Hunger and appetite -- the lost relationship

     "Eat your vegetables." "Clean up your plate." "Don't you know that there are starving children in XXX and YYY who would love to have that food?" It may not be quite as true for children in the United States as it was 50 years ago, but I suspect many of the same statements are heard around the table. Of course, the last question of food distribution is more of a political issue than an economic or nutritional one.

     On the positive side, I was not allowed to become a "picky" eater. If it was cold, I ate it. If it was spoiled, I ate it. If it was burned, I ate it. If I hated it, I ate it. (If I loved it, I ate it but might, or might not, have more.) I remember one time when I refused to eat something and I was required to stay at the dinner table until I cleaned my plate. As I recall, that was at about 4 in the morning. I possibly could have (and maybe not) "toughed it out" and "succeeded" in not eating it but I reached the point of realizing that I might win that battle but I would lose the ongoing struggle.

     On the negative side, there was no control over portion size or what I ate. In fact, on those rare occasions when we ate out, I was not only expected to clean my plate but my mother seemed to feel that I was there as a garbage collector to clean her plate as well ("the growing boy needs his food and we are not going to waste any"). Any relationship between hunger and eating was burned out of me.

     As a result, it is probably not a surprise that I had problems controlling my weight. My older brother was "blessed" with a more active metabolism and didn't gain weight until after his metabolism changed when he was about 30. He stayed skinny. I did not. It wasn't until I was away from home and had direct control over my eating that I succeeded (with the help of a swim class and a mile of swimming per day) in getting my weight under control.

     That success did not carry over to the basics of appetite and portion control. I still had no correlation between how much my body needed and how much I ate. So, over the years, I regained the weight. During this same period (from the 1960s on), portion sizes at restaurants started on their continual gradient  (see my "Supersizing" blog about the economics behind that trend) -- and "fast foods" became more of a daily reliance than an occasional treat.

     The relationship between need and consumption is still not encouraged by the economic system of the U.S. Consumption is increased by various methods: commercials and general media as well as additives within the food. Addition of sugar adds to the calories, reduces the nutritional balance, and takes advantage of the "swallow reflex" to cause the body to want to eat beyond any (now ignored) response of fullness. Extra salt and/or MSG is added to enhance the other flavors to make it more appetizing without the need for careful preparation or more expensive ingredients.

     It is possible to escape the cycle of eating without need (in the areas of the world where food is not in shortage) but it is "swimming up stream". First thing to do is to set portion control. I now have the mantra of "to waste or to waist" -- meaning that I may waste extra food but it is not going to add to the inches around my waist. It is still difficult for me to actually throw food away so leftovers come back to the house (adding to landfill contents and, often, still being thrown away when there is no opportunity to actually need it for a meal). And people in the U.S. (not such a problem elsewhere) expect larger portions for the prices that are paid.

     After portion control (which can be done by mathematics rather than recovering one's ability to feel full) comes a deliberate reduction (or attempted elimination) of refined sugar and carbohydrates in the diet as well as the artificial sweeteners and substitutes which are, most likely, no better for your body (and possibly a lot worse). Not eating out gives much more control but processed foods are more accessible and more economic than home-prepared foods. I can buy grated cheese for less than I can buy block cheese and grate it myself (economics of scale, packaging, and distribution). In other words, a significant change in lifestyle as well as ignoring the economic, commercial, and media pressure to do otherwise is needed. Very difficult.

     Another item which can help is to take time with meals -- both in preparation and in consumption. My wife talks about the 10 minutes that we get to spend with our sons at the dinner table before they head back off. In many countries, and societies, that is a half-hour or more. The average amount of work hours in the United States is so high that various other non-work activities are cut down. And one of the dominant areas of reduction is in meal time.

     I am still fighting (at almost 60) to regain a relationship between need and consumption -- hunger and satiation. I make some progress but it is not easy -- society has evolved to make it undesirable for it to be easy. When you reach for the next bite of food, start asking yourself (this will slow down your eating also) whether you really want it. You may be surprised at the answer.

Processed Foods: The good, the bad, and the ugly

   The first step in processing foods is the act of harvesting. So, saying that a person doesn't like processed foods is a bit on the silly side. Picking an apple off of a tree or shucking an ear of corn is processing the food.

   The next stage of processing involves changing the food physically. Food is cut up. It is ground. It is juiced. It is shredded. If it doesn't look the same as when it was harvested, then it has been changed physically.

