
Dear American Consumers: Please don’t start eating healthfully - ph0rque
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/05/19/dear-american-consumers-please-dont-start-eating-healthfully-sincerely-the-food-industry/
======
jcampbell1
I have a solution to the obesity epidemic, that would be realistic to
implement. Right now the factors for what we analyse in nutrition is calories,
macro nutrient content, and micronutrient content. What we really care about
is satiation and satiety. These are words that no one talks about, and but get
to the core of the issue. If I eat this food, how many calories will I consume
before feeling full?(satiation). After eating this food, how long until I feel
the need to eat again? (sateity).

Unfortunately the research and measurements of these values is thin. We need
to fix that. We already know things like whole milk better provides satiation
and sateity than skim milk, and children that drink whole milk actaully have
less obesity than skim milk drinkers.

If we just measured and labeled foods with a sateity/satiation index (what we
really care about), then people would actually have a chance to pick better
foods. Right now it is damn near impossible to determine if eating eggs and
bacon for breakfast is more likely to drive over eating vs cereal. It can be
measured, but we just don't do it.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
I don't think that works too well. There's a large factor on satiety which is
how hungry, or even happy, you feel at the moment.

The most important factor for keeping calories intake low is making many small
meals a day, and we won't solve that changing food, but lifestyle. The obesity
epidemic is a direct result of sitting in an office 9 to 5 (or 6,7,8,...) and
making two meals a day full of fat and sugar, because you're craving.

When you have a better lifestyle, you naturally gravitate towards better food,
because you have time to cook (as opposed to pizza/snacks) or look for good
dinner (as opposed to drive-thru), have time to go to the grocery store buy
vegetables/fruits more frequently (as opposed to industrialized food which
doesn't spoil), and even time to appreciate food itself making various small
meals a day.

EDIT: I would like to know why the downvote. The correlation between obesity
and office workers is a recurrent research topic.

~~~
vidarh
> The most important factor for keeping calories intake low is making many
> small meals a day

Is there any research that actually shows that?

My own personal experience with leangains (intermittent fasting; taking all my
calories in an 8 hour window with lunch being my first and biggest meal) is
that I find it far harder to overeat that way than with smaller meals. It's
"easy" to fit in a snack between small meals, but after lunch I'm totally sick
of food, and it's hard for me to even meet my macro nutrient goals (I lift
weights; my protein intake is high). Often I have to force myself to take in a
second meal to meet my calorie needs (edit: because I simply often don't
_want_ to eat again before the end of my eating window, around 8pm, after my
massive lunch at noon).

On the opposite end, I see very few people around me that eat "only" two
meals. My co-workers for example, might very well only sit down for a meal
twice, but they snack constantly. And their "snacks" are often substantially
higher calorie than their main meals. When I _did_ try to diet with many small
healthy meals, it was a nightmare - I was constantly hungry and constantly
craving food.

When I do intermittent fasting, I have hunger pangs in the mornings 2-3 days,
and then I stop being hungry in the mornings.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
The whole point with many meals a day is not waiting to have a giant munchie
to eat, because when you do so you'll look for high-fat, high-sugar food and
devour an insane ammount of calories in minutes before your body triggers a
sensation of satiety. Then depending on your genetics and level of activity,
you will get malnourished, obese or both.

You stopping having hunger pangs in the mornings after some days is your body
adapting to your schedule. As long as you don't go lunch with a blackhole in
the stomach and are mindful about what you're eating, it's fine. Still, eating
something in between is important to avoid wild sugar peaks and helps
improving cognition performance if your job is intellectual.

~~~
jimzvz
_Still, eating something in between is important to avoid wild sugar peaks and
helps improving cognition performance if your job is intellectual._

I am not sure if this is true. I think in people without diabetes, insulin
does it's job and regulates your blood sugar pretty well during a fast and I
think cognition is better when a large amount of your body's resources are not
being used to digest food.

~~~
jrabone
Maybe, but it seems to me the trick is not to end up developing type 2
diabetes by repeatedly spiking blood sugar to the point the pancreas gives up.

------
DanielBMarkham
Interesting.

Over the years, this is the third or fourth version of this same story that
I've read.

Read one on low carbs. Read one on low fat. Now this one.

The assumption here, as it was in the others, is that we now know what works
and what doesn't. And that forces beyond our control conspire to keep us fat.
In this version, the thesis is that some form of certification system for
marketing to children can cure the obesity epidemic.

Beats me. But I'll bet twenty bucks that a decade or two from now we'll be
reading the same type of article, only with different kinds of suggested
cures.

I'm of the opinion that there is nothing wrong, or rather that the population
is acting entirely naturally and appropriately given their adaptation to
specific evolutionary conditions, which have changed drastically in the last
100 years. I doubt controlling marketing material will have a long-lasting
effect, but anything is worth a shot. It is a very serious problem.

Looking at the recent past, I'd be just a bit more humble about it.

