A clueless professor of journalism

There's an article in today's NY Times entitled You Are What You Grow. The author, Mike Pollan, a professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkely, demonstrates that he's completely economically illiterate.

Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.

Comparing costs of food based on calories is a completely ridiculous comparison. Carrots are pretty cheap when looked at on a weight basis. It's not the carrots' fault that they only have 200 calories per pound. One should be comparing a pound of potato chips to a pound of carrots, and then the carrots wind up costing less money.

The cost of soda needs to be compared to the cost of seltzer or just plain water. You would expect the soda to cost more because as cheap as corn syrup may be, it's still an additional ingredient along with the other ingredients in the soda. Water is a free resource. Yet the soda costs more money than just plain water or plain carbonated water.

Orange juice obviously costs more than soda because it has to be refrigerated, which significantly increases the price. And I'm sure oranges cost more to grow than corn, even without federal subsidies to corn farmers.

The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.

This guy is completely wrong. The primary reason why food marketed to poor people costs less is because poor people are more price sensitive. Upper class foods cost more because upper class people are less price sensitive. The higher up the market you go, the more money has to be spent on marketing in order to create the perception of being a premium product.

Maybe this explains why the media is so clueless. Because the professors who teach the journalists are clueless.

Comments

[The Engineer]

Take a look at the GRE scores that it takes to get into journalism school. It doesn't take much. Even your average teacher college grad could get in.

Journalists are on the low end of the college educated IQ distribution.

[Peter]

The primary reason why food marketed to poor people costs less is because poor people are more price sensitive. Upper class foods cost more because upper class people are less price sensitive.

Compared to those financially better off, poor people likely purchase relatively more cookies or potato chips and relatively fewer carrots. Eating healthy (and, often, less expensive) foods is an upscale sort of thing.

You know, I never understood that about poor people and the way they buy food. They buy shit that actually costs more and isn't as good for you. When I was in college I bought 20 lb bags of rice and cans of beans for next to nothing. I got pasta and veggies and tuna fish for not much either. It wasn't great variety, but it was better than chips and sodas and processed stuff. But poor people msut have changed quite a bit over the years. My mom grew up in straightened circumstances and her family had a garden, hunted, fished and certainly didn't spend money on the kind of stuff poor people do now.

[Spungen]

Take a look at the GRE scores that it takes to get into journalism school. It doesn't take much. Even your average teacher college grad could get in.

There are only three or four J-grad schools that are considered competitive: Columbia, U of Missouri at Columbia, Berkeley, and one other that I'm forgetting right now. And a lot of the competition is based on what you were doing before.

Journalists are on the low end of the college educated IQ distribution.

The reporters who work for the big papers, and the professors at the best J-grad schools, may be indeed bad at math or clueless about econ. But they're smart. Their problem is not low IQs.

They are, however, a tiny portion of the people who major in journalism. I've noted before that there are some very bright and dedicated students who major in journalism, but those qualities aren't necessary. It's hard to flunk a writing major (hence, Seung Cho in creative writing). That's probably why the students at my college who majored in journalism or English seemed much more likely to be older, less ambitious and not as bright as the students majoring in polisci. There were a few notable exceptions.

And jeez, Half Sigma, the fact that a person comes up with a different comparison than you think is ideal doesn't make them an idiot.

[Spungen]

The only poor people whose refrigerator contents I've seen are ones with kids. My theory is, they're more likely to buy the bad stuff kids like, because they don't discipline as well.

When I was a kid I had some friends on welfare. They always had that grape-flavored punch (instead of orange juice), Skippy instead of Laura Scudder's, Wonder bread instead of whole grain, and there were usually Chips Ahoy or potato chips around, which my dad just didn't buy.

[Peter]

As the primary food-shopper chez Peter, I've long noticed that supermarket customers who load up on processed junk seem to be the most likely to pay with food stamps, or the electronic cards that are used today.

I guess poor people just don't pay attention(or don't care) to all the healthy eating stuff that seems to be part and parcel with receiving food stamps. And I might be wrong, but at least in NJ, if you use food stamps, only certain stuff can be bought with them and you can only buy so much of it. When I was in the ghetto food store picking up some cheap Goya stuff, I noticed some sign saying that only so many jars of peanut butter could be purchased at one time.

