Our National Eating Disorder

I really liked this article by Michael Pollan. In his article “Our National Eating Disorder,” he discusses the notable afflictions of American eaters in comparison to the eating habits of others around the world. Ultimately, he discovered that there was a deeply seeded paradox. Americans are the “guiltiest” eaters, but still eat the most. In other words, we are fully conscious of the bad eating decisions that we make, but we continue to make them, and make them, and make them until our stomachs cant fit any more bad decisions. This sentiment is manifested in any number of the ridiculous “fad diets.” Pollan notes that the turn of the 20^th century “marked the first golden age of American food faddism,” a beloved marketing trend that has extended well into the present date.

“Carbophobia,” “lipophobia,” and “carnivory,” to name a few, are some of the pseudo-scientific fads that focus on the elimination or gross addition of any given element of the food we eat. The over-scientification of food is something that has come to haunt the American appetite. As Americans, “we've learned to choose our foods by the numbers (calories, carbs, fats, R.D.A.'s, price, whatever), relying more heavily on our reading and computational skills than upon our senses.” When you give someone a number, all other measures hold a negative or positive relative position to that one number. Suddenly, when you know that X food item has Y calories, you know that you are only supposed to have Z calories per meal and thus you feel guilty. Pollan notes that upon discovering this dreaded information, some people half-heartedly attempt to alleviate this guilt by exercising, trying to whittle down the overall intake of calories. Abstinence from these calorie-heavy foods does not deem to appear as even a blip on the American palate’s radar.

Possibly the most interesting observation that Pollan makes concerns what he calls “the omnivore’s dilemma.” Humans are nature’s ultimate omnivores. We can eat plants, fruits, grains, and even other animals, and as such we have the most difficult time deciding what to eat. Most animals have it so easy, they get a few items, and as much as they want of it, and get all of their nutrition from it. Koalas and eucalyptus are one of the examples he mentions, but he adds a clever theory. Some research has been done on koalas, and it would appear that koalas at one time ate a much greater variety of substances to receive their nutrition. Over time, as their diet devolved, their brains gradually shrank. “Food faddists take note,” indeed.

I consider myself very lucky. I have naturally been blessed with a very small appetite and a very fast metabolism for as long as I can remember. Because of this, I have been able to generally eat whatever I want. My parents are very similar, but have always emphasized to me that even if you don’t get fat from eating unhealthy foods, they can have a long-term negative impact on your body internally even if you can’t see any problems at first. Still, I rarely feel guilty eating unhealthy foods but I think most of it comes from my appetite stopping me before I can eat too much. Pollan’s example of Italians and French styles of eating is something I can sympathize with, having a large Italian family on my father’s side virtually force food on you as an expression of love, but they always make it themselves and every meal is exactly proportional to the number of guests. More importantly, I think, is the fact that meals take hours and hours, and I wouldn’t be surprised if my family actually burns calories with all the talking and laughing going on in that time. Still, everyone enjoys eating, and the guilt of eating comes from the portions, not the item itself. Pollan concludes “…what a wonderful prospect, to discover that the relationship of pleasure and health in eating is not, as we've been hearing for a hundred years, necessarily one of strife, but that the two might again be married at the table.”

Food Decisions

I consider a number of different factors whenever I decide what to eat. First and foremost, I assess what I have readily available to me. This availability can be within the confines of whatever is in front of me, what I have in my fridge back home, whether the caterer has a meal at my Fraternity house which I have already paid for, or whether I can eat at the school on a meal plan which I have also paid for previously. Of course this is all circumstantial to being a college student, but the thought process is the same wherever I am. First and foremost, I want to get the most "bang for my buck." If I have several options that cost me no money, I will pick the healthiest or most fulfilling option. If I have to go out and buy something, I will get whatever option provides me the most food for the most reasonable price. I typically have a very small appetite, so this mentality usually gets me pretty far in terms of food and for a small amount of money. Taste is not as much of a concern when I have to pick an option to go out and buy. In the scenario where I might have a huge table with lots of different options in front of me, I would probably weigh a balance of quantity versus health benefit, and pick whichever option was the happiest medium of those two.

How We Eat Now (Rough)

Arthur Heaton

EE1: How we eat now

Food is a very interesting thing to us as humans. We need only a minimal portion to survive, but our bodies can physically take in much more than just that. There are only a few basic elements in food that are useful to us, but it is often the part that is unhealthy or simply not valuable that appeals to our taste the most. Our eating defines us, whether it is the quantity, quality, or frequency with which we eat, it varies based on geographical location, social/economic status, and whoever may be around us. Why is it that something which is so basic, yet remains a necessity, can have such an impact on us beyond merely filling our stomachs? I would like to look into the role of food as its own being, the character and personality that we have anthropomorphized into food in a sense.