~~~
magicalist
Go read the article linked to in the post:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-
extraordinary...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-
extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

It doesn't take a conspiracy, or especially evil actors, or even the
population acting unnaturally (WTF would that even mean?). All it takes is
millions of local optimizations to get us into the state we're in now:
optimize a marketing campaign for profitability, optimize a snack for
deliciousness, optimize what you stock based on what sells and what takes the
longest to spoil, optimize what you eat based on price and healthiness judged
on limited and flawed information ("low in fat! just ignore the rest of the
ingredients...").

Lots and lots of evidence out there for you on the malleability of the human
appetite, from people changing the portions that they eat based on the size of
the plate they have in front of them, to the absurd effectiveness of
rearranging grocery stores to sell snack food, children's food, etc _on top
of_ what people would already buy. We are complicated creatures, and you only
need a few percentage points from each of these things to justify doing them.

And again, there is nothing evil in saying "I will make a packaged children's
lunch that kids will actually love", and there's nothing wrong with a parent
deciding to get that lunchable for their kid. We could try to demonize both
parties there (good luck with that), _or_ we could try to change the fitness
landscape and figure out ways to at least better stack the odds in favor of
healthier eating.

Marketing at kids might not be the best lever, but it is one of the easiest,
as it is extremely effective (again, see that article), children are already
acknowledged as a protected class when it comes to some types of speech
(definitely when regulated by the FCC, and narrowly-defined laws like COPA
have been upheld by the supreme court, for better or worse), and there's
precedent that the public will accept this (parents are already harried enough
by requests for specific brands, and the cigarette ad bans in the 90s have
shown that there could easily be support for this sort of thing).

~~~
xtracto
>optimize a snack for deliciousness

Oh noh!, that snack is so delicious that I cannot stop eating it.

It really puzzles me that, in America, the 'vote with your wallet' place,
people who _care_ to be healthier doesn't just start buying healthier foods.

After all, the USA is characterized for a strong free market no? as soon as
demand for healthier food increases, companies surely would start selling this
kind of food I think.

The truth is that people don't care (and not only Americans... in Mexico we
have the same problems).

~~~
hispanic
They care. They care very much. But, they want the fix to be easy and
convenient. Therefore, what we get are foods that people _think_ are
healthier, but actually aren't. Why do they think they are healthier? Because
producers and advertisers convince them of such. (Think whole-wheat/grain
pasta.) The reality is that the truly healthiest food options are also the
least-processed. But that reality doesn't sell because it requires too much
effort and "sacrifice" on the part of the consumer.

------
DanBC
> _For example, any food marketed to children must “contain at least 50% by
> weight one or more of the following: fruit; vegetable; whole grain; fat-free
> or low-fat milk or yogurt; fish; extra lean meat or poultry; eggs; nuts and
> seeds; or beans.”_

UK advice is to give children full fat milk until they are 2, and not skimmed
until they are 5, and only then if they have a good diet. This is because of
the fat soluble vitamins, and also because children need the energy. As part
of a sensible diet full fat milk is fine.

This advice is part of the healthy drinking stuff. Children should have water
or full fat milk. If you give them fruit juice dilute it at least 10 parts
water to 1 part juice. Use a free-flow beaker, or a straw cup, or a regular
cup, rather than a sippy cup.

All this advice from government sounds a bit preachy. But tooth removal is a
significant cause for hospitalisation for UK children under 5.

([http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/10/tooth-
health-p...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/10/tooth-health-
poverty-caries))

Tooth care
([http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2366.aspx?CategoryID=62&SubC...](http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2366.aspx?CategoryID=62&SubCategoryID=63))

squash and fruit juice better than fizzy drinks?
([http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/are-squash-and-pure-fruit-
juice-...](http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/are-squash-and-pure-fruit-juice-better-
for-children-than-fizzy-drinks.aspx?CategoryID=62&SubCategoryID=63))

Cups and beakers ([http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-
baby/pages/drinks...](http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-
baby/pages/drinks-and-cups-children.aspx#close))

------
rayiner
> The guidelines said that foods advertised to children must provide “a
> meaningful contribution to a healthful diet.”

I've never received a convincing explanation of why advertising to children
shouldn't be generally banned.

~~~
robobenjie
To pay for the development of children's entertainment. Public television is
wonderful but I bet all of us look back fondly on a show that we loved as
children that would not have existed without ads to pay for its production.

~~~
hatcravat
Following this train of thought to its logical conclusion: Without children's
entertainment, kids would be forced to read free books from the library or go
play outside. The horror!

Look, shared cultural nostalgia is great, and all, but I'm not sure that makes
for a good reason to allow advertizing to kids.

