Sun 7 Mar 2004

The overweight pay a heavy price for confusing size with quality

GERARD DE GROOT

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.co...fm?id=266952004

WOODY Allen used to tell a joke about two elderly Jewish women lunching in a New York restaurant. "This food is disgusting," the first one says, halfway through her meal. "Yes, it’s the worst food I’ve ever eaten," the other replies. "And such small portions."

I was reminded of that joke when I heard that McDonald’s was phasing out its ‘supersize’ portions, in response to pressure from the health lobby. Of all the complaints levelled against McDonald’s, no one has ever moaned that the portions are too small - rather the opposite. Personally, I’ve never been able to understand the fuss about ‘supersize’: why do people want big servings of such disgusting food?

Huge portions are a reflection of our tendency to confuse size and quality. It’s not just big burgers. Over the last few years we’ve also demanded automobiles of a size previously appropriate only to the military. Books are also expanding. Ever notice how each Harry Potter novel is bigger than the previous one? JK Rowling’s next instalment might have to carry a health warning: ‘This book should not be read by small children as it could crush them.’

The thing about size is that it makes the advertiser’s job easy. While real quality is subjective, size is indisputable. As a result, the worth of a product tends nowadays to be measured by its weight or girth. (Which explains why plastic surgeons are doing so well and spammers bombard me with advertisements for miracle potions designed to make the woman in my life happy).

Like so many ills of today’s society, the cult of bigness has American origin. Nowhere is this more evident than with food, which is why McDonald’s currently finds itself in a pickle. Travel the American West, and you inevitably come across restaurants peddling 78oz steaks. Eat the whole thing (along with baked potato, salad, and desert) and you don’t have to pay for it. You also get your name on an honour roll - gluttony venerated in perpetuity.

Recently, big food has crossed the Atlantic. While we’re still a long way from the 78oz steak, there’s no doubting that British portions have expanded. Muffins, which used to be smaller than a lemon, are now the size of a grapefruit. (Those concerned about the size can, however, buy a big tub of mini-muffins.) Order a large latte and you get a cup with two handles that could easily double as a Jacuzzi. Ever notice how no one sells ‘small’ drinks? At Costa Coffee, cups come in primo, medio and massimo. What ever happened to piccolo?

Big food leads inexorably to big people. A Big Mac with a medium order of fries and a medium Coke contains 1,260 calories, 55 grams of fat and 165 grams of carbohydrate. Upgrade to ‘supersize’ and throw in an apple turnover and the calorie count for that meal alone approaches the recommended amount for an entire day.

In Britain, one in four women and one in five men are officially fat. This places enormous pressure on the NHS, which spends huge amounts treating illnesses which are entirely avoidable if only people would eat sensibly. Faced with an obesity time bomb, the government has reacted like a headless chicken, wildly running around the barnyard trying to find someone to blame. Advertisers and food producers have both been lambasted, but only occasionally have ministers criticised the overeaters. That’s understandable, given that no one wants to insult a potential voter. There’s been a lot of hand-wringing, but nothing resembling a coherent long-term plan.

According to a study released last week, Hull is the fat capital of Britain. Of the top ten obese cities, most were in the north of England, which is grist to the mill for those who connect obesity with poverty. The journalist Will Hutton argued last month that ‘obesity is driven by inequality ... the rise in inequality over the last two decades has more to do with the rise in obesity than any of the litany of causes cited in our media’. To prove his point, he provided statistics showing that an unskilled woman over 16 is twice as likely to be obese than her professional counterpart.

The leanest city in Britain is Kingston upon Thames, where the cucumber sandwich is king. While there’s no disputing that poor people are more likely to be overweight than rich people, the explanation remains elusive. There’s certainly no evidence that a low calorie diet need be any more expensive than a high calorie one. In fact, the things which make us fat - crisps, sweets and highly processed convenience meals - are a lot more expensive than nutritious, low calorie foods. An apple is still cheaper than a Mars bar.

