeed, entire third-world economies subsist on the trade of sugar.) What happens to these economies when the demand dries up (a far-fetched problem that is the least of our concerns, but something to think about nonetheless).

But, in general, how do you go about reforming a system so vast and entrenched as the system responsible for distribution of something as fundamental as food? It’s tough. I don’t know that I really have any good answers on this front.

I think there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of the direction of organizations like the NIH, FDA, and USDA. These are the organizations whose voice would be most heard in communicating that “low fat” does not necessarily mean “healthy”. These organizations should be setting a vision, and instead they are simply channelling the same (well-funded) rhetoric we’ve been fed for years.

Next steps could include subsidies. The problem that fat and carbohydrate-rich foods tend to be the cheapest is one that is not likely to be changed by anything other than pure economics. So, why not subsidize the production of food that isn’t so unhealthy? Soy and soy-based products, vegetables. Subsidize the beef industry. Anything!

Maybe this would be a much more pleasant alternative to a simple “fat tax”, which would place the brunt of economic re-adjustment on the shoulders of the poor.

Yay!

So, why not subsidize the production of food that isn’t so unhealthy? Soy and soy-based products, vegetables. Subsidize the beef industry. Anything!

This already happens, all over the place. Soybeans are among the most heavily subsidized foodstuffs we produce, if I remember correctly, but nobody’s eating them.

As for low-fat versus low-carb, it’s all a crock of low-crap. To be blunt, it’s the calories, stupid! If you consume more calories than you burn, you gain weight. If you burn more than you consume, you lose weight. It’s really that simple.

Now calories are not the be-all and end-all, as not all 2,000-calorie diets are created equally. And calorie requirements vary by activity, gender, and other factors. But it’s really all about the calories.

Personally, I’m a firm believer in the 30-40-30 rule. 30% of your calories from protein, 40% from carbs (preferably complex), and 30% from fat. It’s called *gasp* a balanced diet. And it’s devilishly difficult to maintain.

But I’ve tried low-fat, and I’ve tried low-carb, and neither worked for me. The only time I ever had any success losing weight, I did it by counting calories. No, it’s not fun, and it’s got a bad rap (thanks in large part to fad diets that say “no tedious calorie counting!”). But when I counted calories, I could eat pretty much whatever I wanted, just less of it. And getting off my fat butt more often wouldn’t hurt, either.

There are other issues with unbalanced diets like low-carb or low-fat diets. The longer-term health implications aren’t well known. High-protein diets may be especially hard on your liver, for example. We won’t know for another 20 or 30 years, probably.

This already happens, all over the place. Soybeans are among the most heavily subsidized foodstuffs we produce, if I remember correctly, but nobody’s eating them.

Well, then for our purposes, they aren’t subsidized enough. If the point is to eliminate unhealthy food as the only economically viable choice for poor people, healthy, protein-rich soy products would have to be cheaper and more appealing than, say, Ramen soup. Lofty? Yes. Impossible? No.

As for low-fat versus low-carb, it’s all a crock of low-crap. To be blunt, it’s the calories, stupid! If you consume more calories than you burn, you gain weight. If you burn more than you consume, you lose weight. It’s really that simple.

This is a matter of semantics. Your body chooses what to do with glucose it gets from food you consume. This is determined by insulin. The metabolic factors that involve whether or not calories are “consumed” by the body is vastly more complicated than a direct relationship to the amount of calories you actually put in your mouth. Calorie-counting will help you lose weight. Low-carb dieting can give you a metabolic corrective advantage wherein calories consumed can be as high as normal and still induce weight loss.

There are other issues with unbalanced diets like low-carb or low-fat diets. The longer-term health implications aren’t well known. High-protein diets may be especially hard on your liver, for example. We won’t know for another 20 or 30 years, probably.

In the interest of not digressing into an all-out nutrition debate, I’d rather just post a link to a page I wrote a while back detailing some common myths about low-carb diets, including the liver damage one.

Further, I’d recommend you and anyone else read about ketosis in general, hyperinsulinism, and Diabetes.

Well, then for our purposes, they aren’t subsidized enough.

It’s not that simple. Soybeans, as an example, are dirt cheap already. People don’t like them, and they won’t eat them. And you’re still overlooking the convenience factor. I can take chips or ramen noodles and stick them in my desk drawer at work, forget about them for six months, and they’re still edible. If I’m busy at work, I can grab and run.

Healthy foods don’t work that way. You have to shop two or three times a week, and eat what you buy within two or three days of buying it, or throw it away.

In order to truly encourage people to eat healthy, you would have to impose fundamental societal changes which would be so dramatic, they would be almost universally reviled.

In the interest of not digressing into an all-out nutrition debate

I don’t want that either. I’m not saying that low-carb diets are bad for you, I’m just saying that the jury’s still out. A balanced diet is the ticket. If by “carbs” you mean “refined sugar,” then yes, you should massively reduce your intake. But fruits and veggies are good for you, and they’re loaded with carbs.

*It’s not that simple. Soybeans, as an example, are dirt cheap already. People don’t like them, and they won’t eat them. And you’re still overlooking the convenience factor. I can take chips or ramen noodles and stick them in my desk drawer at work, forget about them for six months, and they’re still edible. If I’m busy at work, I can grab and run.

Healthy foods don’t work that way. You have to shop two or three times a week, and eat what you buy within two or three days of buying it, or throw it away.

In order to truly encourage people to eat healthy, you would have to impose fundamental societal changes which would be so dramatic, they would be almost universally reviled.*

I will concede this point. There is more to it than that, I agree. I think many healthy foods could be made more attractive and just as convenient. Beef jerky, raw veggies, fruit. All these things are good. The problem? They don’t have the billions of dollars in marketing and distribution behind them.

But, even if that were fixed, I agree, they will never surpass the appeal of good ol’ fat and sugar. This is as much a genetic predisposition as is our inability to deal with that much sugar and fat in a healthy way (ie, why we have diabetes instead of super energy-efficient mega-fueled bodies).

So, the question becomes: how do we as a people temper our lack of willpower in the face of great abundance? Tough question.

If by “carbs” you mean “refined sugar,” then yes, you should massively reduce your intake

“Low carb” is meant relative to what most people’s daily intake of refined carbohydrates is, which is exceedingly, diabetes-causingly high.

Good posts! In my opinion, personal growth is the inly way to have any changes prove positive results…otherwise you’re just changing the dressing without examining what’s going on inside. Some of the shift must be imposed from the outside/environment, but for true choice to be altered to the point of the highest level of economic, physical, and ecological balance, we must each become aware of the basic truths of our world and the consequences of our actions. Not worrying about the decisions of others is one step, for it allows us the freedom and energy to make the best decisions for ourselves and to create the space for others to educate themselves without the pressure of feeling judged.