------
guylhem
The proposal mandating 50% of something in food marketed to kids is stupid
nonsense. If anything, reason should tell you that evolution must have
selected for a "resiliant" digestive system - so much that it's thriving on
anything we throw at it. So why bother increasing the costs - besides for
control and power?

Do you have any reason to believe the experts know better what is good for
one's health? Do they have large scale studies properly done? (I mean not on
rats but on humans - it's kinda tough to force them to eat only what's
prescribed during a study, and you can't follow them all day long for years)
Do you want so much to reduce customer choice and force your thoughts on them?
This is the polar opposite to freedom, and based on a flawed methodology.

There are some evidence that a given regime or another may be beneficial for a
given disease, but nothing convincing yet to the best of my knowledge when
taking into account all the diseases (you don't get to hand pick the diseases
you'll get).

IMHO, the proper methodology would require a large scale datamining operation
along with biological tests and proper outcome monitoring. We just don't have
all the technology to do that yet on say at least 10 million humans for 10
years (and that wouldn't be large scale - there are 6 billions of us, and with
a longer lifespan!).

10 millions over 6 billions would be a 0.0016 ie 0.16% sample - with such a
small sample on only 1/7 of the human lifespan, I wish you good luck to anyone
willing to take into account genetic polymorphism, intolerance to some food
(milk, gluten) etc. It will just be an exercice in "manually correcting" so
many things that the end result should not be trusted.

Basically, at the moment we don't know for sure what's best, and we can't.

To quote Djikstra, I'd say such laws and rules are just the root of all evil -
premature optimization!!!

EDIT: Downvotes as always. I find that downvoting for a disagreement is not
fair play. You don't like my opinion? I would be delighted to be proved wrong,
with facts please.

~~~
srl
Yes, it's hard.

We can't experiment directly on humans - we can only look for correlations,
which always causes trouble with determining causality. Biological questions
are inherently complicated, so any hypothesis is necessarily little more than
a stab in the dark, even if we had the ability to compensate for genetic
variation et cetera, which we most certainly don't. Large-scale studies are
expensive, time-consuming, difficult to organize, and would inevitably end up
politicized from 200 different directions, and then driven into the ground in
the next campaign season.

In short, any and all dietary studies are doomed to be 99% failures.

But that 1% is important. I don't think there's much question that we have a
better understanding today, of what constitutes healthy food, than we did 50
years ago. We know, in particular, that foods rich in certain substances (I
don't want to try to classify them all in one or two words, because I don't
study this stuff and would get it wrong - I'm talking about tradition "junk
foods" and sweets, like cupcakes and potato chips.), are strongly correlated
with a wide variety of health issues, the incidence of which has increased
over the last several decades. Furthermore, these foods are inherently
attractive to children, and (perhaps more controversially?) display limited
addictive properties.

Yeah, our knowledge is limited, and yeah, we'll have missteps. But I don't
think this is "premature optimization" - the program's running really slowly,
and everyone's complaining about it. We don't understand a lot of why it takes
so long to finish, but there is something we can do that would probably make
it at least 5% faster. Why not give it a shot, and then go back to profiling?

Oh, and have an upvote, for contributing to the conversation. Because that's
the etiquette around here, although some seem to have forgotten.

~~~
guylhem
Thanks for this interesting counter argument (and for the upvote, although the
effect was quite short - I guess there are more emotional than rational
voters).

It is quite valid - if we have a strong suspicion on something, it could be
helpful to give a shot.

I'm just concerned we don't know how strong our suspicion is, which turns that
into a bet (more on that later)

The real problem IMHO is that this bet will certainly prevent or stall proper
studies for a long time afterwards.

Take for example LSD - there are many results suggesting it might be effective
on depression. Yet it was banned, which means once we have the technology to
conduct a real large scale study, we may not have enough data points as we
would have if it had not been banned (thanks to recreational users)

I mean, it is not ethical to willfully expose human to known dangerous drugs,
yet if they take it wilfully by themselves or by mistake, it's a great source
of data: for example, pharmacovigilence collects accidental use of drugs by
pregnant mothers to guesstimate the toxicity on the fetus or the LD50 on
humans)

This is just an example, but you can see how it might scale, basically we are
taking bets, and it hampers research.

Also, it is quite philosophical. Personally, I'm against coffee due to its
addictive potential and it's social image, yet it would be wrong for me to say
there are no positive outcomes linked to it, or that on average it might have
positive health benefit. I just don't know. There are many contradictions and
I remember reading an article on how there seems to be time trends in negative
or positive studies result, with an oscillation. (which would suggest that our
research results are biaised by our perception)

An outright ban on caffeine, like on LSD, even if it might be a) coherent with
my refusal, and b) more comfortable to me since I know I wouldn't be
accidentally exposed to coffee (ex: in a soda), would certainly hamper further
research, which would be detrimental if there was after all a positive health
benefit on average - ie it would deprive me of future data which could help me
change my mind.