   Now we come to the part that involves chemical change. This isn't always what people consider to be chemical change. Drying something in the sun will involve chemical (and physical) changes. Fermenting a juice into an altered liquid that contains alcohol is a chemical change. Applying heat and cooking a food is a chemical change. Putting something in a different substance (even water) will often -- but not always -- initiate a chemical change.

   Processing food makes it easier to eat -- or more interesting to eat -- or makes it easier to store for longer periods of time. These are not bad goals. So, what is the big deal about processed foods? Why would anyone object to processed foods.

   As usual, the problems arise out of the details -- the hows, whats, and whys. Harvesting isn't usually considered a big problem -- unless it is done in a way that has "side-effects". For example, some foods are most easily harvested by starting a big fire and sifting through the remains. Other foods might be harvested by killing the main plant when only a small part is going to be used for food. Finally, there is the background issue (not to be discussed at length here) of production which is necessary for harvesting to occur.

   Physical processing takes energy. If physically preparing food is part of the daily routine then it is a closed system -- energy given by eating the foods is used in the preparation of those same foods. However, when we buy something already processed then we are also requiring energy to be used for the preparation as well as transport. That energy is likely to include non-renewable energy sources.

   Now comes the most controversial part of processed foods -- chemical changes. The previously mentioned changes would usually be considered "natural" (although they are not all likely to occur without some intervention by some other living entity). When "artificial" processing (as mentioned in another blog, these terms don't have as distinct of a difference as people often seem to think) is involved, the food will change in ways that cannot always be predicted.

   Edible items (we'll continue to call them foods) can be produced from inorganic (not originally alive) components. During the processing of foods, additives can be included that change flavors (this can include spices and herbs -- but also inorganic chemicals) or make the food last longer (usually called preservatives), or become more addictive (added sugars, salt, certain chemical substances) to increase marketing and sales. These types of processing can make the food less healthy -- and this is the big deal about processed foods. Commercially prepared processed foods are often less healthy than fresh or personally processed foods.

   So, why do people buy processed foods -- and why are people buying a larger and larger percentage of their food in the form of processed foods? I would categorize that in the regions of time, convenience, marketing susceptibility, and (for many items) monetary savings. Using processed foods saves time -- it reduces the time to prepare, the time to consider the recipe, and usually time to cook or put on the table.

   In the case of processed fresh fruits and vegetables, you will probably be paying quite a bit extra to have someone process them for you -- but you may save, if you are single, because you are only buying the amount that you will eat. This is a cost trade-off.

   In the case of stored (frozen, refrigerated, canned, or packaged) processed foods, it is often true that it will cost you less to buy processed food from the store. This is because the food processing company pays less for the ingredients because they buy in huge quantities and because the energy costs in labor and machinery are less than what it would take for you to prepare. The actual costs of the food may amount to 1/4 of what you would have to spend to prepare it personally. With the markups of transportation, storage, and profits at different stages, the final price is still often less than what you could realistically prepare. So, it ends up being a choice concerning time and quality.

   Marketing susceptibility is a huge topic (and one on which I have briefly discussed in other blogs). This is buying products that you KNOW are not good for you and which may not even taste as good as healthier alternatives -- but if convinced that it is the popular thing to eat (in the popular quantities) then you may choose to buy and consume it.

   The "ugliest" part of commercially processed foods is the addictive parts. Processed sugar (including High Fructose Corn Syrup) is an addictive and unhealthy substance. It can be found in many processed foods including canned vegetables. Check the ingredient list! Salt is a flavor enhancer but, for some people, it can be hard on the body in excessive amounts. Governmental control agencies have stopped the addition of such substances as cocaine, coca leaves, and other known addictive chemicals (yes, they did use such at one time) into foods but there isn't enough oversight to make sure that other newer chemicals do not have addictive or destructive effects.

   The bottom line is that processing food is a long, and reasonable, thing. Local processing is probably always healthier than commercial processing but there are reasons why people choose to buy commercially processed foods -- and why they take more and more shelf space in the supermarkets and grocery stores.

   Do you make use of processed foods? What kinds do you purchase? Do you check the ingredient lists when you make choices? Does it matter to you if you are preparing for one or two versus preparing for a large family gathering?

Why aren't studies steady? The problems with studies on humans.

     If you don't like the results of a study ... wait for the next study. It appears that the results from studies involving people vary drastically from study to study ... and they do. At one time butter is bad and margarine is good and then, later, margarine is bad and butter is better (not necessarily good). Fats are bad. No, the right fats are good. Olive oils are the right fats. No, more polyunsaturated fats are even better. Why do studies that involve humans vary in their results so much?