[JewishAtheist]

Comparing costs of food based on calories is a completely ridiculous comparison. Carrots are pretty cheap when looked at on a weight basis. It's not the carrots' fault that they only have 200 calories per pound. One should be comparing a pound of potato chips to a pound of carrots, and then the carrots wind up costing less money.

I don't understand why it's ridiculous. One could easily live on a pound of potato chips a day, but not a pound of carrots. Potato chips also provide more short-term pleasure and probably some drug-like effects (calming, etc.)

[The Engineer]

Once again, poor people don't have good future orientation. Their thought process is "cookies taste good". They don't think "these cookies are going to go right to my fat ass", because that is something that will happen in the distant future. They only think about the present.

And now that the American poor aren't, well, poor, they can afford a diet that will make them fat if they're not future oriented.

But that isn't the fault of marketers, or capitalism. That is the fault of the poor people themselves, and a society where "if it feels good, do it" is the mantra. Remember that a lot of those old social norms that were discared by the baby boomer intelligensia were really there to restrain the appetites of the less intelligent. Once the restraints were gone, mass societal chaos was the result, of which legions of grossly obese poor people is but one result.

[Spungen]

Hey, this is the guy who wrote The Omnivore's Dilemma. It was a well-received book.

He seems to be saying that due to our farm subsidies, many high-calorie, high-fat foods costs less than they should. That seems like a sound point.

So you could interpret his contention as, our subsidies encourage bad eating by subsidizing the bad stuff instead of the good stuff (like a lot of vegetables). You can accept that, without accepting that poor people are
calculating and comparing the price per calorie of carrots versus potato chips.

It is a lot more expensive to base meals on fresh food. You have to be very efficient and organized, or else you end up wasting a lot because it goes bad quickly. When you're cooking for more than yourself the effect is magnified. And you usually need more ingredients. And kids are very fussy, and poor people have more kids.

Oh, and my well-off friend who ended up at the Ivy League school had an even more restricted pantry. No sugared cereals; weird food supplements like bee pollen.

[Spungen]

The Engineer, perhaps you could share tips on how with three kids, you avoid buying that junk.

I think a big class divide is whether parents eat the same food as their kids. If all you can afford is to keep one household faction happy, the parents will probably eat chicken nuggets and Chips Ahoy.

"Maybe this explains why the media is so clueless. Because the professors who teach the journalists are clueless."

True, at least in my experience. When I was in J School in Philadelphia. One of our professors was convinced that GWB and Ashcroft were going to have her "silenced" for what, I'm not sure. Maybe not liking them or the war or something. It was never articluated as far as I can remember. I just remember I wanted to tell her she wasn't that important to warrant any sort of "silencing." Then again, I think when people like her complained about "a chilling effect" on debate or whatever, they were really bitching about being criticized for their leftist views. Criticism for them is tantamount to censorship.

[Spungen]

Your J-professor sounds like she was just nutty. Mine were all fairly liberal but apolitical, except regarding media access and reporters' rights. Although some of the men really liked conspiracy theories, probably because it made for a good story.

[Lancaster]

"The Engineer, perhaps you could share tips on how with three kids, you avoid buying that junk."

When I was a kid my father did the grocery shopping. We could have wailed, screamed, and slit our wrists and he wasn't going to buy junk food. Ever. We pretty quickly got a clue and stopped wasting our energy. Children are Pavlovian creatures. If after X temper tantrums they get exactly what they want, then they'll keep throwing them.

Same in my house. You ate what was put in front of you, period. If you didn't like it, tough shit. Then again, my mom is a really good cook, so I don't recall any bad meals, although I hated vegetables like poison. We probably didn't have any junk food around because I can't remember any in the house. I could only have a soda if we went out to eat, ice cream on a Sunday after dinner and that was that. You had also better be home for dinner unless you had a truly compelling reason not to be. I hated all those rules when I was younger and thought they were bullshit my parents were heels, I was misunderstood, etc...but I'm a better person today for it. I am not ashamed to say I have excellent eating habits today because of them. That kind of stuff stays with you for life. It just seems to me today that parents are much more likely to give into their kid's demands. I don't know, maybe I'm just getting older, but I see it quite a bit it seems.

