Archive for March 4th, 2004

I was on my way to look for a USB cord for my computer when I found out that McDonalds is going to discontinue their super-sized fries and drinks. I am not at all happy about this turn of events, although I am less bothered by it now than I would be under other circumstances.

Although McDonalds spokespeople are saying that the move is at least equally concerned with operations issues, like reducing store inventory (when you buy fries or a drink, what you’re really buying is the container, not the food substance.) and reducing the number of tasks for the employee, I think that this move is largely because McDonalds is one of the main targets of people like me, who are looking at the obesity epidemic. Like I said earlier, though, I’m not in favor of this move.

First, as I mentioned when I wrote about this earlier, the staggering increase in obesity is not due to increased caloric consumption at meal times, but during snacking. While I never followed up on that post, the main thrust of the paper was that the increase in obesity is due primarily to the fact that food is cheaper and can be prepared faster. The basic idea is that food consumption is inversely proportional to the time-cost of that food. At first, this might seem counter-intuitive. Take the traditional Thanksgiving dinner, for instance. That takes a long time, but in eating that, people tend to take in more calories than they would with, say, a Hungry Man dinner with the same food. That part is true. The rub is that holiday dinners are special occasions and the time cost of those dinners is part of the whole celebration. Most people don’t eat like that every day, or even every week. For many people, particularly those who have found themselves to be a part of the growing trend (no pun intended…well, maybe a little intended.), much of their diet is comprised of processed food, which tends to be cheaper, easier to prepare, and higher in calories. So while that homemade cornbread dressing may taste better than Stove Top, the fact that Stove Top is easier to make means that it’s more likely to be made and consumed more frequently.

But even that assessment is not quite true to the research. It’s the snacks. If you think about processed foods, which are the cheapest, easiest to prepare, and highest in calories? Junk food and snacks. My personal temptation was Hostess frosted honey buns. How cheap? Two for a dollar. How easy to prepare? Open the package. How high in calories? I don’t have a wrapper here, but high. I know that one of them has about 54g of carbohydrates in a serving. Translate that to calories and it’s gotta be high. Since snacks are cheap and easy, people eat a lot of them. They take in a lot of calories, too. Without regular exercise, those calories add up quickly.

To prove their hypothesis, the study’s authors divided their test groups into five categories, with the idea that if the main cause of the increase in obesity was the reduced time cost of food preparation, then the people most impacted by the changes in food would be the people who experienced the changes in weight. The results seem to bear this out. Single men experienced the smallest increase in obesity, while married women experienced the greatest. If the authors’ premise is correct, then this shows that groups that don’t traditionally cook, like single men, didn’t eat more because food was cheaper and faster. For groups who cook a lot, like married women, the decrease in preparation time corresponded with an increase in frequency of consumption, and therefore an increase in calories.

To be sure there are flaws with this study. It does not disaggregate by race, or income, both of which could yield some very interesting results. My own research is focused on nutrition and obesity vis a vis walkability and urban design, so it’s interesting to me to note which restaurants and stores are in which neighborhoods. If I live in the ‘hood, is processed food the only thing I can buy? Did obesity rates around the way increase at the same rate as they did everywhere else? If so, what does that mean for the culpability of fast food joints like McDonalds or the ubiquitous corner stores that sell nothing but candy and ready-to-eat foods? If not, is there a difference in the amount of physical activity that explains the trend?

In light of this study, I think it might be interesting to look at the rise of the microwave. That’s the central locus of all cheaper, faster food. Thinking back, the popularity of the microwave really took off during the 80’s, when the massive increase in obesity began in earnest. There are some other possilities for research variables I can think of, like the correlation between the microwave, kids, and the idiot box. I’m just not feeling like spelling them all out right now.

Back to McDonalds, I guess the main thing that frustrates me is that I like super-sized drinks. Forty-four ounces, that’s enough to last me…maybe 10 or 15 minutes. Those other sizes are barely enough to wet my throat.

(While I’m aware that the ‘Taliban’ is a loaded term, I’m not using it in the sense of an oppressive religious oligarchy, just a government that based its laws and policies on its interpretation of sacred text(s). Maybe I should come up with a different word, but right now I can’t think of one.)

