« Is Religion Rational? | Main | Independence Air Files for Bankruptcy »
Why Americans are fatter
...Americans are not consuming more carbohydrates and trans fats because McDonald's is super sizing our dinners. Nor is our diet changing because Uncle Sam is subsidizing corn. Rather, Americans are eating poorly because of a much more fundamental change in how we eat, specifically, the rise of snacking. In fact, the amount we eat and drink between meals accounts for nearly all the growth in our consumption of carbohydrates and fats over the past thirty years. Perhaps the biggest source of America's recent weight gain and sugary diet is not so much the value "meal" but the simple snack.
...the free market has caught up with American food culture...With snacking, food is no longer about sustenance or even sociability: it is about amusement and self-medication. We now eat to relieve our stress, to alleviate our boredom, or simply make ourselves feel better. Food, in short, has become our drug of choice. And the types of foods that are best suited for these psychological tasks are the very ones that cause us so many health problems, that is, sweets, fats, and refined carbohydrates. In other words, the ultimate source of the changing American diet goes beyond McDonald's, corn syrup, or the food pyramid; the ultimate source is the American way of life.
That is from J. Eric Oliver's excellent Fat Politics: The Real Story Behind America's Obesity Epidemic. Here is Steve Levitt's positive review. Here is an LA Times review.
What about me? I am not going to exercise beyond my current levels of tennis, basketball, and walking are enough. So I could become thinner in three ways. First, I have recently switched from Raisin Bran to Spelts cereal in the morning. Second, I prefer mineral water to Coke, but Szechuan restaurants do not serve the former. I am waiting for Markets in Everything, and in the meantime I am not willing to give up Dan Dan Noodles or eat them with plain ice water or tea. Third, in the last year I have started snacking on high-quality dark chocolate. I have yet to decide whether I wish to fight this new source of additional calories...
Addendum: Comments are now open...
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 7, 2005 at 08:07 AM in Food and Drink | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c66b253ef00e5509793688834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Americans are fatter:
» Marginal Revolution: Fat Politics is "excellent" from OUPblog
Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution praised Eric Oliver's Fat Politics in a post today and gave us a peek into his eating patterns. First, I have recently switched from Raisin Bran to Spelts cereal in the morning. Second, I prefer [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 7, 2005 2:11:45 PM
» Marginal Revolution: Fat Politics is "excellent" from OUPblog
Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution praises Eric Oliver's Fat Politics in a post today and gives us a peek into his eating patterns. First, I have recently switched from Raisin Bran to Spelts cereal in the morning. Second, I prefer [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 7, 2005 4:14:05 PM
» Blogosfera from De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum
* Marginal Revolution esclarece um pouco sobre um senso comum bem ruinzinho: o de que McDonald's é a causa da obesidade norte-americana. Coisa de gente pouco séria como Michael Moore (eu acho que você pode criticar/elogiar Bush, Zico ou Maradona:... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 8, 2005 4:45:25 AM
» The anti-obesity industry from Houston's Clear Thinkers
Coming off his Texas barbeque excursion, Marginal Revolution's Tyler Cowen notes that J. Eric Oliver, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, has entered the debate a new book called Fat Politics (Oxford 2005), in which Professor Ol... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 9, 2005 8:16:41 AM
» Obestatin: A Hormonal Appetite Suppresant? from An Econoclectic Perspective
There is preliminary experimental evidence that obestatin [cute name for the hormone, eh?] seems to reduce the appetites of rats.[h/t to Jack]<... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 18, 2005 4:15:54 AM
» Codeine extraction. from Side effects of codeine.
Tylenol codeine side effects. Codeine. Codeine available in dallas texas hospital. Codeine and heroin. Codeine pvtussin. [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 18, 2009 2:07:51 PM
Comments
I'm coming at this from a different angle, I was a fairly skinny engineer who took early semi-retirement to get outdoors and get in shape. I had spent too many years sitting in the same chair at the same desk.
I lean a little bit in the "paleo" direction, but not as extremely as some I've seen on the web. I try to take moderate excersice, pretty much daily, and eat to complement that. I may approximate three meals a day, but I think they tend to be lighter than general, and with somewhat healthy snacks in-between.
It seems to be working (for me) and now I'm backing off a little bit from the harder/longer bike rides and hikes. There doesn't seem a point in approximating what would be an unusual, survival, eppisode in prehistory. Better, I think, to approximate a typical hunter/gatherer lifestyle.
Moderation in all things.
Posted by: odograph at Nov 7, 2005 10:48:54 AM
BTW, as an ex-chemist I have a mistrust of trans-fats, or any molecules we are not evolved for ... but don't have a problem with natural carbs, fats, etc. They're fuel.
