U.S. obesity problem intensifies

[ZirconBlue]

We're obsessed with omega-3 fatty acids and fructose/sucrose/glucose and, what, fiber and gluten and carbs and a hundred other things our (healthy, non-obese) grandparents never heard of. We discuss food choices in the context of studies (some of the posts to this thread being good examples). It's all quite scientific, doncha know -- yet we keep getting fatter and fatter in spite of it all. We've been conditioned to think in terms of "nutrients" by advertising and by misguided (though some of them well-intentioned) government policies. Our grandparents didn't study food, they just ate it.

Three of my four grandparents didn't even live to see 50 years of age. Personally, I'll take science over "the good old days".

 

[Dymanic]

Three of my four grandparents didn't even live to see 50 years of age.

Died of obesity did they?

Personally, I'll take science over "the good old days".

There it is: "I need scientists to tell me what to eat; without them to make sure the proper nutrients are added to the otherwise nutrient-poor food I buy, I would die before my time". You are a marketing success; the end product of a multi-billion dollar effort to co-opt the science of nutrition.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Died of obesity did they?

What difference does it make what they died of? Dead is dead. I doubt anyone was standing around at their funerals saying "well, at least they died thin." The point is that people live longer now, largely due to scientific advances.

There it is: "I need scientists to tell me what to eat; without them to make sure the proper nutrients are added to the otherwise nutrient-poor food I buy, I would die before my time". You are a marketing success; the end product of a multi-billion dollar effort to co-opt the science of nutrition.

This is a complete fabrication on your part, I'm afraid. I mostly prepare my own food from fresh ingredients. I do so because it tastes better, and because science tells me that whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables, lean meats, and unsaturated fats are better for me.

Of course, my grandparents would probably have suggested something like deep-fried, bacon-wrapped lard, instead. They didn't live long, but at least they weren't fat when they died, so, I guess I should fire up the deep-fryer.

 

[tyr_13]

Well, it doesn't, and explaining what it does mean is complicated only because our entire society has adopted a complicated approach to what was once a much simpler matter (you know, back when obesity was not a widespread problem). I doubt if anyone here can explain Pollan's ideas more concisely than does Pollan himself, and if you haven't time to read what he's written, I don't know who is going to find time to hand feed his points to you one by one. I guess you could try checking out some of the YouTube videos of his talks.

Last night I thought of the perfect way to explain it. It's so obvious that I missed it. Pollan has done something very, very clever. He's taken old and obvious advice, relabeled it, and sold it as something revolutionary.

"Eat real food." It's a great marketing gimmick. Not only does it make one feel good about the 'real food' they are eating, one can feel that they are better than the peasants eating fake food. Like 'organic', it really doesn't say anything about the food, but raises the alarm on other food, oh, I'm sorry, food like substances.

If he had just said, as people have been saying for fifty or more years, "don't eat junk food," people would have just said, "well no **** Sherlock, guess I don't need to read this book."

Junk food. It's simple, straightforward and already part of the vernacular.

If, by "this", you are referring to Pollan's distinction between "food" (Pollan himself doesn't place great emphasis on calling it "real food", by the way) and what he calls "edible food-like substances", then you might consider his advice: "Don't eat anything that doesn't rot" (the Twinkie is perhaps the most poignant example), or: "Stay out of the middle of the grocery store" -- because the stuff your grandparents would recognize as food (vegetables, meat, dairy, bread) is around the perimeter, while the middle of the store is where the most processed, over-packaged, over-priced, stuff is found; the stuff that is sold on its perceived value (value that is created through marketing, much of it based on claims of "nutritional value"); the stuff for people who are convinced they can't cook, or who just don't have time (despite the plethora of time-saving devices like automatic dishwashers and can openers, we somehow still have less time available for cooking than did our agrarian ancestors who began their twelve-hour workdays by rising before dawn to milk the cows).

We're obsessed with omega-3 fatty acids and fructose/sucrose/glucose and, what, fiber and gluten and carbs and a hundred other things our (healthy, non-obese) grandparents never heard of. We discuss food choices in the context of studies (some of the posts to this thread being good examples). It's all quite scientific, doncha know -- yet we keep getting fatter and fatter in spite of it all. We've been conditioned to think in terms of "nutrients" by advertising and by misguided (though some of them well-intentioned) government policies. Our grandparents didn't study food, they just ate it.