[Spungen]

It's one thing not to buy snack foods. But kids can still refuse to eat certain things. A poor mom is a lot less likely to spend the extra money for fresh vegetables if her kids won't eat them.

It does take a lot of work and planning to prepare fresh, healthy meals every day. Most nights we eat pre-prepared stuff from Trader Joe's, with a side of vegetables (usually frozen). I only cook meals from scratch 2-3 times a week. Whenever I go on a diet our grocery bill gets a lot higher and the refrigerator is crowded.

[The Engineer]

>>The Engineer, perhaps you could share tips on how with three kids, you avoid buying that junk.

I run 15 miles per week. I can eat anything I want to.

My wife is an excellent cook, and dinners are always home cooked from scratch, not conveinance or fast food. We have no problem eating well ourselves while cooking something else for the kids. It sucks, my wife complains about it all the time, but we do it.

I don't think that eating the same shit as your kids has anything to do with class, per se. It has to do with future orientation and doing what's easy rather than what's right.

[Half Sigma]

Children need a lot more calories than adults because they're growing and adults aren't. So it's no big deal if they eat high calorie foods, as long as too much of the calories aren't coming from sugar, and the children aren't abnormally fat.

[The Engineer]

>>Whenever I go on a diet our grocery bill gets a lot higher and the refrigerator is crowded.

Here's an interesting idea that I learned from Rush. He's lost a lot of weight, obviously, but he gained some of it back. He's now on a diet, and he lost 48 lbs. as of yesterday.

His philosophy is that he's going to be on a diet every couple of years. He loses enough weight on that diet so that his rate of gaining it back isn't enough to need to diet for another year or two.

I thought that was a pretty interesting idea, and maybe was what I've done unconsciously in the past. It seems like every couple of years I diet and get down to my preferred weight, which sets me up for another year or two before I get fat enough to need another diet.

It's only been since the beginning of the year that I've gotten serious about running again. I actually haven't lost much weight, but it does help maintain the weight that I'm at. I've also got more stamina, and I'm not as doughy.

[Spungen]

The Engineer, I think they call that yo-yo dieting and it's supposed to be bad for you. Not saying I don't do it myself, but it's not the ideal.

[Peter]

It does take a lot of work and planning to prepare fresh, healthy meals every day. Most nights we eat pre-prepared stuff from Trader Joe's, with a side of vegetables (usually frozen). I only cook meals from scratch 2-3 times a week. Whenever I go on a diet our grocery bill gets a lot higher and the refrigerator is crowded.

One thing I often do is prepare a large quantity of food on the weekend and eat it during the week. For instance, our dinner last night was chili that I made on Saturday, and it'll probably be tonight's or tomorrow's dinner too. Roast chicken breasts are ideal for this purpose, as you can cook several of them on the weekend, refrigerate them, and with only a little additional effort serve them in different ways during the week.

Most nights we eat pre-prepared stuff from Trader Joe's, with a side of vegetables (usually frozen).

We often have things from TJ's too. Their fish is especially good.

My wife is an excellent cook, and dinners are always home cooked from scratch, not conveinance or fast food.

But let me guess - your wife doesn't work, right?

[Half Sigma]

The lines at TJ's in Manhattan are too long to deal with. Sometimes you have to wait in line just to get inside the store. No thanks.

[Lancaster]

Has this sentence disappeared from the English language: "No dessert unless you eat your _____ "?

But honestly, my parents never really cared if we ate everything that was put on the table because 1) it'd just show up another day as "leftovers"; 2) what else were we going to eat? One thing we always had a good supply of was Cheerios (we were only allowed to eat presweetened breakfast cereal once a week and on Christmas morning; we treated it like candy, which it is). I think you could eat Cheerios every day of your life and live to 100.

