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.

Comparison shopping: When no choice seems to be a good one.

     I am a consumer. I admit it. I also try to make conscious choices -- picking products from companies that are less harsh to the earth, that work constructively with their employees rather than against them, and so forth. These are characteristics of the companies that are important to me that lead me to consider products in the first place.

     But, beyond that, I want to pick the product that seems to be the "best" to me. In order to do that, I need to understand what qualities I want, or feel that I need. Once I understand that, I check reviews and product comparisons to see what products best match to my desires. It is a logical process but it can drive people around me totally nuts if this is not the way they approach purchasing items. (The way they approach evaluations also drives me nuts -- it is an equal opportunity situation 😄 )

     In what is referred to as a "free market" situation, it is possible to make decisions solely upon the perceived qualities of a product. Qualities can include appearance, durability, price, features, societal responsibility, and so forth. Note that the perception is what counts. If a societal section decides that orange is the most beautiful color for eyeglasses then that is it. If a tall person is looking for a car then the head and leg room of the driver's seat area will be of great importance and value. If a short person is looking then they will consider a completely different selection of cars based upon their own needs -- probably for seat adjustment and ease of access to hand and foot controls. Each person has different needs and, thus, different sets of qualities.

     Some qualities should be more objective. A new tire with a lifetime of 50,000 miles should be considered to have better wear than another tire that has a lifetime of 20,000 miles. Of course, there may be other qualities that are more important than lifetime -- such as the ability to handle wet roads in Seattle (which may be of no interest in the Sahara).

     But what happens when you have only two choices of tires -- one that has a lifetime of 20,000 miles and one that has a lifetime of 15,000? All other qualities equal, people choose the tires that last 20,000 and the manufacturer of the 15,000 mile tire goes back to their labs and tries to develop a tire that lasts 25,000 miles. This is called constructive competition. The end result of such competition is the development of better products and lower prices for consumers. This is the ideal situation for the consumer.

     What happens when there is only ONE (1) supplier of tires for a region? They sell 20,000 mile tires for a while and then they decide to start selling the 20,000 mile tires for a higher price and selling a 15,000 mile tire for the same price as they used to get for the 20,000 mile tire. This is called a monopoly situation and is not a good one for the consumer or the quality of products. Monopolies can either be established by "natural" restriction of access to resources (all of the widgets are found only in areas controlled by a company) or by economic leverage (all of the competitors are under-priced until they go out of business or are purchased by the larger company). Laws can be created to control this situation to improve the situation for the consumer and for the improving qualities of the product -- but sometimes no laws are created and the monopoly continues to exist and degrade quality and inflate prices.

     By definition, there cannot be a monopoly with more than one company in active competition. But there can be private agreements between two or more companies that allow both, or all, to expand their profits at the expense of the consumers and which produce no constructive competition. This group of two or more companies can be called a "cartel". Although no single company within the group is a monopoly, they are able to control access to resources and to the consumers so that other companies that are not part of the cartel cannot compete. Laws can be devised to restrict this but they are much more difficult to monitor and enforce -- and, once again, it is possible that no law will be created.

     Finally, it is also to the advantage of each company to restrict comparisons. This can be done by restriction of the movement of information (control of media access, for example). It can also be done by creating "brand loyalty" -- such that the consumers directly identify with the product of the company rather than the qualities of the product. With sufficient brand loyalty, a company has a base of consumers for which it needs to provide neither quality nor value.

     So, on to the title of the blog. What happens when no choice seems to be a good one? In a free market situation new companies will arise if adequate constructive competition does not take place among existing companies. Old companies die away if they cannot maintain satisfaction of their consumer base. This can only happen in a truly free market and a truly free market can only exist with regulation and supervision. Otherwise, monopolies, cartels, and other restrictions penalize the consumers and the quality of the products in favor of the profits of the companies.

     I used tires as an example of a product. In reality, anything that people choose (or do NOT choose) is a product. This may include political candidates, or services (education, for example), or resources (water, for example), as well as manufactured products. Within any product marketing situation the free market allows consumers the best options. Giving the illusion of a free market while actually controlling the choices of the consumer favors the producers. It is a continual struggle as the needs of each are weighed against each other.