In the lead article of the June 23, 2014 edition of Time magazine, entitled Don't Blame Fat, Bryan Walsh points to latest research that strongly indicates that America's obsession of limiting fat in the diet has been misplaced.
The consumption of fat, especially saturated fat, is down; Americans, however, are arguably less healthy than ever. Almost one in ten of Americans suffers from diabetes, an astounding, disheartening fact; we are, in addition, either the fattest or second fattest nation in the world. In contrast to what has been preached to us for decades, some of the latest research has shown that the consumption of saturated fat is not clearly associated with heart disease. I don't think that the facts are all in; it is clear to me, however, that the "8,853% increase" of high-fructose corn syrup, as reported in the article, does indeed wreak havoc on our nation's health. However, I also believe that all such nutritional arguments are missing the most important point. I will explain.
On the cover of Time in which this article appears, is s big swirl of butter, coiled like a snail. The headline is "Eat Butter." In smaller print: "Scientists labeled fat the enemy. Why they were wrong." I strongly believe that they are still wrong. If I had designed the cover--not to mention authoring the article--there would have been a picture of a family, all smiles, raising a glass of wine in a toast. Before them would be small portions of food served in an aesthetic way. My title: "Enjoy Your Food!" My subtitle: "Eating food you love with the people you love can add years to your life." The American science of nutrition is, I believe, far too mechanical. Human beings are not machines; however well maintained, they can still be miserable. (Research is clear on this point; depression shortens the life span.) The social aspect of food is wired into our brains. We evolved in groups that ate together and talked together. I contend that adding the pleasure of taste to the pleasure of company is a very salubrious combination. Man was not meant to eat bad food alone.
Supporting evidence for this is the so-called French paradox. The French eat four times the amount of butter as Americans do; 60% more cheese and three times more pork, yet have about a 30% decreased risk of heart disease as compared to Americans. Why is this?
I just returned from France, and had some of the best food I ever ate in my life. Between meals and classes in French, my wife and I were struck by the difference in the supermarkets. Most French markets aren't supersized at all; even the largest I came across was only about half the size of my neighborhood Giant--a fitting name! Most had none or only a minimal selection of processed and frozen foods. The sizes of the products were all reduced compared to ours. For instance, a bottle of tomato sauce was about half the size of the ones in Giant. My son, who cooks well, wanted me to take home a special kind of salt, les fleurs de sel de la Geurande. The package was only a little larger than a can of sardines. Everything was smaller--a carton of milk was less than a liter, for instance. There was no aisle dedicated to soft drinks; none containing only chips and candy. Snack foods were not prominent at all.
The town we stayed in, Aix-en-Provence, is, in effect, a pedestrian center. It was full of people, dressed simply and elegantly, obviously having a good time. Outdoor cafes and restaurants were everywhere. The most astounding fact for an American was to notice that virtually no one was even overweight, not to mention obese. (This fact alone explains much of the French Paradox.)
We should follow the French example! We should not be asking the American question, "Is this food healthy?" as much as asking the French question, "Is this food delicious?" Nutritional values are important; they are less important, however, than the enjoyment of and the social aspects of food.
I think it is the French joie de vivre that explains most of the French paradox. If you love something, you don't abuse it. The portions are small, and snacking--something you tend to do alone--is rare. If you are enjoying life, you tend to be less anxious. I contend that the stresses of American life result in a higher level of anxiety. Eating enormous quantities of junk food is a way, a destructive way, to calm the beasts inside. Using food as a way to control anxiety is like using alcohol for the same reason; diabetes and an early death often follow.
We Americans are bombarded by junk food everywhere. To put it mildly, food corporations are interested in money and not in the health of their customers. We heard a lot of complaints about Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, who tried to limit the sale of those awful, enormous soft drinks at fast food restaurants. He was accused of fostering "a nanny state" in which government has undue influence over food choices. That corporations are fostering a much more detrimental "fanny state"--that is, causing obesity--is considered by these critics to be an acceptable result of capitalism; regulating it, even for the common good, would make matters worse--according to them. Michelle Obama's recent backtracking from her attempts to have children eat better provides unfortunate proof of how powerful corporations are. We need to change that; we also need to begin with ourselves.
I am happy to say that I have not only been training my tongue to speak French, but to taste French, also. I am also happy to say that my belt-size remains bien Frenchified, too.
In sum: be concerned with the health benefits of foods, but don't obsess over it. Everyone is on a personal journey to that inevitable place where time no longer exists; enjoying the journey, however, isn't inevitable at all. That is a shame. If you enjoy food as an essential part of an enjoyable life, it will most likely be later than you think for a delightfully extended period of time.
