A sociologist offers a short history of dieting

If you partake of any advertisements in any media form, you will inevitably hear pitches for different kinds of diets. Eat less carbs! Count your points! Take this pill! Get this exercise machine! These sorts of diet pitches are not just a recent phenomenon; a sociologist suggests our ideas about dieting stretch back several hundred years.

Thin has been in much longer than most of us realize, says Ellen Granberg, an assistant professor of sociology at Clemson who studies the history of weight loss…

Moderating the experts will be David Kirchhoff, president and CEO of Weight Watchers International. His organization is just about 50 years old, but Granberg says the very first documented “weight watcher” was an Italian guy in the early 17th century who took notes about his caloric intake and weighed himself daily on a crude scale.

Diet and exercise really took off in the mid-19th century in Europe and migrated over to the U.S. by the 1890s. Why then? Granberg suspects it has to do with the introduction of commercially developed food. And early health gurus, including Sylvester Graham (of eponymous cracker fame), were worried from the get-go about adulterated products.

What Granberg finds most surprising is that modern diets look a lot like the first ones. People were eating low-carb in the 19th century, way before Atkins came along. Sweets were shunned. Just about the only slimming method you won’t hear about today is the suggestion that you smoke cigarettes.

To Granberg, this history proves weight loss has never been easy — and it may never be. “The idea that there is a single, perfect plan is a very old idea. People were thinking about this in the 1600s,” she says. “But it’s always difficult and frustrating. It’s not the fault of the individuals struggling.”

It is interesting to note that the rise of diets in the 1800s seems linked to particular products, such as Graham crackers or corn flakes, that their makers deemed healthy. I wonder if this sociologist could comment on  how much ideas about dieting are tied to capitalism and making money.

And for those who dieted in past histories, which segments of the population were interested in this? Was it a widespread movement or did this come later with the rise of mass media?

Don’t just ban Happy Meal toys; American food culture needs to be changed

After San Francisco recently moved to ban the toys in Happy Meals (by tying the ability to include toys to certain nutrition benchmarks),  Josh Ozersky argues that more than just banning Happy Meals is needed: American food culture and what foods it says are good needs to be changed.

No, the problem with the ban is that it doesn’t go far enough. America’s tots aren’t getting supersized simply by eating Happy Meals…University of São Paulo professor Carlos Monteiro makes the case that “the rapid rise in consumption of ultra-processed food and drink products, especially since the 1980s, is the main dietary cause of the concurrent rapid rise in obesity and related diseases throughout the world.” And reversing that trend will be a lot harder than making Happy Meals a little less happy.

But still, you have to start somewhere, and I understand why the San Francisco supervisors picked Happy Meals as their beachhead…

Again and again, efforts to promote fresh fruit and produce in low-income urban areas have failed for the simple reason that Americans have been brainwashed. We have been conditioned, starting in utero, to prefer high-fat, high-salt, high-sugar concoctions rather than their less exciting, more natural culinary cousins…

Why? Because as Americans, we like highly processed food. It was invented to please us. Cheap flavor bombs will always trump healthier alternatives. Dangling a Transformer or Beanie Baby or some other toy du jour in front of a kid may help balance the playing field at least a little. But why can’t cheap, processed food be made healthier? Is that really impossible? Or is it just too expensive?

Ozersky doesn’t quite come out and say it but he is suggesting that Americans need to radically rethink their diets and food choices. This is not a matter of just eating less fast food but thinking about all processed food and why we eat it rather than more natural food. As other writers like Michael Pollan have pointed out, other cultures make different food choices where natural is the norm and meals are events that then five or ten minute periods where Americans try to relieve their hunger while also getting essential nutrients. American food habits are tied to a whole host of other phenomenon including cars (fast food), ideas about efficiency, technology (eating in front of the TV, microwaved food), ideas about how expensive food should be, and more. And these are patterns that start young.

The question of whether all of this could be changed through governmental intervention or through other means is another controversy for another day.

(Another thought: how come McDonald’s is the most common target of such actions? It is kind of like the attention that Walmart draws – neither McDonalds or Walmart are the only games in town and yet their size and reputation tends to draw the most attention.)

Uno’s with America’s “worst pizza” – but it tastes good!

Yahoo likes to run stories about the “worst foods” in different categories and an updated list examines pizza. The #1 worst pizza in America: Uno Chicago Grill Chicago Classic Deep Dish Pizza (Individual). Here is the nutritional information and the description of the pizza:

2,310 calories
162 g fat (54 g saturated fat)
4,920 mg sodium

Wait, wait, wait. This is a one-person pizza? Yup. All 2,310 calories are destined for one soon-to-be expanding belly. This pie has been a perennial pick for us over the past three years, and the reason is simple: No other personal pizza in the country even begins to approach these numbers. It breaks every single caloric recommendation on the books, and it does it under the guise of a must-have “classic” dish. With the country being plagued by obesity, Uno should have the decency to banish—or significantly improve—this dish.

I want to briefly discuss two arguments made in this description:

1. The author suggests Uno’s is being malicious by slapping the “classic” label on this pizza. The suggestion is that being labeled “classic” means people think it is a “must-have” and are essentially being duped into selecting this pizza.

2. Because obesity is a big problem, Uno’s “should have the decency” (perhaps “responsibility”?) to fix this dish.

Some thoughts on these two arguments:

1. The Uno’s pizza is a “classic.” Deep dish pizza is perhaps the best-known food of Chicago. Naming this food a “classic” is not a trick; it is part of the city’s culinary heritage. Should an unhealthy food item not be allowed to be called “classic”?

