Hey Sara. I very much get and appreciate what you're saying, although to an extent I see where Dr. Kessler is coming from as well. If he were to put it in more appropriate terms, a la the ones outlined by Brian Wansink in "Mindless Eating," there are a lot of food decisions we make unconsciously. Ones related to portion size seem especially prone to manipulation, and there's no question the food industry has played off human tendencies there.
In regards to things like his comments about the salt-fat-sugar combination, there is no question that highly-processed foods like potato chips are digested much more quickly than less-refined ones with more fiber, for example. So he's kind of using an inapt turn of phrase in saying "instead of satisfying hunger." Of course "junk" foods can satisfy hunger; the issue is more that you get hungry again more quickly than the amount of calories you have consumed would warrant, because they are metabolized (and then stored as fat) too easily.
I mean, I really do think there are a lot of food-policy issues we could be looking at that help to circumvent people's instinctive tendency to overeat given the opportunity. I wholeheartedly agree that it's not productive to assign the brain the value of "malign machine that's up to no good," as it's problematic in the same way that labeling certain foods "bad" or "junk" is. What I think is interesting is to use policy to circumvent its tendencies through regulations that set serving sizes, or set standards for what's available at school, or even tax foods that are less nutritionally valuable. The other side, the part where you educate people about their food (and activity) choices, is largely a consciousness-raising effort, and can really be fascinating -- like, people are intrigued at the idea that just using a bigger serving spoon causes you to take a larger portion and therefore eat more. And it suggests an easy change for them to implement -- don't change what you're eating, use a smaller spoon -- that makes them not feel deprived or judged. And meanwhile it's kind of a "hook" for them to learn more, because learning about human nature is, I think, pretty interesting.
(Oh, and last but not least -- I do believe it's David Kessler. He also tried to assert the FDA's authority to regulate tobacco products, bless him.)
I like rice cakes, when I can get the white cheddar ones. Sometimes I'm not actually hungry per se, I just want to crunch something that isn't hard to chew, which is more like boredom snacking and a desire for some salt. It's getting hard to find savory rice cakes, these days they're all drenched with caramel.
In general, I find eating to be a chore rather than something pleasant. Occasionally I'll get a food I like and then eating is pleasant. I couldn't imagine trying to eradicate the pleasure of eating anything. Sometimes the anticipation of getting something that tastes good is the only motivation I have for eating for the whole day.
Dr. Kessler gets on my nerves in a big way. He really does seem to come from a Calvinistic point of view of physical pleasure (I'm enjoying it, so it must be bad. Bad mind for wanting nice things! Must! Punish! Mind!).
The fact is that our responses to food are complex, and derived from multiple sources. There's the flavor, the texture, the memories, the associations with friends and family...the physical and the emotional responses to food are nearly impossible to separate. On the other hand, why would we want to? It's the complexity of response that brings the pleasure and satisfies not just body but mind as well.
Eating well includes awareness of appetite as well as flavor. One of the biggest problems with this is the way that a lot of heavily processed foods don't satisfy the body the way they satisfy the eye or the tongue. But the key isn't in calling them evil or wagging fingers at people who find salty or sugary things good. The key lies in paying attention to how your body functions and feels after eating them as well as how much you enjoy them when you eat them.
I prefer to eat a lot of fresh fruits, veggies, and minimally processed foods because they taste better to me and make me feel my best, both physically and mentally...but there's no way in hell I'm never eating a frozen pizza roll again. Every now and then, they satisfy me in a way nothing else does. Can I live on them happily? No. Can I eat them happily without beating myself up about it? Of course I can.
Eating thoughtfully is a great thing. Demonizing the very real pleasure of eating is...well...demonic.
Oh, and Godless Heathen, so with you about the white cheddar rice cakes. They are made of yum! I like them much better than the sweet ones, which I usually find cloying.
Incidentally, one of my biggest pop-med pet peeves is tautological neurology. That is: taking things we all know about our own brains, then using functional MRI to prove that they, in fact, occur. We all know that we like fatty foods.
This subjective experience is available to each of us at all times, and that subjective experience occurs in our brains. When fMRI proves that a thought is associated with activation of a part of the brain, what it tells us is not that the thought exists (or that it is in any way exceptional) but where, in physical space, that thought is occurring.
Though that may be a scientifically notable fact (in terms of advancing the science of neurology), it isn't a principle that is at all useful to me except insofar as it confirms that I am not lying or delusional about my subjective experience.
I noticed that he is speaking in my town on Friday, and was planning to go (even for $1
, but then I read a few interviews with him. I'll save my money. I'm not the biggest believer in food addiction, though I can feel the effect of certain things on my blood sugar, though I'm not diabetic. I certainly don't think the answer is to ban all fat/salt/sugar out of the diet (as if one even could), but learn how to live with, even enjoy, these things, without suffering unnecessary consequences.
the most irritating trend in science writing; the "neural circuitry" as separate from self.
Thank you for letting me know that I'm not alone with this.
I think rice cakes are no longer popular because of the lo-carb craze. Dieters who used to snack on rice cakes are now wolfing down nuts and hard-boiled eggs instead.
Nuts are only so low-carb at the beginning. If you "wolf" them down, you are then consuming a lot of carbs, calories, and fat.
There are always several flavors at the local Market Basket, though yes, now that it's been mentioned, most seem to be sweet.
Commenting by HaloScan