I'm sorry, but it seems ironic for you to be accusing others of being the result of some marketing based corruption of science when you have bought into the lies and hype surrounding some foods.

Twinkies have a shelf life of twenty-five days. They rot. All food rots. Why do some things last so much longer? For one they are produced in factories that have to deal with very, very tight health and cleaning standards. Second, that 'over packaging' is what keeps a lot of foods safe and unrotten.

The profit margins for a lot of foods aren't huge. How you believe that the food is 'over priced' is beyond me.

In the 'good old days' they didn't live long enough to die from obesity and obesity doesn't effect longevity. Obese people live just as long as anyone else. In the good old days, they died of things like e-coli and botulism from things like 'real food'. Now I'm not saying that 'real food' isn't fairly safe nowadays, but it's because of science and studies that figured out these things.

Our grandparents most certainly studied food. Don't be crazy. Humans have always 'studied' food, even if it was just, "don't eat the red berries, they'll make your throat swell." Just because we are getting more and more sophisticated (thankfully) about it, doesn't mean anything bad at all. Learning more and more is good, especially about food, our bodies, and how they work. If that science says that corn and HFCS are bad, we've learned something and can change. If it says, "canning must be done in this way and 'real food' has to be stored that way so people don't die" that's a damn good thing too.

Our 'non-obese' (many of which were obese by the way) grandparents got that way by working and walking a lot more, and not having enough to eat sometimes. If the choice of problems for a society are obesity or starvation, let me think about that one for a few milliseconds.

Be skeptical of marketing, that is good. Be skeptical of all marketing though. Don't fall into the 'golden age' bs that is more and more rampant.

 

[Dymanic]

What difference does it make what they died of?

In the context of this discussion, I'd say it matters a great deal. People do live longer now, and it is largely due to scientific advances, but if advances in nutrition science are a major part of that, then the obesity epidemic still needs some explaining, doesn't it?

I mostly prepare my own food from fresh ingredients. I do so because it tastes better, and because science tells me that whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables, lean meats, and unsaturated fats are better for me.

Your ancestors ate much the same, just not for all the same reasons.

Of course, my grandparents would probably have suggested something like deep-fried, bacon-wrapped lard, instead.

Heh. Well, maybe your grandparents weren't shining examples of the virtues of traditional approaches to diet, but it also highlights the fact that we're really talking about more than diet alone, but about entire lifestyles (as tyr has just pointed out, I see). The traditional diets of some Arctic peoples is about as rich in fat as the treat you describe, and the longevity of certain Mediterranean peoples has forced nutrition science to do a bit of theoretical retrofitting, while the practitioners of those traditional diets/lifestyles themselves have obtained the benefits without the science.

 

[Dymanic]

Pollan has done something very, very clever. He's taken old and obvious advice, relabeled it, and sold it as something revolutionary.

It would be very, very clever of you to reach penetrating insights into Pollan's position without benefit of having actually reviewed the material first-hand, but in my opinion you have failed to do so (rather spectacularly, in fact). Nice try and all. We are at a unique point in history, and our approach to diet is influenced by a number of factors -- some scientific, some economic, some political. Ever heard of Earl Butz?

I'm sorry, but it seems ironic for you to be accusing others of being the result of some marketing based corruption of science when you have bought into the lies and hype surrounding some foods.

I really don't mean to single anyone out. The point is that we (all of us) have arrived at a strange place where "nutrition" is concerned. People are confused; overwhelmed. They wander the aisles of the grocery stores with vague recollections of the latest bit they read in the woman's health something or other.

The profit margins for a lot of foods aren't huge.

Excellent point.

How you believe that the food is 'over priced' is beyond me.