IMHO, with bad data, taking bet with one's health is acceptable (if at no cost
for the health system). Taking bets with the other people health - aka banning
or mandating, is wrong.

EDIT: I just noticed your answer. Sorry if I improperly stated my intend. The
goal was not to enter into a philosophical debate, but to have counter
arguments. I am interested in either proving or disproving my thoughts - both
are fine. Therefore, to avoid sparking a debate, I will not reply to your
comment. Your answer however was very helpful and helped me clarify my
thoughts. I agree with your points. Thanks a lot, thanks also for telling me
your position and your data on coffee. For my position on coffee, see
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5632696> and
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5632995> \- I'd rather not say more, or
a coffee fanboy may start a debate.

~~~
srl
Oh man, a philosophical/ethical rabbit hole! Down we go...

> I mean, it is not ethical to willfully expose human to known dangerous
> drugs, yet if they take it wilfully by themselves or by mistake, it's a
> great source of data: for example, pharmacovigilence collects accidental use
> of drugs by pregnant mothers to guesstimate the toxicity on the fetus or the
> LD50 on humans)

The issue at hand isn't the subject's consent, I assume - the issue is our act
of encouraging an individual to do something that might be harmful. Otherwise,
there would be nothing wrong with performing studies on heroin use, as long as
the appropriate warning labels were affixed. (I'm just assuming you're not a
hard-core libertarian. If you are: just have a private company enforce the
ban, and all will be well ;P )

I think, though, that it's also unethical to allow /others/ to knowingly
encourage an individual to do something harmful. I recognize this is pretty
controversial (if I were religious, I'd be a pain in the ass), but it means
that if we are reasonably certain that item X is harmful, banning or
restricting advertising is a must.

I also think it's ethically preferred to, where feasible act to discourage
others (without coercion) from doing things harmful to themselves. Government-
and charity-run nutrition programs, PSAs, etc.

That's our ethical dilemma, I guess, or at least mine. On the one hand, long-
term scientific knowledge may be more rich and valuable if nothing is done. On
the other, there is a moral imperative to take actions which might limit that
long-term knowledge.

I'm inclined to assert, boldly and without factual basis, that there will be
"enough" people who disregard the advertisements and PSAs, that scientists
won't be much bothered by the missing data. Remember it's not like LSD; we're
not banning the substance, just the encouragement. People smoke plenty of
cigs, even though they're not advertised (and there's abundant negative
advertising).

(By the way, I'm also very against coffee, having bad personal experiences
with an individual who's behavior was/is noticeably negatively affected by the
stuff. I'd support normalizing drug laws by lumping hyper-junk foods,
caffeine, alcohol, cigs, pot, and other mildly harmful items of varying
addictiveness into one big "restricted advertising" category, and using the
taxes to send out occasional PSAs.)

------
kunai
While I agree with most of what is in the article, I always wince when I see
whole grains advertised as healthful foods.

They're not. Wheat contains gluten, a known gastrointestinal irritant, and
celiac and IBD patients know that wheat is one thing you want to stay away
from. It can also trigger inflammation and cause serious health problems for
anyone with an inflammatory condition.

Perhaps proposing gluten-free foods is a better idea.

In addition, the guidelines for "advertising to children" are quite peculiar,
and I don't know why children should be advertised to at all. What even
constitutes advertising to children is not quite clear either.

~~~
rickdale
Gluten free doesn't mean 100% of the gluten is removed from the food. So most
people who are 'severely allergic' to gluten are really just convinced that is
the case.

The last time I saw my cousin she looked and acted anorexic, meanwhile raving
about her new gluten free vegan lifestyle. She looked terrible. My other
cousin who suffers from narcolepsy was on the same diet raving about all her
new energy while falling asleep at the table. Meanwhile I went from being the
fattest person in the family to the most in shape in less than 10 months. I
usually jokingly order a side of gluten these days, just to piss the gluten
freers off.

Tip for American grocery shoppers: Don't hit the isles. Stay within the
vegetable and fruits section, shop there, only there, then leave. That is a
healthy diet. Usually there are nuts and meat in that section. Don't be
looking for the gluten free potato chips and cookies, that isn't healthy.

~~~
ImprovedSilence
>> Don't hit the isles. Stay within the vegetable and fruits section, shop
there, only there, then leave.

I really couldn't say it any better than this. Vegetables people. Get more of
them. Fresh ones. Learn to enjoy onions and mushrooms.

~~~
zevyoura
I couldn't help but giggle at your choices - onions are not particularly
healthy as far as vegetables go (better than potatoes, not as good as nearly
any other veg) and mushrooms aren't vegetables. That said, I'm all for eating
more vegetables (though fresh v. frozen is not an important consideration in
my mind; I eat plenty of frozen peas, carrots, artichokes, and broccoli).