2. Perhaps the pizza could be made healthier – but I don’t think Uno’s would suggest it should be eaten at every meal. If you eat Uno’s pizza, it’s hard to eat much of it as it is quite filling. Compared to the other six worst pizzas on the list, Uno’s likely reaches the smallest market.

(Personal disclosure: perhaps I am overstating the arguments against and for the pizza. I like deep-dish Chicago pizza. I don’t eat it all that often but I have had Uno’s (or Due’s) many times and I enjoy the experience. However, in recent years, my deep-dish alliances have moved over to Giordano’s because their pizza tastes less heavy and at least appeared to me to have less grease than Uno’s version.)

From corn syrup to corn sugar to boost image

The Corn Refiners Association is putting in a request to the Food and Drug Administration to change the name of “corn syrup” to “corn sugar.” This rebranding is being done to help shed the image that consuming corn syrup increases the likelihood of obesity.

Apparently, there is some precedent for changing a name like this. Ever heard of “low eurcic acid rapeseed oil”? Once renamed “canola oil,” sales apparently picked up.

If this name change goes through, how long before those opposed to corn syrup start a campaign against corn sugar? I wonder how much time the Corn Refiners Association thinks they can buy.

“I was lovin’ it”: battling over fast food

McDonald’s is a favorite target for those opposed to fast-food culture and typical American eating patterns. Amidst discussions in many municipalities about allowing fast-food restaurants, a new advertisement to run in Washington, D.C. adds to the debate:

In the commercial, produced by the nonprofit Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a woman weeps over a dead man lying in a morgue. In his hand is a hamburger. At the end, the golden arches appear over his feet, followed by the words, “I was lovin’ it,” a play on McDonald’s longtime ad slogan, “I’m lovin’ it.” A voiceover says, “High cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart attacks. Tonight, make it vegetarian.”

Americans tend to eat a lot of fast food: Gallup found in 2006 that 23% of Americans eat fast food several times a week or more with another 33% claiming to eat fast food about once a week.

Another option being discussed would allow for extra taxes on fast food and soft drinks. In another survey, Harris found “Over half of Americans (56%) are opposed to [an obesity] tax going into effect with two in five (42%) being strongly opposed. Three in ten (31%) support this tax being imposed.” There were some differences: people living in the South and Midwest or with lower incomes or with less education were more opposed to such measures.

The poor cleaniness of home kitchens

Occasionally, one can find stories about how dirty homes can be. Here is more evidence, this time regarding unclean kitchens:

The small study from California’s Los Angeles County found that only 61 percent of home kitchens would get an A or B if put through the rigors of a restaurant inspection. At least 14 percent would fail — not even getting a C.

In comparison, nearly all Los Angeles County restaurants — 98 percent — get A or B scores each year.

On its own, these are interesting results: restaurant kitchens are generally more clean than home kitchens. But there is more to this story: how exactly researchers found out about the kitchens.

The study, released Thursday, is believed to be one of the first to offer a sizable assessment of food safety in private homes. But the researchers admit the way it was done is hardly perfect.

The results are based not on actual inspections, but on an Internet quiz taken by about 13,000 adults .

So it’s hard to use it to compare the conditions in home kitchens to those in restaurants, which involve trained inspectors giving objective assessments of dirt, pests, and food storage and handling practices.

What’s more, experts don’t believe the study is representative of all households, because people who are more interested and conscientious about food safety are more likely to take the quiz.

A more comprehensive look would probably find that an even smaller percentage of home kitchens would do well in a restaurant inspection, he suggested.

On one hand, this sounds like innovative research that is the first to provide a broad overview of the cleanliness of American kitchens. On the other hand, the way the data was collected suggests one should be wary about making definitive conclusions.

The online quiz is also reliant on self-reporting.

Zagat rates fast food and full service chains

Zagat, the restaurant rating firm, has recently released results of a survey of 6,500 fast-food fans. The survey covers both fast food and full-service chains and has a variety of ratings including best burger and best value.

This quantification of the fast food and full service chain industry is interesting. Such food is considered by some to barely be real food. Zagat’s reputation is generally based on reviewing fine restaurants, not popular chains. So is the goal to help Zagat reach a broader audience? This is an example of an odd pairing of high-brow and low-brow culture.

After observing Dairy Queen’s 5th place spot in the popular quick-refreshment chains, one commentator says, “Of course, I can’t help but wonder: will we begin to see “Zagat rated” stickers adorning the take-out window at Dairy Queen?

Beware of stadium food

Yahoo reports on ESPN’s findings about stadium food. There were some noteworthy health violations and this little tidbit about Chicago stadiums in a discussion about how inspection practices differ by state:

Chicago stadiums had the lowest percentage of vendors with critical violations; that could be because city inspectors make their visits when the stadiums are empty and no employee is handling or serving food. (Gotta lova that Chicago political machine.)

In the last ten or twenty years, stadium food has improved in quality – from nachos with fake cheese to sushi, premium sandwiches, and more. However, perhaps a lot of it wasn’t very clean…

Quick review: In-N-Out Burger

Prior to traveling to California, my wife and I kept hearing good things about In-N-Out Burger, a California based fast-food chain.

After having two meals there (once outside Sacramento, once in Burbank), we both agree that the good reviews are justified. The hamburgers are excellent – juicy and fresh-tasting with crispy lettuce and fresh tomatoes and onion. The vanilla milkshakes are quite thick and the french fries are good but slightly different than the crispy fries one typically finds at fast-food places.

Several downsides: a limited menu (no chicken, fish, special burgers), a longer wait for your food as it is prepared fresh, and the restaurants are only limited to four Western states.

Overall: very good and fresh fast-food.