"Why Are Americans Fat?"
From Elizabeth Kolbert in The New Yorker comes a comprehensive article attempting to determine the cause of increased obesity in America. She talks about portion sizes:
In the early nineteen-sixties, a man named David Wallerstein was running a chain of movie theatres in the Midwest and wondering how to boost popcorn sales. Wallerstein had already tried matinée pricing and two-for-one specials, but to no avail. According to Greg Critser… one night the answer came to him: jumbo-sized boxes. Once Wallerstein introduced the bigger boxes, popcorn sales at his theatres soared, and so did those of another high-margin item, soda.
A decade later, Wallerstein had retired from the movie business and was serving on McDonald’s board of directors when the chain confronted a similar problem. Customers were purchasing a burger and perhaps a soft drink or a bag of fries, and then leaving. How could they be persuaded to buy more? Wallerstein’s suggestion—a bigger bag of fries—was greeted skeptically by the company’s founder, Ray Kroc. Kroc pointed out that if people wanted more fries they could always order a second bag.
“But Ray,†Wallerstein is reputed to have said, “they don’t want to eat two bags—they don’t want to look like a glutton.†Eventually, Kroc let himself be convinced; the rest, as they say, is supersizing.
Something called “conditioned hypereating”:
Kessler spends a lot of time meeting with (often anonymous) consultants who describe how they are trying to fashion products that offer what’s become known in the food industry as “eatertainment.†Fat, sugar, and salt turn out to be the crucial elements in this quest: different “eatertaining†items mix these ingredients in different but invariably highly caloric combinations. A food scientist for Frito-Lay relates how the company is seeking to create “a lot of fun in your mouth†with products like Nacho Cheese Doritos, which meld “three different cheese notes†with lots of salt and oil. Another product-development expert talks about how she is trying to “unlock the code of craveability,†and a third about the effort to “cram as much hedonics as you can in one dish.â€
Kessler invents his own term—“conditioned hypereatingâ€â€”to describe how people respond to these laboratory-designed concoctions. Foods like Cinnabons and Starbucks’ Strawberries & Crème Frappuccinos are, he maintains, like drugs: “Conditioned hypereating works the same way as other ‘stimulus response’ disorders in which reward is involved, such as compulsive gambling and substance abuse.†For Kessler, the analogy is not merely rhetorical: research on rats, he maintains, proves that the animals’ brains react to sweet, fatty foods the same way that addicts’ respond to cocaine. A reformed overeater himself—“I have owned suits in every size,†he writes—Kessler advises his readers to eschew dieting in favor of a program that he calls Food Rehab. The principles of Food Rehab owe a lot to those of drug rehab, except that it is not, as Kessler acknowledges, advisable to swear off eating altogether. “The substitute for rewarding food is often other rewarding food,†he writes, though what could compensate for the loss of Nacho Cheese Doritos he never really explains.
And she also addresses the fat acceptance movement:
According to the authors of “The Fat Studies Reader,†the real problem isn’t the sudden surge in obesity in this country but the surge in stories about obesity. Weight, by their account, is, like race or sex or bone structure, a biological trait over which individuals have no—or, in the case of fat, very limited—control. A “societal fat phobia,†Natalie Boero, a sociology professor at San Jose State University, writes, “in part explains why the ‘obesity epidemic’ is only now beginning to be critically deconstructed.â€
Undeniably, the fat—the authors of “The Reader†are adamant advocates for the “f†word—are subject to prejudice and even cruelty. A 2008 report by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, at Yale, noted that teachers consistently hold lower expectations of overweight children, and that three out of five of the heaviest kids have been teased at school. The same people who are repelled by racist or misogynistic humor seem to feel that it is perfectly acceptable to make fat jokes.
But, just because size bias exists it doesn’t follow that putting on weight is a subversive act. In contrast to the field’s claims about itself, fat studies ends up taking some remarkably conservative positions. It effectively allies itself with McDonald’s and the rest of the processed-food industry, while opposing the sorts of groups that advocate better school-lunch programs and more public parks. To claim that some people are just meant to be fat is not quite the same as arguing that some people are just meant to be poor, but it comes uncomfortably close.
It’s all brainy and New Yorker-y and there’s a lot going on and I don’t even know where to begin. You guys are smart, you try!
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Fatism, Health, Magazines, Media, Question, Science
Email us
Being a newbie to concepts of FA, I’m interested in why the author says that authors of “The Fat Studies Reader” ally themselves with McDonald’s and other processed food groups and are against “better school-lunch programs and more public parks.” Is that true, or is that the article’s author’s bias coming through? Personally, I’m all for people being able to eat what they want to and can afford to eat, and if that means McDonald’s, fine. But at the same time, I’m all for public parks and good lunches for kids at schools. Why would the two be mutually exclusive? I like parks, and I know a lot of overweight/obese people who like a nutritious meal as much as the next person. Is she saying that fat people who are trying to accept their bodies purposely avoid the grocery store and go out to fast food for three meals a day so we can say “Screw you!” to skinny people?