------
throwaway1980
This gallery was going around recently:

<http://imgur.com/a/mN8Zs>

Apparently a journalist asked one family in each of 20 different countries to
gather all of the food they bought in one week and take a picture. It's a
fascinating look at global diets. The UK is even more disturbing than the US.

~~~
unreal37
Mexico is interesting. A table full of fresh food, and... what looks like 12
2-liter bottles of Coke.

On the USA table, there is literally nothing fresh. Every food is packaged,
plus McDonalds, Burger King, 2 pizzas... Plus Diet Coke of course.

And in Germany, again looks like a lot of healthy food there but then there's
like 4 bottles of wine and 30 bottles of beer. Uh, that's a weeks worth of
booze is it?

And finally, with Chad. Three bags of something (rice I suppose) and a bottle
of water. No fresh food, like the Americans. But compare the two pics side by
side - wow.

~~~
throwaway1980
Side note: it used to be that Mexican Coke contained cane sugar instead of
HFCS. Not sure any more.

------
JacobJans
This article points to the very obvious problem that it is very profitable to
sell unhealthy foods in the US.

There are a number of reasons for this, but one of them is caused by the
government. We subsidize the growing of industrial corn, soy, and wheat. These
are the primary ingredients of junk food -- and junk food is significantly
cheaper because of these subsidies.

The subsidies provided for growing fruits and vegetables are extremely low
compared to the subsidies for these big '3' ingredients.

There are reason Coca Cola is made with corn syrup in the US, and real sugar
in Mexico. The reason is farm subsidies, which make the cost of corn
significantly cheaper, and thus make the cost of a can of Coke much less to
produce.

A very simple step to fixing the obesity issue is to change the farm
subsidies. The artificial government role in the market should be modified to
support the growth of healthy foods, instead of supporting the growth of corn
and soy.

Unfortunately, this is very unlikely to happen due to the political climate
that has existed for a long time.

However, in my dream world, here's what I would do:

Gradually transition farm subsidies away from big industrial farms, to small
local farms that produce a variety of crops. Over 10-15 years, all farms over
a certain size would no longer be eligible for subsidies. Instead, small farms
that produce and sell food to their local population would be eligible for
subsidies. And they would get more for producing a diverse crop, and for
certain organic practices. Ideally the cheap food would eventually be produced
by tens of thousands of small farms that serve their local communities and are
accountable to their local communities.

Plus, a huge network of local farms would result in a very resilient food
system -- one of the primary goals of food subsidies.

~~~
wildgift
The other thing is weight. A bag of chips is 3 or 4 oz. A case of them is a
few pounds. A similar sized box of vegetables is 15 or 20 pounds.

The chips will last a few weeks. Vegetables will last a few days.

~~~
JacobJans
You're absolutely right about weight. One of the big concerns of an industrial
food system is shipping. The other big concern is shelf life.

Neither of these are nearly as big of a concern if you get your food from a
local farmer. The health of the consumer is not much of a concern, except in
terms of marketing.

Right now, it is more expensive to buy local food from a farmers market than
it is to buy industrial produced shipped from thousands of miles away. This
should change, and it should change by shifting subsidies away from large
industrial farms to small local farms.

------
whiddershins
No one knows what food is healthy and what food isn't.

Full stop.

The more you read about this, the more you realize it is so. Government advice
and regulation about healthy eating has likely been a contributing factor to a
huge explosion in chronic disease. Enough is enough, improve and expand
mandatory food labeling and stay out of the rest.

Meanwhile, no one should market anything to kids, if you really think about
it.

~~~
Yver
> No one knows what food is healthy and what food isn't.

I don't know about "healthy" food, but I'm pretty certain that Cap'n'Crunch
Oops All Berries! (which contains 50% sugar and— _oops_ —no berries
whatsoever) is the opposite of that.

Better labeling is nice, but I'd rather have a law that says that breakfast
cereals should contain at least 50% of cereals.

~~~
whiddershins
So you want to remove my choice to buy Cap'n'crunch because you are pretty
sure it isn't healthy.

~~~
enraged_camel
Personally, I would hate to take away your choice to make yourself fat. Less
competition for me in pretty much everything - jobs, friends, women, you name
it.

~~~
LekkoscPiwa
The Government Regulation created the problem, so to solve it you want more
Government Regulation?

------
batgaijin
Jesus figure out how to package soylent already. Honestly, if I could buy a
vaguely appetizing drink at 7/11 and knew that it had 1/3 of my daily
nutrients, I'd be pretty damn ecstatic.

~~~
mmagin
Can all of you who just want to be disembodied brains please figure out a way
to do so? The rest of us would like your spare organs. Thanks.

~~~
batgaijin
Hey I like my extreme sports just like anyone else. I just don't get why we
can't have nutritious mass produced dollar meals.

