Self Knowledge Avails Us Nothing… A Recovery Adage Proving to be True Concerning the Obesity Epidemic in the Big Apple

8th December 2009

Self Knowledge Avails Us Nothing… A Recovery Adage Proving to be True Concerning the Obesity Epidemic in the Big Apple

posted in Author, Eating Disorders, Food Culture, Greta, Social Issues |

Every morning, I take a small jaunt to Starbucks (my apartment building sits on top of it, literally) for my Venti-3-pump-sugar-free-gingerbread-half-calf-Pike’s Place coffee. And every morning, I can’t help but notice the three-digit numbers adorning the drink menu and baked good case that lists the calories–a NYC law enacted by the NYC Board of Health and Mental Hygiene in 2008, to help fight the obesity epidemic. Food addicts could’ve told NYC policymakers that merely listing the calories in chain restaurants and fast food outfits wasn’t going to cut the mustard. Moreover, I’m guessing that the Board of Health failed to consult anyone who has had a food addiction. If they had, they would’ve known that food addiction and obesity is much more powerful and complex than knowing what the calories are in a food or beverage. I mean, really. Way to reduce such a huge problem to an education issue. I’m not saying education isn’t helpful–there are just so many other, more deeply-rooted layers.

A couple of months ago, and nearly one year after the law had been in effect, The New York Times ran a story about a study conducted by professors at NYU and Yale University, which measured the fast food spending habits of consumers in low-income neighborhoods, both before and after the employment of the calorie-listing-law. While consumers felt like they were making healthier choices, the evidence–fast food receipts collected–showed that consumers were, in fact, choosing higher calorie items, thus contributing to the perpetuation of the obesity epidemic.

By the way… pardon the repeated mentioning of calories. I couldn’t avoid it.

While the intention was good, the Board of Health is now, for lack of a better word, in a bit of a pickle I’d say. The plan has backfired, so now what? Clearly, there is no easy answer. Just the fact that the study was conducted in low-income neighborhoods says that at least one of the issues around obesity concerns the social environment in which one lives and the type of food readily available to people with a low socioeconomic status.

I wanted to write about this article, even though it was back in October, for a couple of reasons. First, I’m currently running a therapy group for people in recovery who have cross-addicted to food and are now overweight (more on that in another post!). Second, it reminds me of my own experience. Both I, in my addiction, as well as my group members, knew what to eat. I planned every day to be a perfect food day, even in the height of my addiction. And every day, I’d louse it up. Why? Because, as we know, it’s so much more than about food.

I’m living in a city where, depending on the geographic location, a large percentage of people vacillate between orthorexia and obesity. I’m surrounded by thousands of restaurants, as well as athletic clubs, spinning, yoga and pilates studios. Whether in the weight ranges of under, “normal,” or over, people in this city are definitely into food. I’m also living in a place where free exercise is at one’s disposal; however, we have one of the highest obesity rates. I think if policymakers are really into tackling the obesity epidemic, they need to look a little deeper.

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 at 7:21 pm and is filed under Author, Eating Disorders, Food Culture, Greta, Social Issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On December 9th, 2009, Jessica said:

Did the article mention anything about the idea that the people in the low income neighbourhoods were just trying to get as much calories as they could for the dollars they were spending on food?

posted on December 9th, 2009 at 10:09 am

2 On December 9th, 2009, Greta said:

Hi Jessica,

One person in the article did mention that they were looking for the least expensive type of food, thus choosing fast food. I actually intern in a low income hispanic neighborhood, and there isn’t a vegetable or health food store in sight. No trickle down effect here. It’s ridiculous, because, it’s hard enough for people who do have money to make healthy choices. People who have a lower income don’t even have the choice most of the time. Even when there are healthier choices at fast food establishments, they’re typically more expensive. Programs need to be created in this area to help bridge the gap. Conservative policymakers fail to see how if we help people in low-income neighborhoods, instead of letting them pull themselves up by their bootstraps, it would provide a greater good for everyone. I could go on for days about this… but I won’t. Thanks for your comment!

posted on December 9th, 2009 at 10:51 am

3 On December 9th, 2009, Suzanne said:

Perfect–I too live in the city, and I’ve been thinking about writing about the calorie law thing. My boyfriend works at Starbucks, and regularly tolerates customers’ “oh look how many calories oh my god should I be naughty?” dance. Way to take the joy out of a brownie, for Christ’s sake.

posted on December 9th, 2009 at 11:11 am

4 On December 9th, 2009, All Women Stalk said:

Education is important, yes. But there are things that run deeper than not being informed. These things are a bit harder to identify and change. And moreover, these things are individualized.

-Denise

posted on December 9th, 2009 at 11:13 am

5 On December 9th, 2009, Greta said:

Hi Suzanne! Wow, you live in the city? I’d love to know where you live, what you do, etc. Send me an email if you want. dancergretag@aol.com

Thanks for your comment!

posted on December 9th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

6 On December 9th, 2009, Eve said:

These sorts of things actually prompt me to choose the higher-calorie options, because I want the most bang for my buck. If I only have a few dollars, I’m going to choose something that’s going to fill me up more and keep me from being hungry for longer.

Also, I’m not fat because of my fast food consumption or my spending at Starbucks, since I rarely do either. I think these sorts of campaigns are spurious, like the people who tell me to not drink so much soda. Um, ok. I’ll go from having a diet coke per week to one every other week; thanks for the tip.