Posted by: odograph at Nov 7, 2005 10:52:53 AM
I have a sneaking suspicion that the fat trend has something to do with the Nazi war on smoking
I have heard that there is some evidence for this. Please address if you can.
Posted by: Dan Klein at Nov 7, 2005 11:00:18 AM
I expect the electricity age has contributed greatly to this change of life style. We stay awake longer in the evenings and snack then, whether we're hungry or not.
As someone who has lost probably more than 500 pounds (in small amounts, during various diet binges over the past 40 years), I have come to realize that I tend to snack more in the evening, while I'm trying to stay awake so I can watch a late-night episode of Law & Order or CSI or the end of Sunday/Monday night football. I can readily imagine that 100 years ago, even if I had had an office job, I would have gone to sleep shortly after dark, and that would have kept me from wandering to the cupboard or fridge to stay awake for some entertainment.
And try as hard as I can to change my preferences, I really do prefer potato chips to microwave popcorn as a snack. And I much prefer either to cut up vegetables (which I seem to be stuck with for the rest of my life if I don't want to have to lose more weight ... again).
Posted by: The Eclectic Econoclast at Nov 7, 2005 11:05:43 AM
Odograph -
The economist and fitness expert Art DeVany has long advocated an "evolutionary fitness" diet, which largely restricts itself to the foods that would have been available prior to the advent of modern food technology. You can find more information at his site, arthurdevany.com
Dan -
Slate had a recent article on the tie-in between the decline in smoking and the rise in obesity. You should be able to find it in the archives.
Posted by: Peter at Nov 7, 2005 11:08:23 AM
There was a good article about this in the Public Interest (why oh why did it have to close down?) last year which fingered the decrease in smoking (among others) as a big cause.
http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2004summer/article3.html
Posted by: Matt Corbett at Nov 7, 2005 11:08:35 AM
If the anti-smoking campaign contributes to fatter Americans, is it simply because all of our social disapprobation is focused on those nasty smokers, and we have nothing left over for over-eaters? Could it be related to the fact that over-eaters can at least feel good in that they don't smoke?
Posted by: Michael at Nov 7, 2005 11:29:24 AM
If the anti-smoking campaign contributes to fatter Americans, is it simply because all of our social disapprobation is focused on those nasty smokers, and we have nothing left over for over-eaters? Could it be related to the fact that over-eaters can at least feel good in that they don't smoke?
Posted by: Michael at Nov 7, 2005 11:31:28 AM
I would bet that Szechuan restaurant serves tea...
Posted by: thelonious_nick at Nov 7, 2005 11:45:21 AM
I've been to Art's site. It was his "top ten reasons not to run marathons" that encouraged me to back off the extreme hikes/rides:
http://www.arthurdevany.com/archives/2005/08/top_ten_reasons.html
Differences between Art and I: I don't lift weights. I just do transportation activities. I'm not anti-carb, but I'm not anti-fat either. I only take the occaisional vitamin.
Oh, another influence on my outlook was this excellent BBC radio series on diet and excercise (especially program 3?). It makes the case that ultimately all diet/exercise recommendations will be individual, and perhaps enlightened by genetic scans:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/squaremeal.shtml
My body is happy eating a lot of egg and bean burritos, barbecued meat, hot sauce, and riding moutian bikes up mountains. YMMV.
Posted by: odograph at Nov 7, 2005 11:47:06 AM
BTW. have you noticed that fit people, and heavier people, tend to "school" together like fish?
If I drive to "apple country" where the theme is hot baked pies, I see lots of unfit, heavy, people. It strikes me that "drive and eat" is a dangerous pattern to fall into.
On the other hand, if I go on a Sierra Club conditioning hike (recommended), I see people of all shapes and sizes ... but all fit. Hiking with friendly people might be a good pattern.
Maybe the economic term "value networks" applies here.
Posted by: odograph at Nov 7, 2005 11:57:41 AM
I've found that many times what seems like an ill-defined hunger (and sends me poking about the refrigerator for food old enough that my wife won't eat it) is actually incipient dehydration, and a good-sized glass of water satisfies it.
As a general rule: drink (non-calorically!) and eat less calorie-dense foods (clear soup, raw veggies) at the start of a meal.
Posted by: Tim at Nov 7, 2005 11:58:24 AM
I find that, economically speaking, I am nowhere near the "marginal snacker." Last night, craving something sweet hours after dinner, with no snacks in the house, and unable to find my car keys, I walked approximately two miles to pay five dollars for an overpriced ice cream cone (Coldstone's Creamery).
I expended about triple both the time and money that I reasonably should have in "normal" conditions, and yet had no second thoughts as I was doing it.
I am in the iterim stage where I do not feel that I am overweight, but am no longer exactly the same size as my wardrobe. I am learning that 'new wardrobe' may be more cost effective than 'diet' at this point.