------
malandrew
Ironically, I doubt the industry would lose as much money as is claimed.
Instead they would mostly likely just reorganize themselves about being
profitable by selling healthy foods. The only problem I see is how long it
would take for them to reorganize around healthy foods.

------
volandovengo
I just started the paleo diet and lost 10 lbs this last month.

Overwhelmingly I've been amazed to see that most people seem to have no regard
whatsoever for their nutrition. Things go into their body but it often has 0
nutricional value.

Also - it's actually really really hard to eat well. Since so many restaurants
cater to what people are familiar with, there's next to no alternative for
people trying to eat nutritious food.

~~~
iamthebest
> Also - it's actually really really hard to eat well.

Not to mention it's expensive. I spend about $1200 a month just at Whole
Foods, mostly on organic and raw foods. And that's just for myself.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
You are paying for affiliation, not quality.

~~~
iamthebest
The thing is, I read "Super Immunity" by Joel Fuhrman and I've been obsessed
with following his recommendation of eating greens, onions, mushrooms, beans,
berries and seeds every day. Whole Foods is the only place around here where I
can get all of these grown organically.

Pesticides scare me. Especially since I can't be bothered to wash my food
before eating it. But as I understand it, if you use pesticides, then the
plants don't produce their own natural chemicals that fight off pests and
other symbiotic organisms. I don't remember where I read it but according to
my research those chemicals are very beneficial part of the total nutriment.

------
whiddershins
I have a solution for the obesity epidemic which would be difficult to
implement, but might actually work:

Address the socioeconomic and political factors that create so much poverty in
our country, and which also depress income in general.

We evolved to eat meat. The ethics of this I won't touch but the economics are
only a sticking point if you assume we must have a poverty-stricken underclass
in our country. And by poverty stricken underclass I mean anyone who can't
afford a couple of lbs of free range organic meat per day.

Do the math. Because most of our pre-civilization ancestors ate like that all
the time. Why can't we afford the same?

And don't say overpopulation. Back of the envelope math says the US could
easily produce meat at those levels for around 600 million people. And modern
societies have negative population growth in the wealthy demographics.

So isn't the problem just the ever increasing number of people who are being
dragged in to poverty?

------
spikels
I read Scientific American most of my childhood - articles about physics,
biology, math and especially the Amateur Scientist column (I so wanted to make
that laser but had no vacuum pump). I loved it!

Then in the 1990s something changed instead of being about new discoveries it
began to cover news and to advocate for various causes, even political
positions. Then they dropped the Amateur Scientist column.

Why couldn't they stick to science instead of snarky articles like this
hectoring every American to eat better? Were they afraid of Omni, Popular
Science or Time?

Perhaps this was a good business decision but I have no regrets about
canceling my subscription.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amateur_Scientist>

------
CoryG89
Is healthfully really a word..? I would have tried to phrase it 'eating
healthily' off the top of my head.

~~~
shellac
'Healthfully' (as in healthful) or 'healthily' (as in healthy) are both fine
according to the OED.

Personally I've never heard of 'healthful'. Looking around Fowler's Modern
English Usage suggests preference for 'healthful' is a U.S. thing (an even
there it seems people are unaware of it, judging by the comments at a U.S.
dictionary site). Fowler's also notes 'healthful' is considered 'old-fashioned
and literary' or 'formal' by some teaching dictionaries.

------
zobzu
The best always end up being (IMO): \- listen to your body

\- exercise some. doesn't have to be gym. even walking 30min a day is fine.

\- eat fresh food rather than frozen or processed food (hint: it requires
cooking)

\- drink water, not soda or beer

\- Keep things balanced. Ying & yang principle applies basically everywhere.
Including food types, salting, sweetening, etc.

then you generally don't need to force diet upon you. you don't need
medication. you don't need a "diet plan". you don't need to "hit the gym". you
don't need to make extra efforts that you'll revert in 3month. you're also not
going to get bulky or a skeleton. you're just going to get normal and healthy.

of course, all the above take some effort. and its true that it's harder to
find fresh food or proper food in general in the US than elsewhere, actually.

~~~
unreal37
Contrary to what the exercise industry tells you in ads, you actually can't
lose weight with exercise. Diet is almost always required to lose weight.

Going to the gym for an hour, burning a measly 400 calories walking on a
treadmill, and then celebrating that with a 800 calorie Smoothie after, is
actually making people gain weight not lose.

~~~
nandemo
> Contrary to what the exercise industry tells you in ads, you actually can't
> lose weight with exercise. Diet is almost always required to lose weight.

You can certainly lose weight by doing exercise and keeping your caloric
intake constant. It might as well be that out of all people who want to lose
weight, only a small % of people have the discipline/volition to follow such a
plan. But that's a far cry from "you can't lose weight with exercise".

~~~
zevyoura
Perhaps a better way to state it is that most people find it quite
significantly easier to lose weight by reducing caloric intake by a given
amount as opposed to increasing physical activity by the proportionate amount.