This notion that cooking anything from scratch requires arduous effort is a self-serving myth arising out of yuppie pretentiousness. Sadly, the art of cooking efficiently for large numbers of people (or cooking and freezing) has largely been lost. My mom could whip up a cacciatore for nine in about twenty minutes.

[Peter]

The lines at TJ's in Manhattan are too long to deal with. Sometimes you have to wait in line just to get inside the store.

That's because Manhattan's supermarkets, other than the high-end places like TJ's and Whole Foods, are the retailing equivalent of clogged bus station toilets during an amoebic dysentery epidemic.

[Spungen]

The lines at TJ's in Manhattan are too long to deal with.

But you've mentioned you go to Whole Foods. My point being that better-off people do convenience food, too, we just have healthier options.

[Spungen]

One thing we always had a good supply of was Cheerios (we were only allowed to eat presweetened breakfast cereal once a week and on Christmas morning; we treated it like candy, which it is).

I'm pretty sure Cheerios have added sugar.

[Half Sigma]

But you've mentioned you go to Whole Foods.

Was there yesterday for the salad bar.

"I'm pretty sure Cheerios have added sugar."

They do, General Mills snuck it in. Almost all of the major food companies sneak the white horse into their foods.

[David Alexander]

They don't think "these cookies are going to go right to my fat ass", because that is something that will happen in the distant future. They only think about the present.

Didn't HS post about poorer people having more tolerance for overweight people from the New York Times. If the communities that these people live in aren't shaming fat people, there's no incentive to lose weight. In the community newspapers in my old neighbourhood, there were never ads for liposuction or weight loss treatments while in the new neighbourhood, I've lost count of how many anti-aging and liposuction places exist within 5 miles of my house.

[Steve Miller]

Good post. The comparisons are truly nonsensical.

If the communities that these people live in aren't shaming fat people, there's no incentive to lose weight.

There's a lot of incentive in theory, because obesity leads to all kinds of health problems.

That's where the low rate of future-orientation comes in.

[David Alexander]

Has this sentence disappeared from the English language: "No dessert unless you eat your _____ "?

Yes. What's happened is that either kids today are better at manipulating their parents or parents are weak-willed. There have been plenty of occasions where my nephew and niece are begging for some type of snack or candy, and when I turn down their requests, they go into embarrassment mode which gets painful glances from the other people in store because "my kids look bad".

This notion that cooking anything from scratch requires arduous effort is a self-serving myth arising out of yuppie pretentiousness.

I think my mom and grandmother are some of the only people who wash their meats and poultry first in a citrus bath before seasoning and cooking.

[madbomber]

Let's approach this from a different angle...

Many poor exhibit unhealthy eating habits not because they can't afford the really healthy food, but because they are less concerned about long-term well being. Think about it, when was the last time you drove thru a public housing project and saw someone out jogging?

the same characteristsics that lead someone to be indifferent to their unhealthy lifestyle are the same characteristics that have resulted in their less-than-spectacular economic successes.

[Lancaster]

Bread has added sugar. I gather you've never made bread from scratch. Granted, when you make bread from scratch, it's cane sugar and not corn syrup.

1 serving Cheerios: 12 grams fiber, 6 grams sugar, 12 grams protein (369 kcal)

1 serving "frosted" Cheerios: 3 grams fiber, 44 grams sugar, 5 grams protein (382 kcal)

1 slice wheat bran bread: 4 grams fiber, 10 grams sugar, 9 grams protein (248 kcal)

1 slice white bread: 2 grams fiber, 4 grams sugar, 8 grams protein (266 kcal)

[Spungen]

I think my mom and grandmother are some of the only people who wash their meats and poultry first in a citrus bath before seasoning and cooking.

Mmmm. Feel free to elaborate.

Is it done for flavor, cleanliness, or both?

[Peter]

Think about it, when was the last time you drove thru a public housing project and saw someone out jogging?

It's a rare sight in suburbia too. Especially compared to 15 or 20 years ago. As I've noted before, many times before, the explosive growth of cartball has essentially killed off all other adult sports and athletic activities.

