The Widening of America, or How Size 4 Became a Size 0
By JANE E. BRODY
Published: January 20, 2004
link to article
Last fall, I was thrilled to find a pair of size 0 cotton stretch slacks that fit perfectly. Now, I have never been a 0, not since puberty anyway. I am, at best, a size 4, which is two sizes smaller than what I wore at the same weight in the 1970's. What has happened? Size inflation, that's what.
Women — and men — who have packed on the pounds want to be able to wear the same sizes they wore in their trimmer days years ago. So the fashion industry accommodated, with today's size 4 fitting like former size 8, 8 like 12, 12 like 16 and so forth.
Men's slacks once labeled "regular" are now "slim cut," and for those who cannot squeeze into those, there are easy fit, loose fit and baggy fit. Greg Critser, in his illuminating book "Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World" (Mariner Books paperback, $13), points out, "The new cuts were in reality simply bigger sizes, without the bigger numbers."
New Yorkers complain that the subway cars, many of them made in Japan, can seat one-third fewer people than they were meant to. Why? Because the typical seated American covers a lot more bench than a Japanese commuter. In response to a complaint from an oversize customer, the president of the Olive Garden restaurant chain ordered bigger chairs, lest the biggest eaters decide to dine elsewhere.
Americans live in a land of abundance where supersizing can be a necessity if you want to stay in business, be it movie theater popcorn, fast food, soft drinks or automobiles. A McDonald's meal that once had 540 calories now packs in 1,550. The items are the same, but the portions have tripled. And studies have shown that even if people are satisfied with less, they will eat more if portions are larger.
Even dieters, it seems, want to eat as much as they can without having to pay a caloric price for their indulgence. How else can anyone explain the enormous popularity of Atkins-like diets that promise weight loss without deprivation as long as the dieter sticks to a low-carbohydrate regimen — as many cheeseburgers as wanted, but without buns or ketchup; bacon and sausage with the cheese omelet but no toast; and gobs of fatty dressing on the salad but no croutons.
People do lose weight on these diets. How? Because they eat less than they did before (as one lapsed Atkins dieter remarked, "What's a burger without a bun?"). Because they cannot indulge in 400-calorie bagels, 600-calorie muffins, Krispy Kreme doughnuts, Haagen-Dazs ice cream, pies, cakes, cookies or even rice, pasta, bread or potatoes. Nor can they grab a candy bar or down a sugary soda when the snack bug bites.
A healthy body does not waste calories. If you eat them, they count, and if you eat more calories than you use, you gain weight, not lose it, no matter what the contents of the diet.
Children at Risk
With each consecutive survey, the number of overweight Americans increases. More than 60 percent of adults and 20 percent of children are now overweight or obese. When will it end? Not soon, if dietary habits and sedentary trends continue.
In a national study of 6,212 children and adolescents published in the current issue of the journal Pediatrics, researchers at the Agriculture Department and the Harvard Medical School found that on a typical day 30.3 percent of the people surveyed reported eating fast food. The people who ate fast food that day consumed 187 more calories, 9 more grams of fat, 26 more grams of added sugars, 228 more grams of sugar-sweetened drinks and less fiber, milk, fruits and nonstarchy vegetables than youngsters who did not eat fast food that day.
Not only did the fast-food eaters consume more calories, but they also ate fewer health-sustaining nutrients.
As Mr. Critser points out, schools from kindergarten through college are complicit in the galloping epidemic of obesity. Overburdened and underfinanced school systems throughout the country have invited fast-food purveyors and soft-drink vending machines to their premises, often with monetary or equipment kickbacks from the producers.
The push to raise academic scores has squeezed out many physical education programs and athletic activities, not to mention art and music. After school outdoor activities have yielded to computers, video games and television, the modern-day baby sitters. A result is increasing numbers of youngsters who are eating more and moving less — and putting on fat cells that will be with them for life.
I am often asked why the food industry produces so many products that can undermine health. The answer is simple. Because people buy them. Any food item that does not sell soon disappears from the marketplace. The industry supplies what consumers demand. If more people eating fast food choose salads over fries, the salad choices in those establishments will increase.
If parents unite and demand a change in school lunch offerings or if more children take lunch from home, childhood nutrition will improve. Parents must remind school authorities that a sound mind has to reside in a sound body; children's physical development should not be sacrificed to academic scores.
After-School Answers
With both parents working outside the home, children are often confined indoors after school for safety reasons. How about getting together with a number of parents to form an after-school group supervised by a jointly hired attendant who will keep the kids moving, indoors or out? Communities might also unite to press for construction of safe activity centers, exercise tracks, hiking and biking trails and community pools.
Many revisions may also be needed in the home. Cupboards, refrigerators and freezers stocked with high-calorie treats do no one any favors.
My sons grew up without sodas, cookies, candy, cake or chips as household staples, and to this day rarely consume them. Better to save such purchases for special occasions and buy only enough to suit those occasions. If necessary, divvy up leftovers among the guests or donate them to a local shelter or feeding station for the homeless.
If ice cream is a household necessity, choose a store brand "light" ice cream or, better yet, frozen yogurt, which has less fat and about half the calories of the high-fat ice creams. Check the nutrition label before buying and note that the calorie count applies to a half-cup serving, not a soup bowl full.
Start putting pressure on the big food companies and fast food chains. Write to corporate headquarters about nutrition concerns and, if possible, offer suggestions for alternative products and urge a reduction in portion sizes. You might also voice your support for a tax on snack items and a ban on television advertising on children's programs for nutritionally questionable foods, for example, those that exceed a certain fat or sugar ratio to healthful nutrients.
The recent suits by obese youngsters against McDonald's may sound laughable, because no one forced the youngsters to eat that fattening fare. But the negative publicity that the suits attract to the company's high-calorie offerings may help others stop eating them before they, too, balloon into obesity. Look what citizens' suits against tobacco companies have wrought.
An end result may be legislation that requires food companies to advertise healthy eating plans. Currently, Mr. Critser points out, "the soft drink industry alone spends upward of $600 million annually to promote its trash, compared with the National Cancer Institute's paltry $1 million budget for promoting fruit and vegetable consumption."