------
kokey
I don't think the food industry would be too worried about lost revenue. They
will be more worried about the cost of having to create and replace whole new
ranges of products to fit into these guidelines, but in the end they will
deliver the same wide spectrum of foods as they do today and fit into the
guidelines. Perhaps it will raise the prices of the products generally, which
will help with overeating but will also make products falling outside of the
guidelines more attractive. The irony is that in 10 years time our
'understanding' of what is healthy and what is not will probably have changed
radically.

------
crusso
So we're too stupid to pick out healthy food, but we're smart enough to vote
in people who know what's best for us and are ethical enough to not abuse
their power for self-enrichment?

Let's also ignore the fact that most of the food industry's processed low-fat
crap was a direct result of the government's earlier attempts to tell us that
fat was evil and shove the food pyramid down our throats.

------
mung
>If one company didn’t, their competitors would, so we all kind of have to do
it.

There is a point here lots of people, especially western countries, and most
especially Americans miss. So many people think government regulation takes
away freedom and unfettered capitalism gives it. People whose own interests
aren't even represented by that idea. And we _all_ suffer because of this.

------
elangoc
I've been thinking for a long while, now, about how to stitch together the
many threads of thought around diet, nutrition, environment, and economics:

1) eating a plant-based diet is healthier (Mark Bittman), or at the very
least, eating natural things (Michael Pollan) 2) eating meat costs more, and
it threatens the environment
([http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/commentary/...](http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/commentary/worried-
about-climate-change-eat-less-meat)), including in China
(<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/11/china-meat.html>) 3) for that
matter, others foods besides meat that come from animals (ex: dairy) have the
same effect. Roughly 75% of the world has some degree of lactose intolerance
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance>) 4) nutrition is more than
calorie counting -- it is about getting nutrients in the diet
([http://supplementsos.com/blog/how-to-actually-eat-
healthily-...](http://supplementsos.com/blog/how-to-actually-eat-
healthily-o-1-per-day/)) Lentils play an important part as a quality, cheap
source of protein. 5) there are ways to make good food affordable to the
people who can least afford it ([http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/jul/28/new-
mobile-food-truck-s...](http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/jul/28/new-mobile-food-
truck-serves-san-diegos-homeless-d/)) In fact, the idea (or 'business model')
of making necessary things affordable to the people who can least afford it as
been around for 50 years (<http://infinitevisionaries.com/>) 6) a very
important factor to incentivize people to switch diets is knowing that the
food will taste good. While it might involve a slight change in cultural diet,
this is absolutely possible
([http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-
dos...](http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-dosa-man-of-
new-york)) 7) the vegetarian diet of Tamils in Tamil Nadu (India) and Tamil
Eelam (Ceylon) is wide & varied, largely dairy-free, and mostly gluten free.
This largely applies for the other South India states, too. The diet consists
in large parts of lentils, leafy greens, vegetables, and spices. 8) in
particular, the diet in Tamil Nadu/Tamil Eelam of 50 years ago should be
examined, which is before the Green Revolution occurred in India. Back then,
many of the healthier grains eaten in large quantities by a large swathe of
people (millet, sorghum, finger millet, etc.). 9) An unintended consequence of
the Green Revolution in India and China in the 1950's is that, at least in
India, many of the healthier grains eaten in large quantities by a large
swathe of people (millet, sorghum, finger millet, etc.) were dropped in favor
of the far less nutritional white rice, which was for many just a once-in-a-
while treat. In North India, the favored, newly-proliferated crop of choice
was wheat. (Both rice and wheat are dreadfully water-intensive.) Brown rice
doesn't exist there, but in the region, only people in Kerala and Tamil Eelam
eat a red rice that is similarly nutritious. Of course, this is said to be not
as nutritious as things like finger millet or "thinai" (similar to quinoa).
10) People talk about the importance of vitamin B12, and that you can only get
it from animal based sources. But this diet has been around for 4,500 years,
people have been just fine.
([http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/01/indus_civili...](http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/01/indus_civilization_food_how_scientists_are_figuring_out_what_curry_was_like.html))
I'm sure people have been vegetarian for at least 2,000 years of that, if I
judge based on the Thirukkural (2,000 year old literature of virtuous maxims,
of which 10 talk about not eating meat). There are athletes and body-builders
in America who are vegetarian and vegan.

So I really think that a restaurant (or at the least, food truck) should pop
up selling a variety of vegan Tamil food at a very low price. This would solve
so many problems. I've been thinking of this for a long while now, but I would
be just happy if someone 'steals' the idea and runs with it.