Cooking healthy and delicious food doesn't take lots of time or money. If you truly hate to spend any time cooking, then buy one of those stock pot slow cooker things. You can make all kinds of good stuff in there and if you set the timer right, dinner is ready when you get home from work or whatever. Get your dry stuff in bulk and get a good freezer if you can. If you like red sauce, make sure you get the San Marzano tomatoes, they are one thing I don't mind spending a little more on. And don't cook your red sauce over the stove all day 10 minutes is more than enough. Add a little shredded carrot for sweetness if you want and there you go.

[David Alexander]

Spungen, basically, they take the meat or poultry put it in the sink and pretty much go over each piece with a lemon or lime. They also cut off the skin and they try and trim as much fat off as possible. In the case of poultry, sometimes, the chicken will sit in a bath of water overnight sometimes with a lemon or lime inside. Supposedly, they do it for cleanliness reasons but my grandmother claims it tastes better (it's a waste to bring her out for dinner as she won't eat anything she hasn't cooked), as in third world nations, the food supply generally isn't as reliable as here in the States. The whole process at minimum adds at least an hour or so to the entire cooking process. I've noticed a taste between poultry that's been produced with and without that method, but that's also due to seasoning differences.

Think about it, when was the last time you drove thru a public housing project and saw someone out jogging?

Given the tolerance of fat people in the black community, it's very rare. In the black community, it's better to be fat and have expensive hair treatments than to be skinny and have nappy hair. Of course, like Peter has said, jogging is rare in some suburbs as well, and most of the people that I see walking are stay at home moms during the day and dog-walkers at night. The big difference is that because inner city residents are less likely to have cars, they're more likely to use mass transit and walk than their suburban counterparts. Plus, they're more likely to be in blue collar service work where standing is more common.

Plus, there's a decent chance of being robbed or shot if you're jogging in the projects.

[The Engineer]

It's a rare sight in suburbia too. Especially compared to 15 or 20 years ago.

Depends on your neighborhood. Mine is full of joggers. The mean age of the neighborhood is probably 45. Any older, and you lose the joggers. My old neighborhood had a mean age of 85 (seriously, only a slight exageration), and nobody ran.

[madbomber]

"It's a rare sight in suburbia too. Especially compared to 15 or 20 years ago. As I've noted before, many times before, the explosive growth of cartball has essentially killed off all other adult sports and athletic activities."

Is cartball a derrogatory term?

Anyway, my experiences probably don't represent a random sample. I live on an Air Force Base in North Dakota, and as I get increasingly out of shape, my ejection seat becomes increasingly uncomfortable. I try and minimize that to the greatest extent possible.

At the same time, there seem to be a lot more junior enlisted troops that take advantage the fitness facilities available, although many of them smoke.

[The Engineer]

Oh, also, I run on a treadmill. As treadmills have become better and cheaper, running has moved indoors.

[Spungen]

Madbomber, interesting that you brought up North Dakota. I haven't been there for probably a decade, but last time I went I didn't notice nearly as many really fat people as I see in California. Even when we went to Hometown Buffet. Not a lot of glamorously-fit types, either, but most people seemed pretty average. Even though North Dakotans probably can't jog outdoors than three months during the year and most probably don't have easy access to health clubs.

"Plus, there's a decent chance of being robbed or shot if you're jogging in the projects."

This could be part of a truly intense workout plan. Not only would you increase your speed, but your agility and jumping, ducking and weaving ability as you avoid gunfire, furniture, trash and bottles thrown from windows, pit bulls and Rottweilers. Just when you think you have plateaued with your fitness program...As an added bonus, you can come off as edgy and tough at the office. I can't really see a downside to it. Just don't forget to vest up!

[Peter]

Is cartball a derrogatory term?

Heh. It certainly is, to me.

Madbomber, interesting that you brought up North Dakota. I haven't been there for probably a decade, but last time I went I didn't notice nearly as many really fat people as I see in California. Even when we went to Hometown Buffet. Not a lot of glamorously-fit types, either, but most people seemed pretty average.