As long as we're talking about Pollan's ideas, a lot of things are going to be "beyond you" as long as you haven't read any of his work. Again, I'm not going to rewrite a Michael Pollan book here, but I'll offer this:

Think of a potato. In it's raw, visually unspectacular state, its market value hits a ceiling pretty quick. If you want profit margin on a potato, slice it or dice it, pre-cook it, and put it in a box with a package of seasoning (or whatever the hell that white powder is that all looks the same whether it's for au gratin or scalloped or what-have-you) and idiot-proof instructions. Grab any box of breakfast cereal off the store shelf, take it home and use a blender to turn it back into corn meal (you'll get about a double handful), then estimate the value of that material (it will be somewhere between about one tenth and one one-hundredth of the retail price you paid ).

In the 'good old days' they didn't live long enough to die from obesity and obesity doesn't effect longevity.

If obesity doesn't effect longevity (or quality of life), then we're done here, right?

Our grandparents most certainly studied food.

But when they studied food, they studied food; when we study food, we study nutrients.

Don't fall into the 'golden age' bs that is more and more rampant.

If your intent were to insult me, you could hardly find a better way to start. I have, over a period of time, carefully considered (and re-considered) the arguments made by Michael Pollan and others; I have fact-checked them to the best of my ability; I have considered how they integrate with other viewpoints (finding that they do so most interestingly when put side-by-side with those of James Kunstler in "The Geography of Nowhere" and Jared Diamond in "Collapse"). Science is only useful within the context of a valid framework for interpreting the insights it obtains.

I'm still willing to reconsider; eager, in fact -- but so far you're doing a lousy job of providing me with good reasons to do so.

 

[ZirconBlue]

In the context of this discussion, I'd say it matters a great deal. People do live longer now, and it is largely due to scientific advances, but if advances in nutrition science are a major part of that, then the obesity epidemic still needs some explaining, doesn't it?

Our lives have changed a whole lot during the last 50+ years, and our diets have not necessarily kept pace. "Nutrition science" has spent a lot of time on "how to keep people alive". The "how to keep people thin" question has not been a priority until relatively recently.

Your ancestors ate much the same, just not for all the same reasons.

Not really. My grandparents were born an era before widespread refrigeration, or long-distance transportation of produce. They cooked with and ate a lot of animal fats. They ate canned goods, including meats. Lots of salt, fat, white flour and sugar. That they weren't obese (as far as a know) is not because they ate healthy foods all the time. It's more likely due to a combination of:

A) Food was sometimes scarce
2) They got a lot more exercise in their daily lives

Heh. Well, maybe your grandparents weren't shining examples of the virtues of traditional approaches to diet, but it also highlights the fact that we're really talking about more than diet alone, but about entire lifestyles (as tyr has just pointed out, I see).

Yes, and because our lifestyles are different, we can't say that what was good for them to eat is still good for us to eat.

The traditional diets of some Arctic peoples is about as rich in fat as the treat you describe, and the longevity of certain Mediterranean peoples has forced nutrition science to do a bit of theoretical retrofitting, while the practitioners of those traditional diets/lifestyles themselves have obtained the benefits without the science.

Different people in different environments eat different foods and get different results. If only there were some way to study and learn from those results.

 

[tyr_13]

It would be very, very clever of you to reach penetrating insights into Pollan's position without benefit of having actually reviewed the material first-hand, but in my opinion you have failed to do so (rather spectacularly, in fact). Nice try and all. We are at a unique point in history, and our approach to diet is influenced by a number of factors -- some scientific, some economic, some political. Ever heard of Earl Butz?

"Eat Real food. Not too much, mostly plants." That's the marketing line I've heard repeated over and over. That was the marketing line I was addressing. (It turns out the line is actually, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly Plants.") That seems to be the gist of the argument he puts forth. Obviously he puts a lot more information than that in or it wouldn't need a book, let alone two. Obviously the cleverness of his marketing of his message says nothing about the validity of that message. Obviously, I haven't said that it does. The most I said was that it raised my suspicion, a red flag as it were.

Besides that, a quick Google search confirms that, while well received by the public, his books aren't without controversy (which is an unattainable goal at any rate). His anti-industry bias is just one. His 'lifestyle guru' approach to the 'nutritional problem' is another. His dismissal of science, despite going nutso for omega 3s is doublespeak.