As the ruckus over gay marriage continues, both sides have begun to solicit the support of Black churches. That is not surprising, given the importance of the church in the Black community. Interestingly enough, there are some churches that support gay marriage, while others contend that marriage should be between a man and a woman. For the purposes of this post, I’m not interested in the validity of either position, I’m looking at a larger question. That is, what would it be like if Christians had total control of the government and could run the country in the way that seemed best to them?

(I’m a Christian, but for the purposes of this exercise, since I will be describing two groups of people who share the same religious beliefs (ostensibly), I will refer to them in the 3rd person. Furthermore, it’s not my place to say whether somebody truly believes in Jesus based on his or her political beliefs. If there’s one thing I’m sure of, it’s that nobody has a monopoly on the truth.)

I guess the first thing to do is acknowledge that even among self-professing Christians, there are differing political views. Some churches take more liberal views, others conservative. One group seems to favor a more contextual interpretation of the Word, while the other takes the Bible more literally. Given that, a short answer to my question would be, it depends on which Christians were in charge.

The thing that really got me thinking about this was a book I read last week, The Bookseller of Kabul, by Asne Seierstad. One chapter lists the 16 rules the Taliban implemented when they took power in Afghanistan. That made me wonder how this country would be any different if the proponents of any religion had full control of the government. Here’s the list:

1. Prohibition against female exposure
2. Prohibition against music
3. Prohibition against shaving
4. Mandatory prayer
5. Prohibition against the rearing of pigeons and bird fighting
6. Eradication of narcotics and the users thereof
7. Prohibition against kite flying
8. Prohibition against the reproduction of pictures
9. Prohibition against gambling
10. Prohibition against British and American hairstyles.
(Would I be able to wear a ‘fro?)
11. Prohibition against interest on loans, exchange charges, and charges on transactions
12. Prohibition against the washing of clothes by river embankments
13. Prohibition against music and dance at weddings
14. Prohibition against playing drums
15. Prohibition against sewing women’s clothes or taking measurements of women
16. Prohibition against witchcraft.

Because we live in America, our conditioned response is that the above list represents a draconian legal system. Certainly, some of the items are very foreign to our way of thinking. The injunction against kite flying seems ridiculous to us. The one against narcotics, however, is not too different from our official policy.

One thing that makes any comparison between Christian groups difficult is that only the Christian Right has fully articulated their politics vis a vis their Christianity. In their case, then, it’s relatively easy to anticipate some differences and what some of those differences might be. We know, for instance, that abortion would be illegal and that gays would not be allowed to marry. But what else? What about alcohol, tobacco, and firearms?

For Christians on the Left, it’s a little more challenging. I’m not sure whether they would make any changes. I can imagine that there might be some redistribution of the country’s wealth and that there would be a conspicuous attempt to make a difference in the lives of the poor, but other than that, I can’t think of much. Moreover, I don’t know if I can really figure out how those types of changes would be any different than those that a humanist might make.

I’m just not sure about the whole thing. If anybody has some opinons, I would be glad to hear them.

The Eagles got Jevon Kearse. I’m not sure whether I’m impressed or not. There’s a part of me that wants to get all hopeful and everything. Especially since the defensive line was in disarray almost all of last season. Getting all the injured players back and adding a good player to the mix seems like it could make a big difference in the defense’s performance this season. At the same time, I’ve been burned far too many times to get all excited. Besides, even though the defense wasn’t its usual dominating self, it generally worked. It’s that doggone offense that’s the trouble.

To that end, I don’t know if I want the Eagles to get Terrell Owens. I think I would prefer to see the Eagles get a more solid low-key receiver. Especially with Donovan being the main locker room presence. I don’t think Donovan the type of personality that keeps everybody in check. He seems to be more about leading by example and by word sometimes. With a player like Owens, a team has to have somebody who leads by word as well as deed. Maybe I’m wrong and Donovan is in there checking people, but it’a a concern to me. Hopefully, Andy Reid has his eye on somebody none of us is even thinking about who can make a serious contribution. Stinkston and Trash…naw, that’s not nice. Pinkston and Thrash, probably good 3rd receivers, just can’t be the starters if the Eagles expect to make that final step in the improving NFC East.