Also, I thought this was weird. First the author says the “Fat Studies Reader” authors assert, “Weight, by their account, is, like race or sex or bone structure, a biological trait over which individuals have no—or, in the case of fat, very limited—control.” But then she seems to imply that people gain weight to make a political or social statement by saying, “just because size bias exists it doesn’t follow that putting on weight is a subversive act.” Not only are those two statements contradictory (first they’re saying we can’t always control our weight, and then they’re saying they’re fat on purpose so they can make a statement?), I think she misses the point. The “subversive act” of FA is more about accepting yourself and your body as it is, and not putting your life off until later, isn’t it?
And again, I’m new, so if I’ve said anything offensive or incorrect, please let me know (and be gentle!). :)
Regarding the “conditioned hypereating” thing… in order to even begin to address the “science,” one would have to historicize this notion of “supersizing” and really think about what it means and has meant. How does it fit into notions of, among other things, “the cornucopia” (which dates back to the 5th century) and fantasy fables like “stone soup”?
How does this notion of large portions work when it’s founded on the notion of a premeasured restaurant/packaged good “portion” which is a relatively recent idea? How is our reaction to restaurant meals conditioned by a culture of dieting in which the restaurant is or is not a “special” place in which we “treat” ourselves within the context of deprivation (or calls for deprivation) elsewhere? How is concern over portion size influenced by class? (Who do we think deserves “supersized” things?)
You’re right. There’s a lot going on here, and the very least of it is whether this guy’s right about the science.
As far as the New Yorker article as a whole, it’s so deeply flawed I don’t know where to begin, really. She’s got some pretty serious reading comprehension problems regarding the Fat Studies reader that make me question everything else about her analysis, which is a shame, as the New Yorker is usually pretty good at critical approaches to issues of the day.
To claim that some people are just meant to be fat is not quite the same as arguing that some people are just meant to be poor, but it comes uncomfortably close.
This is the part that made me go WTF? I mean, is saying that some people are meant to be tall like saying that some people are meant to be poor? Unless the author sees being fat as a “condition” that can and should be easily changed–which s/he obviously does–then that analogy makes no sense at all.
Laurie, you may be new to the movement, but you’ve definitely grasped the logic.
FA is not, as a movement, interested in tearing down every Micky D’s in existence, but many of us do clamor for making more nutritious food options more available to people on lower incomes. Many of us long for more open spaces where children can run and adults can walk, or practice tai chi…or just sit on a bench with a book or our daydreams. Why? Because making more and better options available to more people is always a good thing.
Most of us do not consider foods to be obviously moral or immoral. I love a crisp green salad, and I like the occasional Cinnabon. I love to cook dinners that help my husband control his diabetes and I love to bake cakes and pies. I’m not trying to gain weight anymore than I’m trying to lose it. I’m just too busy loving my body and caring for it to worry about how much it weighs.
In the longrun, the most revolutionary thing we do in FA, as you have already noticed, is that we refuse to apologize for our size. We refuse to wait until we fit a particular jean size to live our lives. And we refuse to accept the idea that we are to blame for the world’s ills simply by existing. We aren’t asking anyone else to change their bodies; we’re just not willing to engage in expensive, painful, unhealthy, and futile efforts to change ours.
Only three out of five?? How did the other two kids escape the teasing?
“I’m not trying to gain weight anymore than I’m trying to lose it. I’m just too busy loving my body and caring for it to worry about how much it weighs…. We aren’t asking anyone else to change their bodies; we’re just not willing to engage in expensive, painful, unhealthy, and futile efforts to change ours.”
Damn skippy. Why do people have such a hard time understanding that this is the essence of FA? Thanks, Twistie, couldn’t have said it better myself.
There’s so much that’s flawed with this article, but what gets me is the statement that fat people “ally’ themselves with McDonalds and oppose healthier alternatives. Me, i HATE McDonald’s, their burgers taste disgusting to me. I’m hardly “allied” with them.
But the implication that fat people exclusively support being fat paints EXACTLY the wrong message. See, this is what’s frustrating being in FA; no one listens to your message at all. They hear what they want to hear; in the case of this woman, she saw fat people complaining about other folks butting into their business, and heard, “Everyone should be fat! McDonald’s is the best! BOO HEALTHY FOOD AND BEHAVIORS!”
