Weight Loss: Healthier Food or Less Calories?

I recently came across an article called, Junk Food Diet Raises Questions, by Joanne Franco which discussed a Kansas State University Professor and his experiment with a decrease in caloric intake. Professor Mark Haub lowers his daily intake from 3,000 calories to 1,800 calories and lost 27 pounds. The interesting aspect of the experiment was that Haub ate nothing but junk food that was available in a vending machine. He did not exercise at all during the two month period and he did take certain vitamins in order to receive all of the necessary nutrients. Therefore, Haub met all of his dietary needs, ate tasty junk food, and lost a significant amount of weight!! With all of the recent concerns surrounding rising obesity rates, this serves as an intriguing method to lose weight. Of course, it could just be that Haub was able to lose the weight due to unique, genetically-based reasons, so this must studied extensively in a lab before suggesting this as a weight-loss strategy. Furthermore, a weight-loss strategy centered around lowering your caloric intake will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of eating disorders, so caution must be used before following in Professor Haub's footsteps.

This article struck me as fascinating, particularly because we have spoken so much about rising obesity rates and potential solutions to this dilemma in class over the past few weeks. I have always believed that caloric intake was more important to weight loss/gain than the quality of the diet, but it was surprising that Haub was able to lose so much weight on such an unhealthy diet. This underscores the importance of caloric intake in weight change and has led me to think that the most effective diet would consist of a mix between healthier foods and a significant decrease in caloric intake. However, I do not think this diet should be implemented until further research is performed, as it could have several negative side-effects, both physiologically and psychologically.
Do you think this experiment applies to the general population or the results primarily occurred because of Professor Haub's biological predisposition to weight loss?

The McRib

About a month ago, I came across an interesting McDonald's special that I had never heard of before: the McRib. This sandwich, consisting of a boneless pork patty shaped like ribs, barbecue sauce, pickles, and onions is unique in that it is rarely available to consumers. McDonald's purposefully sells the sandwich on a limited basis, and has only sold it nationally twice before; in 1982 after a test market run, and in 1994, in relation with the Flintstone movie. The sandwich has received pretty good reviews, but it is the scarcity that contributes to its popularity. Since it is only available on rare occasions, people rush to local McDonald's retailers to eat the sandwich, as they do not know when they will have the opportunity again. McDonald's USA President Jan Fields even mentioned that the sandwich does not sell well on a consistent basis because people get tired of it. The McRib was released on November 2nd and will be discontinued December 5th, after about a month long appearance. 

I find both the marketing strategy and consumer reaction intriguing and when reflecting on my own reaction to the marketing ploy, I realize how brilliant it truly is. Although I have not tried the sandwich, I already have decided to track down the rare McRib this weekend with my roommate, before it is no longer available. I believe this truly represents and helps identify the problems characterizing the food industry today. People hear that McDonald's, a globally recognized fast food chain, is selling a sandwich for a limited time, and do not think twice about what they are about to consume. Well, on this blog, I am about to do that. You cannot simply break down the  sandwich into the pork patty, bun, sauce, pickles, and onions, as there are over 50 ingredients that compose these parts listed here: http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/itemDetailInfo.do?itemID=10031. The sandwich 500 calories, 10 g of saturated fat, and 980 mg of sodium (which is already 41% of your recommended daily value!). On another website (http://www.foodfacts.info/mcrib/), the sandwich is literally deconstructed and the pictures are absolutely disgusting. The most disturbing part of it all is that I now know all of this information and will most likely still try to get my hands on this sandwich. It says a lot about the current generation of consumers; we are not cognizant of what we are eating, but even if we are, most will not change their eating habits.
After reading this post, would you still eat the McRib?

The (Disturbing) Future of Food

After reading this article, I found myself agreeing with many of Belasco's points and realizing the sad state of the modern food industry. He points out that the fix to many of the problems must come either technologically or anthropologically, but I see fundamental flaws in each. Relying on a technological fix is risky and although we have been inventive recently, this is not something we can rely on. Furthermore, a technological fix just delays the problem as it has done already, which is why an anthropological fix is necessary. Unfortunately, a fix of this nature takes time and requires a cultural transformation. Americans must adapt an entirely new mindset when it comes to food; rather than not being knowledgeable about what we eat, and being "distanced" from food, we must become as involved in the food process as possible. Experts, such as Michael Pollan, have been saying this for years, but not enough people care enough about future generations or are even educated enough to make the necessary changes. 