Food has become its own character in our lives, like the star of a movie we watch or a part of our family with which we can share memories and funny experiences. Our tastes don’t let us discriminate in some ways, maybe your mom overcooked brussel sprouts once and in addition to hating their taste, you will always remember them because of the terrible smell that haunted your kitchen for days. Any inanimate objects can bring back memories, but there is a certain multi-sensual tangibility that I think food offers in a way that many others cannot. Food can encompass all five senses (yes, we’ve all heard popcorn popping of chips being crunched) and any one of them can have an impact on us, even if it isn’t on your own plate.

This is where the independent nature of food really comes to light, particularly in the hyper-commercialized world we live in. Food is no longer just “food”. It is a social setting, a lifestyle, a fashion good we can show off to our friends, a means of expression. Have you ever decided to try a restaurant because a friend recommended it? There was probably another restaurant you had been to before, and that food did an adequate job of keeping your body functioning. Have you ever bragged about a kind of food you ate to a friend? They have eaten food before, your stories don’t dissolve the hunger in their stomach. Have you ever been bored with a group of friends? What is typically the first suggestion for an activity? “Let’s go get something to eat!” In all likelihood none of you were on the verge of death, maybe you weren’t even hungry! Vegetarianism and veganism are fairly recent cultural trends, and I’m sure we have all encountered someone who just could not make it clear enough to you how wonderful it is and how much better they think it is for them and the environment. There might even be people who care less for their children than they do about their eating habits.

What is another thing that in its most basic form is crucial to survival as human beings, but has become grossly inflated and become a huge cultural topic and its own hyper-commercialized industry? Maybe it’s not what you think it is. No, you were right. It’s sex.

We have seen that sex is one of the most over-used marketing tools in advertising, and even in food advertising. Carl’s Jr. is probably the most famous of these brands to use sex appeal with their food, having sexy, oiled up models messily eating their burgers. While someone thinking logically would first feel sorry that no one taught that poor, sexy young lady general table etiquette, all the rest of us are thinking “Woman! Sex! Burger! Carl’s Jr.!” and somewhere in that tidal wave of emotions we find ourselves holding a burger at Carl’s Jr. Once the emotions subside, and after a quick mental recap, we realize that we just bought that burger, and Carl’s Jr.’s marketing department just got a raise.

Then, probably not quite in a related sense, a journalist from the New York Times made the following stunning observation:

Now it cannot escape attention that there are curious parallels between manuals on sexual techniques and manuals on the preparation of food; the same studious emphasis on leisurely technique, the same apostrophes to the ultimate, heavenly delights. True gastro-porn heightens the excitement and also the sense of the unattainable by proffering colored photographs of various completed recipes.

- Alexander Cockburn

(McBride, 38)

Thus, the term gastro-porn was born. The more general term “food porn” became more commonly used but their definition remains the same (McBride). To further analogize the term, McBride describes “as with sex porn, we enjoy watching what we ourselves presumably cannot do (ibid).” A bit graphic, but the comparison is stunningly obvious. Gradually, people began writing more and more cookbooks with bright, enticing pictures of the food. Full pages were dedicated to the food itself with the recipe written on the other side (Krishnendu). Never mind that the food was propped up unseen by toothpicks, or it was covered in wax and touched up with nail polish (ibid), it was now the main reason that people were cooking the food. Previously, mother’s bought recipe books that were more like college textbooks to prepare food for their family (Paxson). Now, hip yuppies and young couples were making their own meals to entertain guests, picking cookbooks because of the picture on the cover like a magazine in a grocery store checkout.

This concept exploded as TV became more and more available and programming got more and more diverse. There were shows, entire shows, dedicated to one celebrity chef cooking a meal. Kids in the 50’s wouldn’t have sat at the counter and silently watched their mother make meatloaf for 30 minutes straight, but now people pay extra to get a channel with dozens of different chefs cooking different dishes 24 hours a day. There are even reality shows centered on cooking. Food has been a comfort, a palate-centered notebook of smells and tastes. Now it is a movie star, but it will not be signing autographs (Zimmerman).

I personally think that having food be so glamorous has cheapened some of the ways that food encompasses our senses. So often we hear people saying that something looks good that we have become numb to the essence of memories with which food can provide us. Some say a picture is worth a thousand words, but isn’t a smell, taste, or touch worth so much more? For example, imagine your grandmother. Yes, very good. Now imagine her holding a dish she used to make for you. Maybe it is meatloaf, or just a special salad. Now you have a mental picture of your grandmother, holding a brown rectangle or a bowl full of green leaves. That is not particularly appetizing, as best I can tell, nor does it send a flood of memories through my mind.