I really don't mean to single anyone out. The point is that we (all of us) have arrived at a strange place where "nutrition" is concerned. People are confused; overwhelmed. They wander the aisles of the grocery stores with vague recollections of the latest bit they read in the woman's health something or other.

I know it's harsh, but welcome to life. Most things are complicated and confusing.

As long as we're talking about Pollan's ideas, a lot of things are going to be "beyond you" as long as you haven't read any of his work. Again, I'm not going to rewrite a Michael Pollan book here, but I'll offer this:

Think of a potato. In it's raw, visually unspectacular state, its market value hits a ceiling pretty quick. If you want profit margin on a potato, slice it or dice it, pre-cook it, and put it in a box with a package of seasoning (or whatever the hell that white powder is that all looks the same whether it's for au gratin or scalloped or what-have-you) and idiot-proof instructions. Grab any box of breakfast cereal off the store shelf, take it home and use a blender to turn it back into corn meal (you'll get about a double handful), then estimate the value of that material (it will be somewhere between about one tenth and one one-hundredth of the retail price you paid ).

You're not paying for the potato at that point, but the work in preparing it. If you don't believe it is worth the price, don't buy it and do it yourself. So what? Market demands shouldn't be met?

If obesity doesn't effect longevity (or quality of life), then we're done here, right?

It doesn't effect longevity. It may or may not effect quality of life depending on what parts of life you put 'quality' in.

But when they studied food, they studied food; when we study food, we study nutrients.

Which are the key parts of food. What is your point? That we're figuring out more and more? Learning more about food is good. This includes the nutrients.

If your intent were to insult me, you could hardly find a better way to start. I have, over a period of time, carefully considered (and re-considered) the arguments made by Michael Pollan and others; I have fact-checked them to the best of my ability; I have considered how they integrate with other viewpoints (finding that they do so most interestingly when put side-by-side with those of James Kunstler in "The Geography of Nowhere" and Jared Diamond in "Collapse"). Science is only useful within the context of a valid framework for interpreting the insights it obtains.

I'm still willing to reconsider; eager, in fact -- but so far you're doing a lousy job of providing me with good reasons to do so.

If my intent were to insult you, I wouldn't even bother. I can insult people in real life if that were fun for me. But you keep dismissing science. Please, reread what you just said. "Science is only useful within the context of a valid framework for interpreting the insights it obtains." Who gets to decide what that 'valid framework' is? Pollan? You? The Bible? It certainly isn't a fear salesman like Kunstler, who was wrong about Y2K, wrong about peak oil, and doesn't even have any training in the fields he speaks 'authoritatively' about. I only recently heard about Diamond through publicity around the defamation lawsuit against him a couple of months ago.

If you want to become Amish, just go do it already. I respect the Amish. They don't expect everyone else to live like they do. By the way, they eat horrid amounts of animal fat, and often get sick. But hey, at least they are still thin.

 

[Dymanic]

Your ancestors ate much the same, just not for all the same reasons.

Not really. My grandparents were born an era before widespread refrigeration, or long-distance transportation of produce. They cooked with and ate a lot of animal fats. They ate canned goods, including meats. Lots of salt, fat, white flour and sugar. That they weren't obese (as far as I know) is not because they ate healthy foods all the time. It's more likely due to a combination of:

A) Food was sometimes scarce
2) They got a lot more exercise in their daily lives

So your grandparents (nth-greats are really what we're talking about) ate what was locally (and seasonally) available, and you eat what tastes best among those things science tells you are best for you (especially government-approved science, like FDA and USDA recommendations, recommendations which reflect the viewpoints and interests of quite a few people, and some of them aren't any kind of "scientists").

Those aren't the same reasons at all.

Two of the things you mentioned are sugar and "lean meats". Part of the deal with HFCS isn't just the chemistry; it's that HFCS has found its way into a large number of products that never contained added sugar at all, and part of the reason for that is that the stuff is extremely cheap, and the reason for that is that it is subsidized by the government. Your grandparents' diet probably didn't contain as much sugar as you might think, compared to yours (or maybe I should say "compared to the average person's today").

