Brooks: "Just quit when you need elastic waistbands"

When it comes to obesity, David Brooks, John Tierney, and the Center for Consumer Freedom remind me of the of the kid in this joke:

A kid is in his bedroom, near ecstasy as he masturbates ever more vigorously. In walks his father.

"You'd better stop that, son," says the dad. "Otherwise, you're liable to go blind."

The boy dutifully affirms that he will stop immediately.

A week later, the dad once again walks in on the boy as he is masturbating.

"I thought we had an agreement," dad sputters angrily.

"Well," says the kid, "I figured I'd just quit when I need glasses."

As Scott Lemieux notes, the fast food industry and the anti-public health crowd want the public to mentally cordon off obesity as a discrete disease. The industry is fostering the self-delusion that bad diet isn't harmful unless it's causing obesity. That way, it's easier to ignore the fact that the same bad habits that cause obesity in the minority are also hurting everyone else who partakes (i.e., most of us, to some extent):

But, in a sense, Tierney and Brooks are reacting to the focus on obesity rather than health more broadly; when evidence emerges that weight per se is less important than is generally asserted, well then go ahead and eat that second Double Quarter Pounder. But, of course, eating fast food regularly is unhealthy, as is being sedentary, and this is true whether it makes you obese or not (and in many cases, especially among young people, it doesn't.) Focusing on preventing obesity as an end in itself, I think, is not helpful in making this point (and Brooks is certainly correct in implying that aesthetic and health concerns, which should be kept distinct, are obviously being conflated.) We should focus on encouraging people to exercise regularly and heating a healthy diet rather than on what their bodies look like. This will, of course, reduce obesity as well, but that's a side effect; that shouldn't be the primary goal, and defining the goal in these terms I think ultimately plays into the hands of the fast food lobby. [Emphasis added.]

See more of Scott's writing on obesity, policy, and culture here, and here.

Comments

[ianqui]

I wanted to write something profound, but I don't have a whole lot of time, so instead I'll say this. Didn't these people see Supersize Me? Yes, Morgan Spurlock gained 30lbs, but more importantly, he had the liver function of someone with end stage cirrhosis. That scared the crap out of me, and I don't ever eat McDonalds.

[Cookie]

"The industry is fostering the self-delusion that bad diet isn't harmful unless it's causing obesity. That way, it's easier to ignore the fact that the same bad habits that cause obesity in the minority are also hurting everyone else who partakes ... "

Exactly. On target.

[Josh]

This sign should be posted in every school and public building that serves food:

What shocked me about the movie (Supersize Me) wasn’t what it said, or. Heck I already new most of that stuff. What shocked me were the gasps I heard from the audience, most of whom seemed generally surprised that big business could be so…well…business like.

Here’s what it comes down to kids. Ronald McDonald doesn’t give a damn about you. Neither does that little minx Wendy or any of the other icons of drivethroughdom. And you know what, they’re not supposed to. They’re businesses doing what businesses do. They don’t love you. They are not going to laugh with you on your birthdays, or hold you when you’re sick and sad. They won’t be with you when you graduate, when your children are born or when you die. You will be with you and your family and friends will be with you. And, if you’re any kind of human being, you will be there for them. And you know what, you and your family and friends are supposed to provide you with nourishment too. That’s right folks, feeding someone is an act of caring. We will always be fed best by those that care, be it ourselves or the aforementioned friends and family.

We are fat and sick and dying because we have handed a basic, fundamental and intimate function of life over to corporations. We choose to value our nourishment so little that we entrust it to strangers. We hand our lives over to big companies and then drag them to court when the deal goes bad. This is insanity.

Feed yourselves.
Feed your loved ones.
And for God’s sake feed your children.

Don’t trust anyone else to do it…not anyone. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t go out to dinner every now and then…that is after all one of the great joys of life…but it isn’t life itself and that’s what I’m talking about.

Is MacDonalds food bad for you? What do you think? Does that mean you shouldn’t eat it? No, it just means you shouldn’t live on it or anything else made by someone you wouldn’t hug.
- Alton Brown

[Scott]

I think I have to agree with the focus on obesity instead of healthy eating. I agree with you that being healthy is the real goal, but A) people are really confused on what "eating healthy" is these days. Sure, the anti-health crowd has helped muddle the situation, but the reality is that there is cutting edge nutrition research that keeps getting blown out of proportion in the media: is drinking good for you or bad for you? Are eggs good for you or bad for you? I think people have given up. And B) Eating healthy is a long term goal with little or no visible results. There's no start and stop point. Obesity has a clear goal, which makes it easy for people to gauge how they're doing. If we focus on healthful diets and stay away from purging or Atkins, people can use the scale as a way of measuring their overall progress.
I guess the real question is: Would you rather be right or would you rather have peoples' attention?

[Amanda]

Not all obese people are bad eaters, and are often healthier than skinny people who eat trash. But yes, we've lost track of this fact and conflated images of thinness with health.