So, some genius in the marketing department decided that we could use pictures to sell food if we make the food really appetizing. But food always comes out of the oven differently each time, let’s try to make it look perfect. So, they started using household items and applicants to make the perfect specimen of a certain dish. Before you know it, your delicious ice cream sundae on an advertisement is mostly animal fat, glue, plastic, corn syrup, and sawdust. Now you have the most picturesque sundae known to man, but what is that actual sundae going to do for you if it is placed in front of you with a spoon?

If food really is like its own being, it is unique and has its own personality. Everyone is unique, no one is perfect, why should our food be any different? When something appears to be perfect, it is great from a distance but once you get a little more acquainted with it, it is just more of a disappointment when you find out that it is not how it appears. Diversity really is the spice of life; monotony just breeds contempt so if we eat the same thing over and over again, we are more likely to enjoy it less and less. So we experiment, and look for other foods that spread our tastes beyond our old standby meal. These experiments brings their own excitement. A messed up experimental-cooking fiasco might make a better story than the meal it otherwise could have been.

Perhaps I am overthinking the human-like attributes of food and its role in our lives, but I think anything that can remind us of family members, friends, places we have been, or certain moments in our lives deserves some recognition. Maybe we don’t remember what neighbor Jimmy gave us for our 10^th birthday, but we will probably remember if that was the year that our Mom made that special cake she promised she would make years before as soon as you turned 10. I think that cake is what made that birthday special, and maybe we can even taste it a little bit today.

           

Works Cited

Krishnendu, Ray. “Domesticating Cuisine: Food and Aesthetics on American Television.” Gastronomica: The Journal Of Food and Culture 7.1 (2007): 50-63. Web.

McBride, Anne. “Food Porn.” Gastronomica: The Journal Of Food and Culture 10.1 (2010): 38-46. Web.

Paxson, Heather. “Slow Food in a Fat Society: Satisfying Ethical Appetites.” Gastronomica: The Journal Of Food and Culture 5.1 (2005): 14-18. Web.

Zimmerman, Steve. “Food in Films: A Star is Born.” Gastronomica: The Journal Of Food and Culture 9.2 (2005): 25-34. Web.

Eating At The Edge

Horwitz’s article centered on the idea of how meals, the position of food in our lives, and the food itself has changed over the last 50 years or so. “Eating at the edge” is a termed he apparently coined, and he describes it as  “…occasions when food is an additive to a situation…rather than being definitive.” Eating is no longer something that we do on its own, but it is something that we do with our hands while our mind or body might be otherwise occupied, much like a cigarette in our hand while we are in a lecture hall, an example he cited in his own experience as a student and professor.

People are eating smaller portions more frequently, and this has come to mean that portable, quick foods eaten in this manner are less substantial and more artificial than a large prepared meal eaten less frequently throughout the day. Two examples that he used that I thought were very weighty in both the past and present were Swanson’s TV dinners and Campbell’s Soup at Hand. Swanson’s idea came after Thanksgiving when there was a surplus of leftover Turkeys. Thanksgiving dinner is the most widely recognized, organized meal in most American minds, and he takes this and turns it into a single meal that we pull out of the freezer and eat in little more than the time it takes to walk it from the freezer to the microwave. With the dinner, even TV is more convenient to our schedule with the advent of DVR. Nothing is sacred to the time-cutthroat consumer these days. Another example was Campbell’s Soup at Hand. Soup takes time to properly prepare; the stewing of flavors usually takes hours to properly blend all the ingredients. Now, soup is ready made and packed into a Styrofoam cup to be (again) microwaved and transported in its own cup with a mouth spout, no spoon required! Food is barely eaten anymore, maybe eventually we will just toss little freeze-dried globs of food at our faces and hope we hit our mouths!

Horwitz seems to think this is an American problem, predominantly. NASA and the international space stations are the next subject of his analysis. American astronauts are more inclined to eat on their own while they are doing other work. Other European astronauts like to eat in each other’s company, sacrificing productivity for the company of their only other companions for miles! There are even paid positions in the US that make sure the Americans get along with their European counterparts way up in space.

I have noticed many of these same things as Horwitz has. I consider myself to be a very organized, regimental person. I love sitting down to eat in a generally standard time as it pertains to classes. 11: 30 to 12 for lunch, 5:30 to 6 for dinner. Breakfast is different since I have rowing practice from 6-7: 30 every morning, and I usually eat a number of protein and calorie heavy snacks while I do last minute homework. But with this exception, I try to have as balanced of meals when they fit into my schedule best, and I hate eating on the go. I don’t even like to go to the drive through. I am an old man, and I embrace that quality about myself, and I like eating three well-rounded meals whenever I can! I think I end up eating healthier that way as well, which obviously is very subjective and varies depending on the food itself, but it makes me feel better after I’ve eaten. Company doesn’t matter quite as much, but every good meal is made exponentially better with friends. I think our insistence on convenience for food says a little about our relationships as well, let’s just hope we care about the quality of our friends a little more than the quality of the processed food we eat on the go!

