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?