[Cookie]

One of the problems is that we now have at least one generation --- maybe two --- raised on drive-through and frozen pizza. They literally don't know how to boil a potato or make ice tea. They love those trans-fat foods and think homemade is weird.

Whether these people are fat or not is almost beside the point. The analogy I see is to commodities in Indian Country. These commodities were distributed to most Indian families, and consisted almost entirely of macaroni, white flour, sugar and similar.

As we now know, however, these are absolutely deadly foods for most (not all, but most) Indian people, and are considered a primary cause for the epidemic of diabetes among certain tribes. Virtually everyone where I live is diabetic, and a substantial number are on dialysis at relatively young ages (35-50), and suffer amputations.

But these foods are now a part of the Indian culture. Frybread, for example --- absolutely deadly, but now considered the thing. Suzan Shown Harjo and others have begun an attack on this, however, and with good reason. These foods kill Indian people. Surely, absolutely and with deadly accuracy.

And now the same phenomenon is happening among the general American pop. This pop is so diverse that they simply can't be characterized like Indan people as having a high genetic tendency to diabetes, meaning we can't say "Well, people with those kinds of genetics, it would happen anyway." And the foods so many people are eating --- the frozen pizzas, drive-through, etc. --- are now a part of the culture. And the consequences won't be pretty, and will likely be quite similar to what I see where I am (which is ... the heart of Indian Country!), where diabetes is pandemic, amuptation is a fact of life, three days a week at the dialysis clinic is the place to be, etc.

To simply blame obesity is to completely ignore the root of the problem, which is the nature of the foods too many people are eating, and the consequences of such a diet. Coupled, of course, with lack of exercise, etc.

[David]

plus less obesity may lead to less masturbation, and thus to improved eye health!

[lugosi]

I guess this explains why I have an overwhelming urge to masturbate whenever I eat a Big Mac.

[Eli (creepandblink)]

I agree with the second half of Scott's comment ("Eating healthy is a long term goal with little or no visible results. There's no start and stop point. Obesity has a clear goal, which makes it easy for people to gauge how they're doing. If we focus on healthful diets and stay away from purging or Atkins, people can use the scale as a way of measuring their overall progress."), but I'm unsure about the first. People may be confused about the fine points, particularly regarding the foods that have been most subject to media frenzy, but do we really believe that most people don't have at least a basic idea which foods are healthy and which are not?

And I hate to be the first annoying person to mention this, but: As long as people are not being deceived about their options, why should we care whether they opt for probable longer life or instant gratification?

[Ron Zeno]

"We should focus on encouraging people to exercise regularly and heating a healthy diet rather than on what their bodies look like."

This will also reduce the occurance of eating disorders and similar problems related to concern about physical appearance.

[janet]

A few years ago I came up with some rules for healthy eating:

1. Eat a variety of minimally processed fresh or frozen foods. In particular, make sure to include lots of vegetables, and some nuts and seeds.

2. Eat moderate amounts of food at regular intervals. Don't binge, snack, or skip meals.

3. Avoid junk. "Junk" is hereby defined as anything with a lot of added salt, sugar, fat, or chemicals not found in nature, especially if it is heavily processed and/or has little or no food value aside from its calories.

4. Eat slowly, and pay attention to how you feel before, during, and after a meal. Take the time to enjoy your food.

That's pretty much it. It doesn't pay to worry too much about any particular food or nutrient -- unless, say, you're trying to get pregnant and need to make sure you get enough folic acid and not too much mercury. People get too hung up on carbs vs. protein and fat, or oat bran, or the nutrient of the moment: those are really just distractions from basic principles that ought to be common sense.

[Scott]

I just read this article about following health advice. This excerpt was chiling and unfortunately too indicative of our culture:

"They all kind of roll their eyes and go, 'Nobody does that'," Reeves said. "This is the problem -- the social or cultural norm is not to do that, and it seems like an acceptable situation.

[Spaz]

Both Brooks and Tierney wrote about the skinny vs. the fat as a red v blue thing and cleverly, self-deprecatingly, clued in the audience to their membership in the flabby pundit class.

However, both have cast eating healthily as something liberals want to impose because liberals are puritans who want to control their red-state brethren through denying them pleasure. How funny, they say, that being a chunk is scientifically proven to be healthier than Twiggy! Pass the Ho-Hos!

On the other hand, Brooks has been denouncing the left as helping destroy the social health of the country through indulgence — ala school children and a generation of educational curricula designed to encourage self-esteem — and decadence — like Hollywood sex and violence.

So are liberals puritan Stalinists who want to deny pleasure to regular joes or are they decadents who corrupt everything they touch?

Sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it, too.

[michael jones]

Good post. I agree with you but sometimes it is really hard just to guit. I know that healthy eating is very important but it is just not so easy to quit with the delicious steak!