As long as we're on myths out of the New York Times Magazine, we might as well comment on a two part series the mag carried this summer on obesity.
One of the parts ("Fat Factors," 8/13/06) purported to plumb scientific research linking obesity to viruses and other micro-organisms.
Here's all we really needed to know out of that article however: the average daily calorie intake of morbidly obese persons--more than 300 pounds--is something like 6700 calories. That's more than 3 times the roughly 2000 calories per day recommended for women, and 2.5 times the daily intake of 2500 calories recommended for men. In short, most really obese people are simply eating way too much food.
Recent research also shows that overweight people (not just those who are morbidly obese) are poor at estimating the number of calories in their diet, i.e., they tend to substantially underestimate the amount of food they are really taking in.
Sadly, nothing in either of the two parts of the Times Magazine stories dealt with the phenomenon of portion size and its impact on obesity rates. Since the 1960's, just about everything in American diets has gotten bigger--salads, appetizers, main courses and desserts. Even plates and bowls are bigger now than 30 years ago, and for gosh sakes glasses and cups truly runneth over.
Suggesting that the obesity epidemic is due to some virus or micro-organism is not really productive, nor is the science described in the Times Magazine article very persuasive. To be sure, there may well be some small percentage of persons who are overweight where an environmental factor at least plays a contributing role; certainly, genetics play a role as well. But genetics and micro-organisms have been around for millenia, and they haven't changed much.
What people really need help with is figuring out the proper AMOUNT to eat, and strategies for limiting themselves to such portions.
One small step forward on that front is so-called "100 calorie" portions--snacks and drinks conveniently presented in a 100-calorie package. These portions are generally much smaller than the mega-portions we've featured on this page in past posts giving out Gluttony Awards to obesity enablers.
While nothing will stop some people from abusing 100-calorie packs--eating too many of them--the economics at least discourage it. For those who are underestimating their intake while trying their best to stay healthy, such packaging is a big step forward.
Our message here continues to be the same: it's not what you eat, it's how much. Eat what you like, but keep your portions small. Especially when eating out, don't be afraid to leave food on your plate. And don't think there is "value" in consuming the largest combo at the lowest price. Factor in the value of your health!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dear Curmudgeon, I am afraid you are gravely mistaken on almost all accounts here. Obese persons eat more calories because they have more body mass to support and their body tells them to do so. They underestimate the amount of food they eat because they are embarrassed by how much they are compelled to eat, due to articles like this that suggest they eat so much because they lack will power. People KNOW the proper AMOUNT to eat. Eating less is one of the more challenging things for an obese person, who's genetics are telling them to do the opposite. Why do you think almost every diet fails? In addition, a virus can change gene expression. Gene expression is not as simple as the code of your DNA, it is effected by environmental factors such as infections. If you'll read the papers published on this topic you will see that this virus can in fact turn fat precursor cells into fat cells, and this virus is associated with obesity more highly than even many genetic forms of obesity. You cannot argue with science, and I think articles like this are what is counterproductive to helping those with the disease we know as obesity.
Post a Comment