In this week's reading, The Future of Food, by Warren Belasco, the impact current consumption will have on future generations is discussed as well as possible solutions to remedy the problem. The limits of the earth's carrying capacity, famously mentioned in Thomas Malthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population, have not been reached due to technological innovation. Belasco explains, "There is little doubt that, over the past two centuries, world agricultural productivity has increased much more rapidly than almost anyone anticipated. The Malthusian nightmare that population will outgrow food supply has not happened - yet" (123). Although human inventiveness has been able to bail us out, Belasco questions how long this can last considering our current consumption rates. Progress has occurred at the expense of energy, water, and land resources and if progress is to continue, Belasco argues that there must be a change. This "fix" can either be technological or anthropological, meaning that we must continue to innovate and and overcome the constraints on natural resources through new technology, or change the mentality of the general population in order to increase local and responsible consumption. Belasco concludes by simply telling the reader that a good starting point is to learn how to cook; become closer with the food you consume and you will become more educated about the food industry, eventually leading to more responsible decisions.
Is there any other option other than a technological fix or anthropological fix?
Will it take one single, alarming event to force people to change their attitudes concerning their eating habits?

What is Really Causing World Hunger?

In this week's reading, The Scarcity Fallacy, by Stephen J. Scanlan, J. Craig Jenkins, and Lindsey Peterson, the true causes of world hunger are discussed. While scarcity, resulting from "natural disasters, population pressure, and shortfalls in food production" is widely believed to be the problem surrounding hunger, this is not the case. In fact, even though world hunger rates have increased in the last decade, the amount of food on a per capita basis is at its highest mark in the history of mankind. Therefore, "food security" and "food poverty" are the real causes of world hunger, rather than scarcity. Since the problem is not scarcity, the problem arises of how to distribute our food more equitably in order to prevent excess in developed nations at the expense of a shortage in developing countries. The New York Times headline stating, "India's Poor Starve as Wheat Rots", exemplifies the problem with food distribution rather than the sheer amount of food produced. There is excess food, but it is not reaching the people who need it. This occurs for a variety of reasons, mainly the fact that people cannot afford food. The countries where both poverty and hunger rates are lowest, called low-income food deficit countries (LIFDCs), are net importers as they cannot produce enough to meet their own needs. Thus, the high rates in the international marketplace are preventing these nations from receiving an adequate amount of food. Other aspects of society, such as gender and ethnic inequality, and corruption in the food chain have led to the increase in the world hunger rate and in order to prevent this problem from being exacerbated, nations must attack these issues rather than focus on increasing production.

I believe the points made in this article are convincing and it is interesting to note that the amount of food per person is higher than its ever been before, yet we cannot develop a system in which people are not starving. This problem goes beyond the international marketplace and is deeply engrained in society. There is an inequity in society between developed nations and third-world countries that may never be resolved. I believe governments do realize the true issues causing world poverty and hunger, but know a quick fix is impossible. Richer nations will live with surplus, consuming more than they need and leaving leftovers to waste, while others starve and this is how it will be until these developing nations become technologically sound. Specifically, the people in Sub-Saharan Africa have not seen improvements in their standard of living, although there have been many efforts to aid the area. Unfortunately, the story of human history always involves the suffering of many at the expense of the few who live surrounded by wealth.


Is there a remedy to the problem of worldwide poverty or will the distribution channels never be fixed in order to make the allocation of food more equitable?
How can developing nations "catch up" in order to escape their impoverished lives?

It's a SNAP

In this week's reading, Food Stamp Usage Soars, and Stigma Fades, by Jason DeParle and Robert Gebeloff, the recent increase in food stamp usage is discussed. The nation's growing food stamp program, officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has hit record highs in recent months. The once disparaged program is now feeding one in every eight Americans and one in every four children and the people that once criticized it, have been forced to rely on it. The recent trend in food stamp usage has not been confined to poor, urban areas, as the suburbs have been hit hard. During the recent recession, the majority of the poor living in metropolitan areas, were located in the suburbs. "Use has grown by half or more in dozens of suburban counties from Boston to Seattle, including such bulwarks of modern conservatism as California’s Orange County, where the rolls are up more than 50 percent" (2). Unfortunately, during the 1990's, food stamp usage was scorned and many people who were eligible and needed food stamps, did not receive the benefits. In the latter part of the Clinton administration, continuing into modern day, the program has been revived and more people are not afraid to seek its benefits. Although some people see the program as supporting laziness and motivating people to stay idle and unemployed, in general, the program has helped millions of people nationwide. Some of these people may have not needed the food stamps if they worked as hard as possible, but it cannot be debated that the program has helped starving people throughout the country.