And that “subversive” bit both bugs me and amuses me. She’s trying to imply that we’re doing something intentional to “draw attention”, but it just goes back to the point that just by being fat and out in public, and not conforming to the Loathe-Your-Body standards, we are being subversive. We are making people uncomfortable; we are counter-culture.
I can’t figure out where the pro-McDonald’s, anti-parks thing comes from. I’ve only been paying attention to FA for about a year, but I have never, never heard any fat activist say anything of the sort. Perhaps this author is confusing the FA movement’s surety that banning fast food and increasing public parks will not cure the “obesity epidemic” with being pro-McDonald’s and anti-park. If that is the case, she really needs to read a little more carefully.
Either that, or she is purposely trying to contribute to the moral panic, which is despicable.
I gotta say, though, I’m fascinated by the idea of “eatertainment” and the language that the food scientists are using, and I am utterly in favor of three different cheese notes. In. My. Face. “Hedonics” FTW!
It sounds to me as though she’s assuming that rejecting attempts at weightloss and dieting means purposefully gaining weight. Which makes no sense at all. If I gain weight, it doesn’t happen because I’m trying to be subversive, but rather because my body wants to gain weight, or I’m premenstrual, or I’ve been eating more than usual and exercising less recently.
three out of five of the heaviest kids have been teased at school.
You mean three out of five have admitted it, dude. Eighty percent, frankly, has got to be lowballing it.
Which brings me to the yuppie snotology of the “public parks” remark. Was Kolbert ever unpopular on the playground? It’s hard to believe so, because those of us who have been, for whatever reason (in my case it was probably neuro-orientation more than weight, since I was no more than slightly chubby at “playground age”), know that if you get tormented by other kids on said playground even once, you don’t ever want to go back there unless someone forces you to. “More public parks” is not going to do squat unless you make those parks a safe environment for kids of all sizes (and all everything else) to play without harassment.
Just some notes:
1- I have always been bigger than average, and I went way out of my way to get the only semi-healthy food offered at my school(s). Being a part of the FA movement does not equal anti-accessibility to healthier options.
2 – Its news to me that economic status is biologically determined…
3- If I don’t hate McDonald’s, it doesn’t mean that the one burger I have there every once in a blue moon is going to have much influence on my weight.
4 – I’m not heavy to get attention or to make a point- and I don’t think I’ve ever met someone who was.
5 – This author tries, really tries, to make a dense, logical argument. I can see the effort being put in there. Kudos for the effort, but they get a low grade on logic and completely fail at trying to be unbiased.
Lindsay, I didn’t read the article but I believe the author is saying that “The Fat Studies Reader” allies itself with McDonald’s, not fat people in general.
Unless the author sees being fat as a “condition†that can and should be easily changed–which s/he obviously does–then that analogy makes no sense at all.
Since being poor, unlike being fat, can and should be easily changed.
Hmm! The only thing I eat that comes close to that list is a few bags of plain-corn-flavor Doritos a year! Still fat! Huh!
The pro-McDonald’s anti-park thing is utterly laughably ridiculous but I’ve already seen lots of blog posts on it so I have nothing to add.
Since being poor, unlike being fat, can and should be easily changed.
Well, it obviously can’t be by the individual, but it could be by society, if we wanted to. Eradicating poverty wouldn’t actually be that difficult at all, if society gave a crap about doing so. Being fat, on the other hand, cannot be changed either by individual effort or societal changes.
Guys lets straighten the facts a little bit because you seem to overstretch some factors.
Being poor wont make you fat, come in Europe and see some nations that are traditionally poor (ie Albania, FYROM etc..) Even well developed countries are not high in obese people, you constantly see people exercise, running, cycling. (Can’t you spare 200-300$ for that? If you can’t then ok you have a serious financial issue, stop eating whatsoever and these will be saved though)
I have met/seen too many Americans around, and generally speaking these people were huge! I wondered if they travel on two seats at the airplane or they ship them like cargo! Guys! Seriously..wtf?! “self-restraint” ever taught that this word and its meaning?!
The ancient greeks were saying “Pan metron ariston!” meaning “All good things in moderation!”
It is a fact that the US is a very young, multiple nationality, diversified nation which leaves much to be desired. It will take many years before you achieve an equilibrium of existense..(at a personal, national or international level.) Make no mistake, this attitude of No moderation is really present in every action you perform as an entity or a nation.
Wish you best of luck, it is better for for the whole planet if you realise your weaknesses instead of pretending that you have none…
“Wish you best of luck, it is better for for the whole planet if you realise your weaknesses instead of pretending that you have none…” -Darwin
Let’s look at the facts, Darwin.
Read Kessler’s book. It may enlighten you to how subverise the food industry is. Don’t just read you what you to in order to slam overweight people as weak.