As for the "lean meats", Pollan points to a document, "Dietary Goals for the United States", produced in the 1970's by Senator George McGovern's Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Originally, the recommendation was to: "Eat less red meat". Because of pressure from the beef industry, that was changed to: "Choose meat that will reduce your saturated fat intake."

 

[ZirconBlue]

So your grandparents (nth-greats are really what we're talking about) ate what was locally (and seasonally) available, and you eat what tastes best among those things science tells you are best for you (especially government-approved science, like FDA and USDA recommendations, recommendations which reflect the viewpoints and interests of quite a few people, and some of them aren't any kind of "scientists").

Those aren't the same reasons at all.

I wasn't disputing the "for different reasons" part, I was disputing that my diet is "much the same" as my ancestors'. They didn't know that lard is bad for you. Of course, they didn't have to worry about it much since they often didn't live long enough for high cholesterol to do it's damage, and, even if they did, they would probably be classified as dying of "old age", so their peers wouldn't know to avoid saturated fats.

Two of the things you mentioned are sugar and "lean meats". Part of the deal with HFCS isn't just the chemistry; it's that HFCS has found its way into a large number of products that never contained added sugar at all, and part of the reason for that is that the stuff is extremely cheap, and the reason for that is that it is subsidized by the government. Your grandparents' diet probably didn't contain as much sugar as you might think, compared to yours (or maybe I should say "compared to the average person's today").

Maybe. I'm trying to avoid white flour and refined sugars. My ancestors weren't (at least during the period since those things became available).

As for the "lean meats", Pollan points to a document, "Dietary Goals for the United States", produced in the 1970's by Senator George McGovern's Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Originally, the recommendation was to: "Eat less red meat". Because of pressure from the beef industry, that was changed to: "Choose meat that will reduce your saturated fat intake."

Are you making an argument that lean meats are not better for you than fattier meats?

 

[Woolgatherer]

In my experience the only positive gains in terms of weight loss involved exercise at least twice a week and at least 20 minutes at a time and eating well. For the past three years I've lost 35lbs with (-20lbs in the first four months). Right now I'm trying to exercise 50 minutes three times a week. I don't care how fast I go or if I'm impressing anyone. Of course, I sometimes find myself faltering in my pursuit of healthy living. When that happens I have to pick myself up and shoosh over to the track/ weight room and eat more spinach...

 

[tyr_13]

In my experience the only positive gains in terms of weight loss involved exercise at least twice a week and at least 20 minutes at a time and eating well. For the past three years I've lost 35lbs with (-20lbs in the first four months). Right now I'm trying to exercise 50 minutes three times a week. I don't care how fast I go or if I'm impressing anyone. Of course, I sometimes find myself faltering in my pursuit of healthy living. When that happens I have to pick myself up and shoosh over to the track/ weight room and eat more spinach...

Stay strong. I have a funny weight loss/gain story I'll tell you when I get home from work.

 

[Dymanic]

The most I said was that it raised my suspicion, a red flag as it were.

Fair enough. I'll confess to having reacted exactly the same way upon first being introduced to Pollan's ideas (in an interview on NPR, if I recall correctly).

I know it's harsh, but welcome to life. Most things are complicated and confusing.

True enough. But if eating were one of them, we wouldn't be here, because our ancestors would not have survived.

Besides that, a quick Google search confirms that, while well received by the public, his books aren't without controversy

You're basing your view of Pollan's position on quick Google searches, and I'm basing mine on having actually read his books and listened to his lectures. Hardly surprising that we do not share the same view, is it?

Learning more about food is good.

I don't see knowledge as inherently either good or bad; it is in the application of knowledge that those value judgements come into play.

But you keep dismissing science.

If that's what you think, you're even further from grasping my position (or Pollan's) than I realized. I'm beginning to question whether further efforts are a good use of my time.

Who gets to decide what that 'valid framework' is?

Pollan asks exactly the same question (and answers: largely government agencies, with heavy influence from ag and food lobbies). There's an "application of knowledge"; now we can ask whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.

It certainly isn't a fear salesman like Kunstler, who was wrong about Y2K, wrong about peak oil, and doesn't even have any training in the fields he speaks 'authoritatively' about.