I'm surprised, as Midwesterners are stereotyped as being on the portly side while Californians are stereotyped as being super-fit. It could be that North Dakota isn't really representative of the Midwest.

Living on Long Island and working in Manhattan, I most definitely see a difference in body types. People in the city tend to be thinner and more fit than their suburban counterparts. Probably not coincidentally, there are many adult sports leagues in the city as opposed to virtually nothing in the suburbs. There are a (very) few adult basketball and baseball/softball leagues on Long Island, except "adult" in this context really means "a couple years out of high school."

Another stupid article from the Times, continuing their streak. I guess since its from an outside author it can have even more illogic than usual.

Are people really shopping with a single dollar? If not then maybe his examples of the relative cost of carrots are not so pithy.

The fact that his premise is faulty can be seen from the fact that even the poor are much better off than ever before. If you are spending $70-$100 a week on food, a bag of carrots and a sack of potatos are not beyond your means. And numerically the number of people below the poverty line are not sufficent to account for the obesity level; you have include a big section of the middle class as well. These people are not that price sensitive between $2.50 for a bag of carrots and $1.99 for a box of pinwheels.

Face it- they are buying the pinwheels because they choose to. Tinkering with the Farm Bill is not going to change what people choose to eat. That should be appearent to everyone but the cocktail set.

A great contributor to the slimness of the urban center upper class population is cocaine. Perhaps a subsidy of that would help the lower classes.

[David Alexander]

pit bulls and Rottweilers

That reminds of one of the reasons why my mother stopped walking to church. She used to walk during the spring and summer months, but there were a number of stray dogs in the neighbourhood that scared her from doing so. Currently, my mom is interested in returning to walking to the new church in the morning in the new neighbourhood despite my half-assed protests.

It could be that North Dakota isn't really representative of the Midwest.

It’s quite possible that they’re in better shape because of their blue collar labour. It’s also possible that a state like ND has more stay at home moms on average, and thus, they’re eating home cooked meals that are lower in calories and fat than their coastal counterparts.

Living on Long Island and working in Manhattan, I most definitely see a difference in body types.

Peter, I've noticed similar trends, but it doesn't seem as drastic as you state. It's quite possible that your viewpoints are peppered by living in Suffolk while mine are peppered by living in Nassau and Queens. As for the sports leagues, it's quite possible that their city counterparts are also littered with young people as well. It's quite possible that older people don't feel that they can compete with the yougner players and would rather bow out than deal with the shame of losing. I remember in Queens that the soccer leagues for adults were basically for young twenty something immigrants, and my dad was just too tired and exhausted to keep up with the younger players. It's also quite possible that a suburban yuppie mystique about engaging in sports is deemed as too low brow and pathetic.

A great contributor to the slimness of the urban center upper class population is cocaine. Perhaps a subsidy of that would help the lower classes.

You can't be serious. Cigarettes have the same effect and poor, uneducated people are much more likely to smoke.

A great contributor to the slimness of the urban center upper class population is cocaine. Perhaps a subsidy of that would help the lower classes.

You can't be serious. Cigarettes have the same effect and poor, uneducated people are much more likely to smoke.

I am willing to give a shot at defending almost anything:
Lower Class............Upper Class
---------------------------------------
cheap pot...............cocaine
PBR beer................smart cocktails
rice/beans..............sushi
delicious hot dogs......disgusting vegetable ratatouille

These lower class vices really pack on the calories. Clearly some sort of government intervention is needed.

[Spungen]

Face it- they are buying the pinwheels because they choose to. Tinkering with the Farm Bill is not going to change what people choose to eat. That should be appearent to everyone but the cocktail set.

It's not like I don't eat the health equivalent of pinwheels. But the snack stuff I buy tends to be pretty expensive. If you only looked at my supermarket shopping cart you'd think I only ate healthy food, because I get my liquor and dessert food from specialty stores and restaurants, or bake it myself. Supermarket cookies, cakes and candy are for lower-class people.

Maybe the issue is that poor people have to choose between fresh produce and snack food, but I don't. The more salad you eat, the fewer pinwheels you have room for. And people who buy nonperishable snacks in bulk probably tend to eat more.