The consumption of fat, especially saturated fat, is down; Americans, however, are arguably less healthy than ever. Almost one in ten of Americans suffers from diabetes, an astounding, disheartening fact; we are, in addition, either the fattest or second fattest nation in the world. In contrast to what has been preached to us for decades, some of the latest research has shown that the consumption of saturated fat is not clearly associated with heart disease. I don't think that the facts are all in; it is clear to me, however, that the "8,853% increase" of high-fructose corn syrup, as reported in the article, does indeed wreak havoc on our nation's health. However, I also believe that all such nutritional arguments are missing the most important point. I will explain.
On the cover of Time in which this article appears, is s big swirl of butter, coiled like a snail. The headline is "Eat Butter." In smaller print: "Scientists labeled fat the enemy. Why they were wrong." I strongly believe that they are still wrong. If I had designed the cover--not to mention authoring the article--there would have been a picture of a family, all smiles, raising a glass of wine in a toast. Before them would be small portions of food served in an aesthetic way. My title: "Enjoy Your Food!" My subtitle: "Eating food you love with the people you love can add years to your life." The American science of nutrition is, I believe, far too mechanical. Human beings are not machines; however well maintained, they can still be miserable. (Research is clear on this point; depression shortens the life span.) The social aspect of food is wired into our brains. We evolved in groups that ate together and talked together. I contend that adding the pleasure of taste to the pleasure of company is a very salubrious combination. Man was not meant to eat bad food alone.
Supporting evidence for this is the so-called French paradox. The French eat four times the amount of butter as Americans do; 60% more cheese and three times more pork, yet have about a 30% decreased risk of heart disease as compared to Americans. Why is this?
I just returned from France, and had some of the best food I ever ate in my life. Between meals and classes in French, my wife and I were struck by the difference in the supermarkets. Most French markets aren't supersized at all; even the largest I came across was only about half the size of my neighborhood Giant--a fitting name! Most had none or only a minimal selection of processed and frozen foods. The sizes of the products were all reduced compared to ours. For instance, a bottle of tomato sauce was about half the size of the ones in Giant. My son, who cooks well, wanted me to take home a special kind of salt, les fleurs de sel de la Geurande. The package was only a little larger than a can of sardines. Everything was smaller--a carton of milk was less than a liter, for instance. There was no aisle dedicated to soft drinks; none containing only chips and candy. Snack foods were not prominent at all.
The town we stayed in, Aix-en-Provence, is, in effect, a pedestrian center. It was full of people, dressed simply and elegantly, obviously having a good time. Outdoor cafes and restaurants were everywhere. The most astounding fact for an American was to notice that virtually no one was even overweight, not to mention obese. (This fact alone explains much of the French Paradox.)
We should follow the French example! We should not be asking the American question, "Is this food healthy?" as much as asking the French question, "Is this food delicious?" Nutritional values are important; they are less important, however, than the enjoyment of and the social aspects of food.
I think it is the French joie de vivre that explains most of the French paradox. If you love something, you don't abuse it. The portions are small, and snacking--something you tend to do alone--is rare. If you are enjoying life, you tend to be less anxious. I contend that the stresses of American life result in a higher level of anxiety. Eating enormous quantities of junk food is a way, a destructive way, to calm the beasts inside. Using food as a way to control anxiety is like using alcohol for the same reason; diabetes and an early death often follow.
We Americans are bombarded by junk food everywhere. To put it mildly, food corporations are interested in money and not in the health of their customers. We heard a lot of complaints about Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, who tried to limit the sale of those awful, enormous soft drinks at fast food restaurants. He was accused of fostering "a nanny state" in which government has undue influence over food choices. That corporations are fostering a much more detrimental "fanny state"--that is, causing obesity--is considered by these critics to be an acceptable result of capitalism; regulating it, even for the common good, would make matters worse--according to them. Michelle Obama's recent backtracking from her attempts to have children eat better provides unfortunate proof of how powerful corporations are. We need to change that; we also need to begin with ourselves.
I am happy to say that I have not only been training my tongue to speak French, but to taste French, also. I am also happy to say that my belt-size remains bien Frenchified, too.
In sum: be concerned with the health benefits of foods, but don't obsess over it. Everyone is on a personal journey to that inevitable place where time no longer exists; enjoying the journey, however, isn't inevitable at all. That is a shame. If you enjoy food as an essential part of an enjoyable life, it will most likely be later than you think for a delightfully extended period of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment