What? I ate that much?

Reading Mindless Eating by Brian Wansink was entertaining yet educational. As much as we (and I) hate to admit it, I very much agree with the fact that we all overeat based on unknown cues, which Wansink provides some solid evidence for. In his writing, he explains a study which showed that the size of the food container can have a profound effect on how much we eat; the larger the popcorn bucket, the more the movie-goers ate, despite the fact that it was stale popcorn. The name of the brand of food can even psychologically affect our eating habits. If we predict food to be bad, it is very likely that we will eat less as we predispose ourselves to do so; this is backed by the fact that the people who drank "California" wine ate more food and spent more time eating than the people who drank "North Dakota" wine. As unbelievable as it may sound, what we drink can ruin the food we eat! Wansink then precedes to explain to us the "Mindless Margin" which is the amount of food we can overeat or under-eat without noticing any side effects. He suggests that the problem with many diets is that people are too impatient and have unrealistic expectations - cutting out your favorite food is never a good idea. If everyone ate 20% less food, then within 10 month period, people could lose up to 10 pounds. The secret to dieting is patience and cutting down the amount of food you eat rather than the type of food.

On another note,one important factor which I feel Wansick fails to discuss in depth is the biological influences of eating. I learned in my NS 1150 course that contemporary science is still unable to find a biological mechanism which controls our dietary decisions - in other words, "a feeding center". The closest thing scientists have discovered has been the hormone leptin, which is produced from adipose tissue. They found that the more people ate, the more leptin was produced which signals to the brain that the body is full. However, recently, there has been evidence against leptin, as it had been found that obese people had more leptin than non-obese people, which is contradictory. As a result, science is back on the search for a biological mechanism which controls eating. One thing is certain however: whoever makes this discovery is going to be a very rich person.


Another thing which is saddening is the percent of American children who are obese. Nowadays, many children are being raised in an unhealthy manner by their parents, who give them the freedom to gulp down gallons of sodas or fatty foods. The government needs to inject funds into educating parents to become more conscious about healthy parenting. Yes, the failing economy does have a role to play in this "pandemic" as with less disposable income, the only food people can afford to feed their families with is "fast food". Nevertheless, a possible solution is for the government to subsidize fruits and vegetables to make them more affordable.

What particularly intrigues me is why some people are able to maintain a thin BMI and cannot gain weight, despite overfeeding themselves. What are some possible explanations to why this occurs? I'm one of these people and so, it has also intrigued me why I don't become more fat, even if I overloaded myself with calories.
Other questions which I have include:

- Can obesity be hereditary?
- What has been the most "successful"/popular diet to date?

Eating like an American

As an international student, reading Eating American by Sidney Minte was particularly interesting as it gave me a perspective into how an American views their own national foods and dining trends. The message came across clear however, that Americans do have to be more conscious about their eating habits as "over half of their calorie consumption comes from sugars", in comparison to what it was decades ago. In addition, many Americans prefer to eat "convenient" foods which can be made quickly and tend to forgo nutrition value for more time for other activities. A capitalist mindset has also increased the frequency in which Americans dine out. Nevertheless, this does not mean that all Americans are becoming unhealthier by the day. Demand for organic foods is growing in addition to the vegetarianism movement, which now has a membership of 7% of the population.

On another note, I also feel that the introduction of other national foods into America still needs some improvement. Living in NYC the last 2 years, I was not able to find find a single Thai or Vietnamese restaurant that served authentic dishes and had not replaced the original ingredients with something more "Westernized". Adding cream to a dish, instead of using coconut milk, or replacing fish sauce with salt are 2 common trends, which in my opinion, totally ruins the food. Yes, I understand that in order to stay in business, restaurants have to adjust the food so that it fits more to the liking of their customers but at the same time, I feel that doing so abandons the identity of the food. I would prefer to see more restaurants try and maintain the authenticity of their national foods instead of allowing it to become Westernized or made into a "fusion" dish. I feel that once customers are exposed more to what the dishes would really taste like, they would appreciate the food much more.

In order to promote better eating, I think it is crucial that Americans be taught how to eat a nutritious diet at a younger age, not after they have suffered the consequence of an unhealthy diet. By educating at a young age, children will be more determined to maintain a healthy diet and eventually, this approach will continue onto adulthood. Stricter government regulations on fast food commercials would also help reduce the incidence of Obesity in this country.

Questions I have based on this reading include:
- Should the government add higher tax rates specifically to fast foods?
- How significant is the fast food industry to the countries' GDP?
- Will importing more exotic foods from other countries have any effect on American's dieting?

Wait... is my meal real?

Paynter's article "The Other Other White Meat" informs the reader about the growing influence cloning is having on our meat industry. Contradictory to what many people may think, cloned meat is as safe to consume as that of conventionally bred animals. Cloning is used to ensure that animals with favorable genes do not become extinct and continue to be survived by a clone - this allows for the continuous production of high valued produce. Paynter also is put under an experiment where he attempts to distinguish clone meat from regular meat, in which he fails; the results of the experiment underlines the fact that clone meat is essentially identical to real meat and that the difference is all in one's mind.

Although there has been controversy as to whether cloned meat should be introduced to the public, I personally feel that cloned meat should not be introduced into supermarkets until it is 100% verified that there are no defects with the cloning process and therefore, the meat itself. We have not developed enough biological advancements in order for us to treat cloning as though it is 100% safe.

A pro to cloning animals with favorable traits is that someday, we might have have cheap high quality meat to eat, rather than fake "trimming" meat. This will reduce the frequency of illnesses from the consumption of unsanitary meat which came from multiple different cows. Nevertheless, a con to the cloning business is that because large transactions of money are involved, cloning scandals and embezzlement can easily surface, which could be dangerous. Mutations of cloned animals can occur as a result and this could have large societal and environmental implications.

Questions which I have are:
- Can a cloned embryo be conceived in different species of cows?
- Is it possible to successfully clone cloned animals?
- Do cloned animals have any advantages over their counterparts?