[David Alexander]

Supermarket cookies, cakes and candy are for lower-class people.

Spungen, now I feel bad because if you see me at the supermarket, you’ll see a cart with some cheap frozen foods, Chips Ahoy and Oreo cookies, Breyer’s ice cream, and Entenmanns’s cakes.

I must be a pathetic prole living amongst the true middle class.

[Spungen]

Maybe it's a "young" thing. ;) Frozen dinners aren't so bad; at least the portions are small and they have vegetables.

I do like Oreos, I just never buy them. I buy ice cream (or sorbet) in the pint containers. About once a year I buy Twinkies.

I must be a pathetic prole living amongst the true middle class.

If you can stay in shape while eating that stuff, then good for you. Being thrifty and frugal is not a bad thing.

[David Alexander]

I haven't purchased Twinkies in about three to five years. They're not good on a daily basis, but they make for a nice treat despite their uber-low prole status. As for the frozen dinners, they're basically what I eat if my mom didn't cook, or if dinner will take longer than expected. We buy ice cream in the normal sized containers, and my late night snacks are essentially a rotation between the ice cream, oreos, and cookies and sometimes brie with crackers and ham.

Mind you, I can get away with eating lots of crap because I'm 5'7 and 135 lbs which makes me rather underweight for body size.

[David Alexander]

If you can stay in shape while eating that stuff, then good for you. Being thrifty and frugal is not a bad thing.

I think I can get away with it because the junk that I eat serves as a substitute to a meal instead of a compliment, especially if my day is wonkier than usual. OTOH, it probably explains why I'm underweight.

It also helps that we only buy that stuff when it's on sale or at Wal-Mart.

[Peter]

I haven't purchased Twinkies in about three to five years. They're not good on a daily basis, but they make for a nice treat despite their uber-low prole status.

Rumor has it that an eccentric rich man in California spent 14 years on a diet consisting entirely of Twinkie, hard-boiled eggs, and Scotch whiskey.
Supposedly, he was in excellent health.

[Spungen]

Blech. I bet he didn't live with anyone.

[Peter]

I bet he didn't live with anyone.

Well, even if did at the beginning, all of those egg farts would've driven her away in a flash.

[Agnostic]

This is the same guy who argued at length, also in the NYT if memory serves, that nutrition science is a load of bull. I'm not misrepresenting his views: he wasn't saying that some fad or other, like Atkins, turned out to be ill-conceived. He basically said that the search for microscopic good stuff in food is a fool's errand, and that you could be healthy just by not eating a lot, and making a lot of what you do eat vegetables. Don't eat things your grandparents wouldn't recognize as food, etc.

There is a published study showing that the IQ of vegetarians (or vegans, I can't recall) went up by probably 5 points after taking Creatine. You can be vegan and think straight, but it requires a lot of extra effort to fill in all the nutritional gaps. Of course, "don't eat too much, and eat lots of veggies" doesn't account for this. Only nutritional science can. Pollan himself probably suffers from lack of animal protein, given his thought processes.

[Wild Pegasus]

I don't see why poverty and obesity confound so many people:

1. Processed foods have more salt, sugar, and corn syrup than home-cooked foods. These make you fat.
2. The poor eat more processed foods than home-cooked foods.
3. Although processed food costs more than home-cooked, the difference isn't great.
4. The poor value their free time more than that price difference.

Ergo, the poor are fatter.

- Josh

[doug]

"This guy is completely wrong. The primary reason why food marketed to poor people costs less is because poor people are more price sensitive. Upper class foods cost more because upper class people are less price sensitive."

You are confusing a substitution effect with an income effect. In fact, the price elasticity of luxury goods tends to be higher than for staples. Be careful who you call clueless about economics.

Wild Pegasus:

4. The poor value their free time more than that price difference.

This is obviously counterfactual, since rich people have a higher opportunity cost of time: e.g. they work for higher wages and have less leisure time.

By the way, economist David Friedman has a post up which clarifies this issue.

[Rob]

Agnostic, IIRC the creatine for vegans and vegetarians showed a 15 point gain.