(note: I'm sure there are other ways to achieve low cost, high nutrition,
vegan diets in varied, tasty ways, but this is part of my birth tradition. You
can treat that as a disclaimer / proof of authenticity. For me, personally,
I'm fairly lactose-intolerant, and I'm wondering now that I might be gluten
intolerant. I've been trying to be more vegan/vegetarian for the past 5
months, and it's helped a lot in my finances. It hasn't negatively impacted
exercising. I'm hoping to see more change once I start cooking!...)

~~~
derleth
Pollan's work has been questioned:

[http://saywhatmichaelpollan.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/in-
defe...](http://saywhatmichaelpollan.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/in-defense-of-
food-my-review/)

> Pollan’s central thesis is that introducing science into our food system has
> done more harm than good and that the best thing for all of us would be to
> go back to eating a more traditional diet. It’s fair to point out that
> nutritional science has led to some mistakes (such as recommendations to
> replace saturated fats with hydrogenated oils), but Pollan devotes too much
> of his effort to dismantling his own shallow caricature of science.

It is, in short, the Naturalistic Fallacy run wild, which is quite common when
the topic of nutrition comes up. In short: Something being 'natural' is
orthogonal to it being 'good' or even 'good to eat'.

<http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/naturalistic.htm>

> Roughly 75% of the world has some degree of lactose intolerance

Which means nothing to the people who don't have it, whose ancestors evolved
to retain lactose tolerance into adulthood for the simple reason that milk is
good food, full of proteins, fats, sugars, and vitamins that are just as
important to an adult as a child. Just because the default First World diet
induces a calorie surplus at this point instead of a calorie deficit does not
negate any of milk's benefits.

> nutrition is more than calorie counting -- it is about getting nutrients in
> the diet

Everyone knows this. That doesn't mean most First World people need
supplements, because they don't.

<http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/supplements/NU00198>

> If you're generally healthy and eat a wide variety of foods, including
> fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, low-fat dairy products, lean
> meats and fish, you likely don't need supplements.

~~~
elangoc
These points are interrelated.

> Which means nothing to the people who don't have it

So in the case of lactose intolerance, what's interesting, in fact, is the
environmental impact of the fact that the people in the Western world are
largely fine with lactose. As the PBS NewsHour story about the causes and
effects of China's meat consumption habits shows, Western habits are having a
significant influence in the diets of the younger generation in developing
countries. The effects of large-scale pollution of water resources is
horrific, and competition for water resources is, after oil, the next source
of conflict in the world. So yes, it will affect everyone.

> Everyone knows this. That doesn't mean most First World people need
> supplements, because they don't.

Sure, First World people don't need supplements, if they have a varied diet.
In North America, that's a big if. There are cultural impediments to that
varied diet, even for those with the means to afford it. But for many lower-
income families, and especially those living in low-income neighborhoods, they
experience the "food desert" problem. And they lack the same access to quality
foods as more affluent people. That is a systemic issue related to how society
(via government) deals with the problem. And the economics of the prices of
foods is, in some part, related to the energy requirements which is related to
the 90% energy loss up each level of the food chain. There is an environmental
impact there.

btw: I just threw in the names of Bittman and Pollan as representatives of the
ideas of plant-based and natural diets. It's not like they invented the ideas;
they're just the most recognizable cheerleaders for them at the moment.

~~~
maxerickson
Since you mention them together a few times, I think it is worth pointing out
that the vast majority of lactose intolerant people simply lack the ability to
produce an enzyme that digests lactose, while gluten related conditions mostly
seem to involve some sort of immune response. Some people probably do have a
genuine milk allergy, but mostly lactose intolerant people are just unable to
make lactase.

The discomfort stemming from lactose intolerance comes from bacteria digesting
the sugar and making gas, etc. The discomfort (and further problems) from
gluten is well understood to be an immune response in some instances (Celiacs,
wheat allergies), and still thought to be an immune response in most remaining
cases.

------
dschiptsov
yeah, don't - you will ruin the whole economy!))

------
nixpulvis
Was this sarcasm... Seriously.

------
LekkoscPiwa
So is it that we have to eat unhealthy at the gun point? No! We are free to
eat whatever we want. And if most people want to eat poison then that's what
the free market economy will provide them with.

It reminds me a little bit the situation with the banks. Somehow when times
were good and everybody and their uncle could get a loan everybody loved
Goldman Sachs CEO. But now, when it is pay off time people just hate the
banks. Just shows a hell lot about people's attitudes (me! me! me!)

The same with the food industry. It's not my fault I eat like pig day and
night, it's because the commercial on TV told me to do it. Sure, and if they
told you to eat shit, you would eat shit, right?

Socialism is the love of blaming somone for your own failures. Free people not
only make decisions, but also take responsibility for them. People who don't,
should live for some time in a country where 'Dear Leader' will decide for
them how they should live their lives because there is no difference to them
anyway.

I'm tired of this BS. Used to have a coworker who was eating all the time. She
had a small refrigerator in her cubicle. And of course, yeah, she wants
universal healthcare. So I and others will pay for her bad choices. This is
just immoral.