Pollan doesn't need Kuntsler (or Diamond) for support, and I didn't mention him for that reason, but merely to note what I find to be an interesting confluence of ideas. I'd love to see what you feel that Kuntsler got wrong about Peak Oil, and if it weren't a derail to this discussion, I'd ask for your reasoning -- but since it is, I won't.

 

[Dymanic]

Are you making an argument that lean meats are not better for you than fattier meats?

No. I'm pointing out that the original recommendation by the scientists was for less meat, not leaner meat -- and that the reasons for changing that recommendation to "leaner meats" were political and economic, not scientific (and that this is merely a single illustration of a much broader phenomenon).

We have substituted a direct connection with the food we eat and the land it grows on for "information" about "nutrition" -- a commodity itself: packaged, traded, fought over, hidden, stolen, altered. We often know very little about the provenance of the information we rely on or the motives of those who present it to us (but we often notice that much of it is conflicting). We have been trained not to trust our instincts and intuitions about food choices, if we give much thought to making healthy choices at all; a lot of money is made in the food industry by exploiting the instincts of those who aren't paying attention.

 

[Delvo]

Every time I see this thread's title in the thread list for this forum, at first it looks like "U.S. obesity problem inflates".

 

[tyr_13]

Fair enough. I'll confess to having reacted exactly the same way upon first being introduced to Pollan's ideas (in an interview on NPR, if I recall correctly).

True enough. But if eating were one of them, we wouldn't be here, because our ancestors would not have survived.

That's faulty reasoning there. Getting enough to eat, once you know what is edible, isn't the difficult part. Finding out what is optimal to eat in any given situation most certainly is. We aren't our grandparents. We don't live in their world. We live in today's world, which is different in many, many ways.

You're basing your view of Pollan's position on quick Google searches, and I'm basing mine on having actually read his books and listened to his lectures. Hardly surprising that we do not share the same view, is it?

That in no way addresses those criticisms now does it? 'Didn't read the book' doesn't mean I'm incapable of addressing specific claims and hypothesis put forward from it. In short, that is not some kind of 'get out of jail free' card.

I don't see knowledge as inherently either good or bad; it is in the application of knowledge that those value judgements come into play.

You think that your, or Pollan's, value judgment is the correct one. I do not.

If that's what you think, you're even further from grasping my position (or Pollan's) than I realized. I'm beginning to question whether further efforts are a good use of my time.

This is not a good reason to dismiss what I'm saying. Explain it then. How is complaining about studies on nutrients not dismissive? "We don't need no stinking science, our grandparents did this right." Our grandparents did a hell of a lot of things staggeringly wrong. How did we figure this out? We studied it.

Pollan asks exactly the same question (and answers: largely government agencies, with heavy influence from ag and food lobbies). There's an "application of knowledge"; now we can ask whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.

But does he want people to fix agricultural business, or start their own farms? He believes that the organic movement has lost it's anti-industry roots. Anti-industry? Organic is still a less efficiency use of land than modern agriculture, but even large scale organic is more efficient that everyone have their own farm. I love gardening. I love trees and nature and my land. However, I recognize that we just can't do that on a large scale. Most people live in cities for one. Second, individual scale farming cannot feed our population.

Agriculture has problems. Regression to horticulture is not the solution. I think we should fix agriculture. Your millage may very. Don't write off what I'm saying simply because I haven't read your guru.

Pollan doesn't need Kuntsler (or Diamond) for support, and I didn't mention him for that reason, but merely to note what I find to be an interesting confluence of ideas. I'd love to see what you feel that Kuntsler got wrong about Peak Oil, and if it weren't a derail to this discussion, I'd ask for your reasoning -- but since it is, I won't.

There are many discussions on these boards that involve Peak Oil. Jehad Jane likes them, so if you search her posts you're bound to find one.

 

[tyr_13]

Stay strong. I have a funny weight loss/gain story I'll tell you when I get home from work.

In my picture I have up, I weighed about 240-250 lbs. I got down to 235 at one point. Now, being six foot tall, that still puts me in the obese range, but even at 0% body fat I wouldn't be out of the 'overweight' category.