Although there are some negative opinions surrounding the SNAP program, I believe the increased usage is beneficial. The example of the woman in Ohio's Warren County, who owned a Mercedes-Benz and a $300,00 home loan-free, and qualified for a food stamp deserves scorn. But for the most part, there are several stories cited in the article of struggling families, who can barely pay for food, and the food stamp helps them to meet their basic necessities. The name change under the Bush administration was crucial in removing much of the stigma associated with food stamps and has cleared the path for increased usage. Although the program contributes to the federal deficit, the list of people it helps makes it worthwhile. "They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare" (1).


Does food stamp usage lead to more positive changes, or does it contribute to much of the nation's laziness?
How can the food stamp program be revised to help only those who really need it?

The Fundamental Attribution Error Concerning Anorexia

This week's reading, Never Too Rich...Or Too Thin: The Role of Stigma in the Social Construction of Anorexia Nervosa, by Karen Way discusses the unsettling trend of increased dietary disorders among the U.S. population. Modern American culture focuses on the image of women, advertising pictures of girls so thin that it seems unnatural. However, the men of today have grown to desire the thinnest of women and this creates an unattainable goal for females. An even more disturbing trend is that society seems to be apathetic towards those who are anorexic, blaming their personality traits rather than the culture that influences their behavior. This is where a psychological perspective must be taken and it lies in people's tendency to blame the observed behaviors of others on dispositional traits rather than on situational traits and do the reverse to explain their own behavior. Rather than realize that social media and magazines portraying the "ideal" woman are a main cause of the rise of eating disorders, society says that there must be other underlying factors that have caused the disorder. Way argues, "In efforts to further legitimate claims that anorexia is a psychiatric illness, medical operatives have aligned anorexia nervosa with obsessive-compulsive disorder and other anxiety disorders, fueling the stigmatized portrait of anorexics" (100). By tying anorexia nervosa to other disorders and family issues, society is preventing the issue from being fixed, as the real problem lies in the decline in women's self esteem as a result of the media.

I believe the claims made by Way in her article are accurate and she makes an interesting point about the growing apathy towards anorexics. She mentions the contestants for Miss America, and the women in the centerfolds of Playboy, as she conveys the idea that the media puts too much pressure on women to lose weight. I agree that by individualizing the issue of anorexia, various industries are trying to cash in on the eating disorder and hinder society's ability to decrease the rate of those inflicted. Society must realize that the disease is a more a result of social media and societal pressures rather than the result of a specific gene or psychological disorder. This message must be relayed and people must understand that they are making a fundamental error of the human mind when attributing the problems of anorexics to their personality rather than to their environment.

What can be done to prevent the media from putting this pressure on women to consistently lose weight?
Can men do anything to help prevent females from becoming anorexics?

Taking the Joy Out of Eating Steak

About a week ago, it was parent's weekend at Cornell and my family took me out to a fairly expensive and fancy steakhouse. Not being familiar with the Ithaca area, we found the restaurant tough to find, but once we arrived, we knew John Thomas Steakhouse was legitimate. As we were seated, I skimmed through the menu of various steaks and seafood, and all I wanted was a medium-rare juicy Filet Mignon. I found it on the menu, asked the waiter if he suggested the steak and ordered it with enthusiasm. I had spied on the family next to us and saw another boy biting into the Filet Mignon and it looked unbelievable. It took some time, but the steak was eventually brought to me and at that point my mouth was watering.

I cut the steak into thin slices and dipped it into the steak sauce before eating it and the first few bites were as good as advertised. But then, something strange happened. I was definitely not full yet, but he enthusiasm I had felt earlier began to diminish. The readings about the commodity chain analysis for beef began to enter my mind. Did the eat I was eating come from a grass-fed cow? Was he given growth hormones or antibiotics? Did he live a life of torture, with no personal space and arthritis stemming from the enormous body he had to support after he was forced to eat great quantities of food? Eating the meat was no longer purely an act of eating; my mind had begun to influence my appetite. My thoughts turned a delicacy into a meal that was undesirable. I wanted to eat more; I tired to eat more and I admit I did get a few more bites down, but the joy was gone. Never before had I truly cared about what I was eating. I never took the time to think about the process; the journey from the farm to my plate. But as these thoughts entered my mind, I couldn't help but think about the meat as more than just food. My favorite meal had become a nightmare.

Leaving the restaurant, several questions floated around my head:
Would I ever view steak the same and would it ever be as enjoyable as it once was?
Does knowledge of the process the cattle go through make it wrong to eat steak?