     There are quite a few reasons why it is difficult to have consistent results from studies of humans. Some are inherent problems. Some are political problems. And a large number of problems arise from the way studies are reported in the media rather the actual study. In other words, a study may be done very well and present results that are interesting but not conclusive -- but some specific parts are taken up by the media as "startling results". What are the problems with studies?

• People are not mice. Many studies on health effects are done with mice, or guinea pigs, or monkeys, or chimpanzees, or some other more easily studied animal. In addition, many studies may make use of one gender but generalize to both genders. It is rather obvious that, for the best results, use of humans of the appropriate category must be used. Why isn't this the case?
  
  Cost. People want to be paid (in money or value) to participate in studies. Animals can be purchased -- and, until some group starts recognizing what is being done to them, can be treated with the least care needed.
  
  Morality. Except in certain situations (such as Nazi Germany where psychopaths had full permission to experiment) it is not acceptable to put people's lives at risk. This is associated with control groups where they are NOT treated the same as the group which is being tested as well as with the groups being treated with undetermined results.
  
  
• Patience. It takes TIME to determine what long-term results are. Of course, it doesn't take much time for an immediately lethal poison to be known but most substances aren't as immediate in effect. Taking longer periods of time means results are delayed. It also increases the costs of the study.
  
  Two types of studies of this nature are longitudinal and cross-generational. One examines individuals for substantial portions of their lives and the other examines the effects from parent to child to grandchild. Humans have pretty long lives (unless stopped by disease, accident, or violence) and this also leads to use of shorter lived animals as subjects.
  
  
• Control groups. A control group is simple in concept but much harder to create and use. The idea is that one group has the variation (tries a medicine, eats a food, does an exercise, endures environmental conditions, ...) and the other does not. Comparing the results of the two groups is hoped to be able to isolate the effects of the specific effect being studied.
  
  A huge difficulty is that it is impossible to prevent the confusion of combinations of variables. You are testing item A. It turns out that A does one thing in the presence of items B and C. It does another, different, thing in the presence of items C and D -- and it may even do something else in the presence of B and D. If B, C, and D are all known and defined then useful results may still be obtained -- but often they are not. These combinatorial variables are unknown -- but they can drastically affect the results. Two of these variables involve environment and genetics.
  
  Environmental variables. What is the effect of electricity in a house or city? In modern society, it is impossible to eliminate -- and, if taken to a part of the world where electricity is NOT present, other variables will exist. What is the effect of plastics? What are the effects of pesticides, hormones, or antibiotics in the food? While these can be minimized, they cannot be eliminated. What about specific pollutants in the air? And so forth.
  
  Genetics. Leading up to the next bullet item on correlation versus causation, I once read a statistical study on smoking and cancer rates in various countries of the world. It turned out that countries with the greatest amount of smoking had among the lowest amounts of cancer. The effect of smoking depended upon the population. (It didn't get a lot of media attention since the outcome was not politically popular.) A homogenous (identical in nature) population is needed for studies and sets of identical octuplets are hard to find.
  
  
• Correlation versus causation. This is understood by scientists doing studies but easily distorted by politicians, business owners, groups, or media people who have a bias towards a particular result. Causation means the variable causes the result. If I hit my toe with a hammer it will be bruised (or broken). This is true if any toe hit by any hammer causes these results. The effects can be changed -- a hammer hitting a toe that is shielded by a steel-toed boot is NOT hurt (but it also means the toe of the foot is not actually hit).
  
  Some people are allergic to monosodium glutamate (MSG). Some are not. So, MSG AND allergic people cause a particular effect but MSG AND non-allergic affect does NOT cause the effect. This is verifiable contributory causation.
  
  Everyone who drinks water will eventually die. Does drinking water cause people to die? No (unless, of course, the water is contaminated), but this is the type of (often statistical) result that biased groups enjoy mis-interpreting and reporting.
  
  
• Binary Results. People like simple results. They like "yes" or "no". They do not like long combinations of possibilities. So, a report that says "butter is bad" is much easier to distribute than a report that says "butter, in combination with lack of exercise and excessive refined carbohydrates and a genetic tendency towards high cholesterol, can contribute to high blood pressure".
  
  Properly done studies rarely have simple results.

So, in summary, it is difficult to create a useful, consistent study on the effects of anything with people. Even if done properly, it is difficult to give results without also giving all of the controlled variables along with the result.