I was loosing weight still, and the last time I was 235 was in sixth grade. That year I started weight lifting and shot up 50 lbs in three months. At any rate, I told myself I was never going to get back up anywhere near where I was after recovering from a broken back (330-340 lbs). Then, I got a girlfriend.

Now of course I had less time for working out, but I was also very busy with college, work, and spending time with my girlfriend, so I didn't have a lot of time to eat. She also had a weight problem. It was the opposite of mine. She was 95 lbs. Don't go thinking she had an eating disorder, her family was like that. The women were all thin until their first child. At any rate, she had very little appetite most of the time. Well, she didn't like being so thin, so I helped. I made her eat cookies when they were offered. We figured out that having a meal replacement drink with a meal instead of in place of one is a great way to put on pounds.

By the time she left for Texas she was up to 115. Great for her! I had not even noticed however, that without working so hard to make sure I ate right, at the right times, with working out, that I had went right back up to 300 lbs. All of a sudden, my clothing didn't fit.

Women I tell you.

 

[Patrick_R]

The US government has a 150% tariff on sugar imports which makes pure grain sugar a more expensive product to use.(or is it 115% now, I forget).

Confectioners therefore look for alternatives when producing goods, like high fructose corn syrup and other products which, as it turns out, receive cash subsidies from the US government, ironically as it turns out, these products are not only more energy intensive (resulting in greater greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption) but they are less healthy than using the cheaper pure grain alternative.

So, the government makes us pay more for more fatty foods.

 

[Dymanic]

'Didn't read the book' doesn't mean I'm incapable of addressing specific claims and hypothesis put forward from it.

You know, I tried an approach quite similar to that with an English teacher once, and it flopped, big time.

This is not a good reason to dismiss what I'm saying. Explain it then.

How about you first explain to me why I should take even more time than I already have to explain to you what Pollan himself explains -- and much better than I could? What, you have time for typing, but no time for reading? Not even time to watch YouTube videos? You want links?

But does he want people to fix agricultural business, or start their own farms?

Do you understand the nature and extent of the role played by government subsidies in agriculture?

He believes that the organic movement has lost it's anti-industry roots.

And you don't? I mean, I don't think I'd put it quite that way, but whatever the organic movement's roots are, it has absolutely been co-opted by the likes of General Mills -- to such an extent that the designation is essentially meaningless today.

Organic is still a less efficiency use of land than modern agriculture, but even large scale organic is more efficient that everyone have their own farm.

Tough to respond to that due to your use of that word: organic. If we can agree to use that here to refer to methods placing more emphasis on polyculture, and on integrated farming techniques, and other alternatives to chemical-based mass monoculture, then I'd ask: Efficient for whom? Do you suppose that farmers who practice large-scale monoculture farming make a lot of money doing so? Since you brought it up, what if the price of oil doubled a few times (and along with it, prices of petroleum-based fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides) -- would it still be more efficient then?

I love gardening. I love trees and nature and my land. However, I recognize that we just can't do that on a large scale.

One of Pollan's central points is that agriculture in the U.S. is largely designed around economies of scale. The way food is grown has as much to do with the way it is marketed as the other way around; perhaps more (if you're a buyer for a nationwide chain, you can't deal with a host of little guys; you need people who are playing on your level). The shift toward mass monoculture was largely driven by government policy, starting with Ag Secretary Earl Butz's admonition to farmers: "get big or get out".

Most people live in cities for one. Second, individual scale farming cannot feed our population.

I don't know about "individual scale" farming, but if some degree of de-centralizing and de-industrializing of our system of agriculture can't support our population then obesity may be far less a problem in decades to come, because if you really look at it close, you'll see that we are fast approaching a point at which we aren't going to have a choice about that. But you're assuming that "feeding our population" is the only reason we grow stuff. It isn't. Food exports are also a major source of global economic and political muscle (an observation which goes a long way toward understanding why agriculture is so heavily subsidized by the government).

 

[Woolgatherer]

Women I tell you.

I would be in sad shape and eating poorly without my wife around. The strange thing was when she gained weight while pregnant (twice) I was gained weight too.