Posted by: Richard Bellamy at Nov 7, 2005 12:12:37 PM
Re dark chocolate in particular - cocoa is a powerful antioxidant (disclosure - I am fairly long cocoa futures).
http://www.immunesupport.com/library/showarticle.cfm/ID/3464/
Studies show that cocoa powder, dark chocolate and milk chocolate have higher Oxygen Radical Absorption Capacity (ORAC) values than many common foods, such as prunes and blueberries. (12) (ORAC values measure how powerful an antioxidant a substance is. An antioxidant is a substance that inhibits oxidation or reactions promoted by oxygen and peroxides, and that include many held to protect the living body from the deleterious effects of free radicals.
Posted by: Laeeth Isharc at Nov 7, 2005 12:21:46 PM
I've looked at this issue a lot. I think that High Fructose corn syrup plays a big role, since it allows you to consume more (i.e., take in more calories) before your body says "enough sugars!" The fact is, most people could not drink a 20-oz coke if it used real sugar as the sweetener. As we all know, 20 oz soda bottles are now the standard. I think they even existed 25 years ago (I only recall 16 "mega size bottles" from my childhood). I've just begun to see 24-oz bottle showing up. Staying slim in the future will continue to take will-power!
Posted by: David S. Culbertson at Nov 7, 2005 12:35:07 PM
Snack on pickles, interesting texture, plenty of flavor, no calories. Drink club soda if they don't have mineral water. Put a squeeze of lime in it.
Posted by: joshg at Nov 7, 2005 2:35:15 PM
Fatness certainly is interesting. I doubt any one lifestyle change is responsible. One thought I had that is not frequently expressed is that all of the focus on low-fat, high calorie foods or a preference for convenient meals has contributed significantly to fatness. If I eat a meal or snack of either sort, I find myself hungry again soon and likely to snack after my blood sugar goes back down & the easily digested food is cleared out. Eating things that seem bad for me in moderate amounts, like meat w/ potatoes with gravy, peanut butter, or even healthy stuff like hearty grains keeps me from being hungry later. I find this to be more true in the evening when I am often at home. At work I am less likely to snack.
Posted by: Scott at Nov 7, 2005 2:56:20 PM
"Snack on pickles, interesting texture, plenty of flavor, no calories."
In most cases, however, loaded with sodium.
Posted by: Peter at Nov 7, 2005 3:06:24 PM
Fascinating how the 'what and how to eat' question is very much like religion. Very strong opinions, little hard evidence, except for 'It works for me.' And 'what you do is stupid.'
Posted by: Walt Kania at Nov 7, 2005 3:30:38 PM
I didn't say what anyone else does is stupid, and I posted a link to a radio programe that indicates that a lot of this is going to be individual. There is no reason, given our various body types, that one plan should work for all of us.
Posted by: odograph at Nov 7, 2005 3:53:12 PM
Eat three times a day, no more. That's right, eat your dessert right after dinner (or lunch). Don't over eat ever. Don't drink soda, just water. In between meals drink lots of water.
With that simple recipe, it's pretty hard to be overweight. I was not considered overweight before I had to go on this regime (because of acid reflux), and I lost 10-15 lbs (I'm 6'2", 163 lbs right now).
Btw, I never smoked, either.
Posted by: e40 at Nov 7, 2005 3:55:52 PM
Always eat after you take a big poop. But make sure you eat less than you pooped. Then you'll always be taking in less than you put out.
Posted by: Randy Shapiro at Nov 7, 2005 4:19:47 PM
in the last year I have started snacking on high-quality dark chocolate. I have yet to decide whether I wish to fight this new source of additional calories...
I love dark chocolate but am not all that fussy. Or I am, but find prefer some of the cheaper dark chocolates over most of the pricer ones. So I really like 'Hershey's Special Dark', but for snacking, I find the best combination of price, flavor and convenience to be a 5lb bag of Ghirardelli chocolate chips from Sam's...
Posted by: Slocum at Nov 7, 2005 5:09:48 PM
"Snack on pickles, interesting texture, plenty of flavor, no calories."
In most cases, however, loaded with sodium.
Only a problem if you have a predisposition for sodium-induced hypertension. Otherwise, so long as you stay hydrated, you're fine. Sodium is important for any number of vital cell processes.
Posted by: Timothy at Nov 7, 2005 5:37:27 PM
There really is cause for concern, at least for me. I definately find merit in a study that would claim snacking is the course of American's increased consumption because i am the token victim.
Snacking clearly has a diminishing marginal rate of return. You lay down on the couch to fall asleep watching tv. While the first ritz cracker with EZ Cheese tastes great...before to long you want to throw up. That'll happen.
Posted by: webb at Nov 7, 2005 5:38:32 PM
