Eating More
The Biological Drive to Eat
Anyone who counts on sheer willpower to lose weight is overlooking an important fact: we are biologically programmed to eat. Our appetites and our metabolisms are designed to induce us to eat more when more food is available. We are particularly inclined to prefer sweet foods (because sweet berries and leaves were least likely to be poisonous) and high-fat foods (because they provide more energy).
These mechanisms served us well when food was harder to come by, and when we needed plenty of stored energy to carry out the hard physical tasks of daily living. But in just a few generations, we have created an environment in which the inverse is true—food is plentiful, and our daily lives require little exertion. It will take many, many generations more before evolution catches up with technology and allows us to thrive in our current food environment.
More Food (and Drink) Available
According to Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition and food studies at New York University and author of Food Politics, the U.S. food supply is abundant enough to provide every man, woman, and child in the country with 3,800 calories per day (Nestle, 8).
Where does all this food come from? Much of it comes from more efficient agricultural practices and innovations in food processing. Two of these key innovations include the development of hydrogenated vegetable oils and high fructose corn syrup. Both of these ingredients allow processed goods to stay fresh longer, and they are much cheaper to use than animal fats (e.g., butter, lard) and cane sugar. Not coincidentally, both are used heavily in high-calorie, nutrient-deficient processed foods. Also, government food subsidies support the production of meat, dairy, and grains (including grain to feed livestock).
If we are biologically programmed to eat, and if there is more food available to us than ever before, then it follows naturally that we are eating more than ever. Most of what researchers know about individual food intake comes from self-reporting, which is not completely reliable—people are likely to underestimate their consumption of "bad" foods and overestimate their consumption of "good" foods. But even self-report data shows that between the mid-1970s and the mid-1990s, average calorie intake increased by about 200 calories per day (Nestle, 8).
Unfortunately, we're eating more meat, sugar, and processed grain products. Fewer than one-fourth of Americans, adults or children, get at least five servings of produce per day. Just five products account for nearly half of all vegetables consumed: frozen potatoes (french fries), fresh potatoes, potato chips, iceberg lettuce, and canned tomatoes.
How cheap are these extra calories? A 2002 report from the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity compared the cost increase and the calorie increase that comes from choosing the next size up for several popular food items:
- At Cinnabon, choosing the regular Cinnabon instead of the Minibon costs 48 cents more and provides 370 extra calories—a 123% calorie increase for just 24% more money.
- At McDonald's, choosing the medium Quarter Pounder value meal (with fries and soda) instead of the burger alone costs $1.41 more and provides 660 extra calories—a 125% calorie increase for just 61% more money.
- At the movie theater, choosing the medium popcorn (unbuttered) instead of the small costs 71 cents more and provides 500 extra calories—a 125% calorie increase for just 23% more money.
Liquid Calories
In discussing the total calories in the typical American diet, it is impossible to ignore the calories that come from beverages-sodas, fruit drinks, energy drinks, and specialty coffee drinks. The danger in consuming liquid calories is that we are less likely to compensate for those extra calories by cutting food consumption later in the day.
Soda is, by far, the biggest contributor of empty liquid calories. A 20-ounce soft drink has 15 teaspoons of sugar. Drink one bottle per day without compensating for those extra calories, and you'll gain about 24 pounds in one year. Sure, there's diet soda … but only 25 percent of the soda consumed in the United States is diet. (Moreover, artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain as well.)
Parents might feel better about choosing fruit drinks because many are enhanced with vitamins, but these, too, are loaded with sugar (and often have little or no actual fruit content). Then there's coffee—the old 8-ounce cup of coffee with cream and sugar had just 45 calories, but a 12-ounce café mocha from Starbucks with whole milk and whipped cream packs 310. calories.
Bigger Portions
Since food production costs make up a relatively small fraction of the total cost of a food, it doesn't cost the manufacturer that much more to increase the portion size available. Consumers like the larger portions, too—not only do they get more food, they get "more value" for their money.
Perhaps the greatest pitfall of supersized portions is that many of us have distorted views of what "normal" portions are—and we are more likely to overeat. Dietitians Lisa Young and Marion Nestle conducted an experiment in which they asked students in a nutrition class to bring in food items that they considered to be of a "medium" size.
An Emphasis on Convenience
With dual-income and single-parent families becoming the norm rather than the exception, fewer households have a stay-at-home parent available to shop, cook meals from scratch, and clean up afterward. (Even stay-at-home parents are busy with children, volunteer activities, and other commitments.) It's no wonder, then, that the demand for convenience has increased.
The restaurant industry in particular has flourished within the last few decades. On any given day, more than 40 percent of adults eat in a restaurant—and one in eight will eat at a McDonald's.