The really strange thing about the current connection between obesity and poverty is that it reverses what has been the case throughout history. Until very recently, only the wealthy could afford to be fat. Take any photo of working people in the early part of the last century and you struggle to find anyone remotely overweight. In the Great War, around 40% of men had to be rejected for military service because they were malnourished. Among those who enlisted, a large proportion grew a couple of inches and added a stone in weight as a result of an Army diet.

In other words, the obesity epidemic is in part the result of rising living standards. Even at the lowest rungs of society, there’s more money available and therefore more to spend on food. No one would ever advocate a return to conditions prevalent in 1914, when low income meant low weight. But, while it is good that food budgets have risen, it is unfortunate that eating standards have not kept pace. Ever-increasing amounts of money are spent on food which does us harm. Too many of us confuse size with quality.

For some reason, a poor person is less likely to resist a McDonald’s supersize meal than a rich person. At the heart of this problem is self-esteem, which explains why it’s quite difficult to find a fat person in Kingston upon Thames. For the poor, food provides comfort. But the solution does not lie in restricting access to fattening food. If obesity is indeed related to low self-esteem, it does no good to treat the overweight like children and restrict their access to big portions. Eating must remain a matter of choice. The public can be encouraged to eat well, but it can never be prevented from eating badly. The idea that McDonald’s is to blame for the fact that we are fat implies that we need not take responsibility for our own lives.

A few years ago, Radio Four ran a delightful series called something like Advice My Mother Gave Me. I remember two bits of wisdom about food. A woman recalled how her mother said that if she found herself in an unhygienic restaurant she should order a bottle of beer and a hard-boiled egg, since no one could get their fingers in that food. The other piece of advice has relevance to those who crave big burgers and colossal cakes: never eat anything bigger than your head.

Excellent article; it's funny yet it cuts very close to the bone

Agreed. This is a very informative piece, well-written too.

I think it was a well thought out article, even though I disagree with the author's conclusions.

It is a big, big myth that the poor are well fed. The poor have adequate access to enough raw caloric energy, but in reality their diets are very very poor because they cannot afford quality food. The poor live off inexpensive convenience foods of broken damaged fats, refined carbohydrate, and very minimal protein. This high starch, sugar, and broken fat diet is incompatible with human needs, and causes metabolic disorders such as insulin resistance/hyperinsulinemia. Hyperinsulinemia/insulin resistance/pre-diabetes then results in obesity. Abnormal sugar metabolism stimulates appetite and retards metabolic activity. However, when a person is fed a diet that is compatible with the needs of the body, we will naturally only eat as much as we require AND burn more energy doing it. Very few people make a habit of binging on a natural LC diet; those who have emotional or self esteem issues are the types who fall off the wagon and cheat all the time.

Basically, I fully believe the reason we have so many poor people who are over 250 pounds, is because the food poor people eat is bad for you. The reason they do this is because that is all they can afford. The poor cannot afford veggies and protein. They can afford pasta, tortillas, flour, and tubs of transfat, though.

As for why so many people value size over quality, well that is an obvious one. When you've been poor and have to make your dollar stretch, you naturally try to buy the biggest portions for the least amount of money. It is unfortunate that there is such a resistance to returning to a natural diet, or else the poor might learn smaller portions of lc fill you up better and are healthier than huge portions of pasta.

That got me: «A Big Mac with a medium order of fries and a medium Coke contains 1,260 calories, 55 grams of fat and 165 grams of carbohydrate. Upgrade to ‘supersize’ and throw in an apple turnover and the calorie count for that meal alone approaches the recommended amount for an entire day. »

I those figures are correct, it makes me wonder why they keep saying that McDs and fast food is high fat...it is rather high carb, and the fats which are in there are the worst possible kind, the hydrogenated kind! They keep saying that the saturated fat content of these foods is what's problematic about them, yet the only natural saturated fat in there comes from the small beef patties (which are «bulked up» with soy), and the cheese...