SE3: Restaurant Observations

Going into this assignment, I had a small amount of difficulty deciding which specific aspect to research. Should I research the importance of atmosphere in a restaurant? What about the general “theme” of the restaurant? Should someone consult a published restaurant guide when deciding where to eat, or perhaps the recommendation of a friend? How important, really, is it to have a bar/large selection of alcohol where you are eating? But I realized that it was all too simple. Why do people eat out at all?

For this assignment, a friend and I went out to dinner at Hacienda, an upscale Mexican restaurant on Colorado Blvd, just off of I-25. It is not decorated in a Mexican theme; it has ample yet dimmed ambient lighting with lots of dark wood, granite surfaces, dark shutters, and brightly polished steel trim. The food is typical Mexican faire, but in a sit down setting with slightly more exotic ingredients and accoutrements, but still very reasonable pricing for such a pleasant dining atmosphere. I had been there for dinner previously, with the same friend coincidentally, but it was during the middle of the week and was not very crowded. This time, I wanted to go at the opportune time to get the most out of the trip, so we went at about 7 pm on a Friday night. It was quite crowded, and we were told there was a waiting time of about 20 minutes for a table of two, but luckily we were seated in about 10 minutes. Right away I realized that the restaurant was indeed packed, and the wait staff busy. The waiting area to be seated is immediately inside the door, and we were led off to the right towards our table, which was a two-person table seated in a corner up to one wall, with significantly more room around it that the other tables had from other surrounding tables. A spatial coincidence, I’m sure, but on a busy night my friend and I found it a pleasant one.

Walking out of the waiting area I had a good view of nearly the entirety of the restaurant. There was a rectangular bar on the far side of the restaurant, and every seat was occupied. It seemed to be mostly comprised of one group of people, roughly 12 people (or 6 couples as best I could tell) of early retirement age, having a grand old time. My guess is that was the extent of their evening, as I continued to observe them they never were ushered to a table between my arrival and departure. There was another similar but slightly group that was seated when we arrived and left shortly after. These two groups were by far the biggest we saw, a few other tables had five or six people, but the largest grouping of diners we saw was three to four. I was actually surprised at the number of young couples with one baby/toddler with them. Their children were remarkably well behaved, I might add, so they were no detraction from our dining experience!

As you might expect at a finer, sit down restaurant, everyone was there to eat and socialize, typically a healthy combination of the two. No one had brought any kind of work to the restaurant with them, and as best I could tell, the “casual-slip-phone-out-of-pocket-to-check-messages” was minimal. Everyone was talking consistently, even after the food had arrived. Everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves, and everyone seemed to stay for about the same time, respectively.

Now that I have established that these people are having a grand old time, what on earth are they doing here? I would easily believe that these people come from homes with adequate sustenance, why did they venture forth from their own homes to this restaurant?

Keane, Lafky and Board sum up restaurant selection pretty well in their article “Altruism, Reciprocity, and Health: A Social Experiment in Restaurant Choice.” “Choosing a restaurant is not only an individual decision but also a social one...Restaurant choices are thus embedded in social practices that include giving and receiving, altruism and reciprocation.” People go to a restaurant because as a consumer or customer, it is fulfilling on many levels. You are buying a product, food, you are buying the service of your waiter/waitress who is serving that food right into your hands, and you are buying the skilled labor of a chef who, in all likelihood, is better at preparing food than you are! If you add in the (hopefully) comfortable setting and accommodations of a restaurant and the company of friends and family, the price of your meal seems more and more reasonable. And eating at a restaurant is not just an enjoyable way to fill our tummies. In 2009 alone, 7.8 billion dollars was spent on restaurant gift cards (“Altruism”). Not only is it the better way for us to treat ourselves and friends, we value it so highly we are giving someone a locked-in contract to go experience it themselves!

Restaurants are not just about food. “If a restaurant only sold food, it would be called a grocery store” (ibid). Restaurants rely on the perfect balance of food, service, atmosphere, and presentation to keep you coming back again and again.

Christopher R. Keane, Jonathan M. Lafky, and Oliver J. Board. “Altruism, Reciprocity and Health: A Social Experiment in Restaurant Choice.” Food Policy, 37.2 (2012): 143-150

(http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/science/article/pii/S0306919211001503)