Good observations Whoo. However I am not sure that he was implying that the poor were well fed, or at least I didn't get that impression. But he did seem to be implying that they could feed themselves well, and that it's only a matter of choice. I am not entirely sure of that statement. It's difficult to judge when you have never been in that situation. It's probably difficult to find good quality protein and veggies when you are poor. However I think he is right. Processed food are expensive. Eating at Mcdonald while relatively cheap is still more expensive than eating at home. Someone creative and motivated could probably stretch a small grocery budget enough to get decent food. Obviously they will not be dinning on T-Bone steaks and braised endives. However you can always find cuts of meat on sale, discounted cans of tuna, bags of frozen vegetables, farmer's markets, ect ect.

I absolutely believe the poor are fat because they eat badly. Your analysis Whoo was dead on. I also believe that they could choose to eat better. I think however it's not so much choice that's the issue as knowledge. Like I said, you need to be motivated and creative to eat well on a small budget. It's easier to just walk into your local food mart and fill your basket with colorful boxes of crap.

This is a product of clever marketing and lack of knowledge. All those boxes are there with tempting images of food, just at eye level. You know that you only need to grab a box, open it, toss a couple of ingredients in and you got supper on the table. A can of tuna, on the other hand, is not so attractive. For the unimaginative cook, it doesn't hold the promise for a quick and tasty meal, not like a box of hamburger's helper or mac 'n cheese. So I think that's a big part of the problem. People are not taught how to prepare quick and tasty meals. You learn your abc's at school, but that aspect of your education is neglected. Unfortunately, to our detriment, the big food manufacturer's seem to have stepped in to fill that gap.

"Obviously they will not be dinning on T-Bone steaks and braised endives. However you can always find cuts of meat on sale, discounted cans of tuna, bags of frozen vegetables, farmer's markets, ect ect."

Another issue with the poor is that they often have to either walk to their local market or take public transportation. It's a lot easier under these circumstances to carry a few days worth of carbs than a few days worth of meat, fruit and veggies.

Back in the early 70's, when I was in nursing school, we were taught in our nutrition classes that poor tend to be havier because they eat more carbs than fat and protein, because it's less expensive.

If I want to give my son hamburgers and a salad for dinner: I'm going to need at least 1/3 # meat to make him 2 burgers (he's 19) and he'll easily eat 1/3 head lettuce with tomatoes, etc.

NOW.....I can take that same 1/3 pound of hamburger and mix it with hamburger helper and he'll get 2-3 meals out of it. Also, open a can of corn and you'll get 2-3 servings. AND if you throw another handful of pasta in you might even get a 4th meal!!!! (Been there, done that, can you tell?????)

It's much cheaper to feed your kids on high carb than low. It's cheaper to feed your kids bread, pasta, rice than it is to feed them meat, fruit and veggies.

And let me tell you.....net time you feel like having an adventure, take the bus to your local store and do just 2-3 days worth of shopping. Then have fun getting home with all your stuff! Especially with these wimpy bags they pack things in (I've heard cashiers argue when people have asked for double bagging too). You HAVE to hold onto the stuff you buy or risk someone stealing it. AND so many times, if you do put the bags down, everything falls out when the bus takes a corner too tight and then your crawling around on the bus floor getting all your stuff (gross!).

Believe me, there's more to self-esteem and/or laziness going on here!

I never had a car in my life, so I am intimately aware of all the inconviences it entails. So I know well the pain of hauling 5+ bags of heavy groceries all the way home. They always seem to weight three times as much by the time you get home. However most of the time I prevailed myself of the home delivery option. For a small fee, one husky guy would carry my groceries up the stairs and to my door. For small forrays to the supermarket, when I didn't want my groceries to be delivered, I would deliberately avoid the food cart and select the little food hand basket. This way I knew that I wouldn't end up with a painful amount of bags to carry.

Until recently however, I had the best system in the world : I was within easy walking distance of 2 big grocery stores. So I could stop in every day on my way home for work. What a luxury !