As you say, it’s far more complex an issue than telling people they should be eating fewer calories.

posted on December 9th, 2009 at 12:53 pm

7 On December 9th, 2009, Kelly said:

Good article. And Greta, Eve, I liked your comments. Very good points.

I know when I’ve been struggling economically – two babies, water shut off, bouncing checks – food is not only necessary, um, to live, but it’s also in its way a CHEAP way to feel better. Cheaper than options like buying new clothes or a new car or IKEA furniture or whatever else someone else could afford (or convince themselves they could afford). And “comfort” foods (everyone is obviously different on this) can be foods high in caloric content and low in nutrition. Even though I’m not a pop drinker or addict, I’m thinking that the fact it’s very cheap and makes you feel good (sugar, caffeine) when you’re feeling sad or stressed… hello! Or are the poor supposed to be all “food-noble” and roast up some brussell sprouts? This is the vibe I have got from my middle class (thin) friends anyway.

I’ve yet to see a “study” that acknowledges the emotional power of food, and stops treating the low-income like they’re these pathetic, uneducated slobs who gee, just don’t KNOW that a Big Mac has five hundred calories or whatever. Because whether or not that’s what the study is trying to say, gee, it sure comes off that way (and, like Eve said, our food choices and/or not-good-enough-exercise are the SOLE factors of what makes us fat – even though science says genetics and age are very relevant).

posted on December 9th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

8 On December 9th, 2009, Greta said:

I couldn’t agree with you more, Kelly!

posted on December 9th, 2009 at 6:28 pm

9 On December 9th, 2009, Miriam Heddy said:

“I’m living in a city where, depending on the geographic location, a large percentage of people vacillate between orthorexia and obesity.”

Did you actually mean to suggest that all (or even most) of those who meet the medical definition of “obese” are food addicts, or that orthorexia and obesity are two opposite ends of a spectrum of disease?

Because that’s just… I don’t even know where to begin.

posted on December 9th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

10 On December 9th, 2009, Rachael said:

Hey Guys,
I am also in the city. I do a lot of ED work (both policy and other) and would love to have a meet up of sorts.
Let me know if you are into the idea!

posted on December 9th, 2009 at 7:24 pm

11 On December 9th, 2009, Lisa said:

“I’m living in a city where, depending on the geographic location, a large percentage of people vacillate between orthorexia and obesity.”

I’m confused by this, too. “orthorexia” is about disordered behaviors, and obesity is about bodysize. Two very different categories. While bodysize *can* be about what someone does/doesn’t eat, it also very often has no correlation to behaviors. I know many obese people who eat beautifully and are physically active and I know many thin people who have really poor nutrition and are couch potatoes.

Could you clarify?

posted on December 9th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

12 On December 9th, 2009, Literate Shrew said:

“Conservative policymakers fail to see how if we help people in low-income neighborhoods, instead of letting them pull themselves up by their bootstraps, it would provide a greater good for everyone.”

Hey, Conservative Policymakers: It’s hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you can’t even afford boots.

posted on December 9th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

13 On December 10th, 2009, Meowser said:

Thirding Miriam and Lisa. Fat is not a behavior. I’ve met plenty of people who were both orthorexic AND fat.

Oh, and that Board of Health site just makes me snortlaugh at the shit-lubed thinking. Like from here:

Just 100 extra calories every day adds up to 10 pounds a year.

So that means that after ten years, I’ll gain a hundred pounds? After 20 years, 200 pounds? After 30 years, 300 pounds? I mean, come ON. Talk about treating adults like stupid children. And the “almost no adult needs more than 2000 calories a day” thing? So people are expected to go to bed with growling stomachs every night if that’s not enough for them?

Speaking of growling stomachs, I hardly think the two cheeseburgers and two sodas I drink every month are going to make a difference of even one pants size, let alone standing between me and an “acceptable” form. But when I worked outside the house and ate lunch out more, you bet I went for what would be most filling, not necessarily the “healthy choice,” which typically would leave me hungry two hours later and looking for a snack. When you don’t get much time in the day to eat, and the time you eat is fixed and not up to you, and there’s a lot of hours between lunch and when you get home, that’s what you do. You fill yourself up so you don’t have to think about food again for the next five or six hours. Maybe these people need to actually work for a living and find that out.

If they don’t want people eating certain things, they should just go ahead and ban them. Screw this guilt crap already.

posted on December 10th, 2009 at 12:26 am

14 On December 10th, 2009, Rachel said:

Hey, Conservative Policymakers: It’s hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you can’t even afford boots.

Haha, this reminds me of a Daniel Schorr essay I heard yesterday on NPR — link here. He was discussing the shortfalls of the welfare reform enacted under Pres. Clinton and said, “It’s hard to get people to go from ‘welfare to work’ when there is no work.”

Did you actually mean to suggest that all (or even most) of those who meet the medical definition of “obese” are food addicts, or that orthorexia and obesity are two opposite ends of a spectrum of disease?

Not to speak for Greta, but I think that upon reading the entire graf of that sentence, she is actually saying that there must be, given the emphasis on food and opportunities for fitness, there must be other reasons for obesity in NY other than the common stereotype of sedentary lives and poor diets. When I invited Greta on board, I told her that my only requirement for co-bloggers is that they share in the belief that being fat is not just an issue of willpower and promote a respect for diversity, including that of body shapes.

posted on December 10th, 2009 at 10:10 am

15 On December 10th, 2009, Lisa said:

Rachel, thanks for that information. So, now just wondering:

“my only requirement for co-bloggers is that they share in the belief that being fat is not just an issue of willpower and promote a respect for diversity, including that of body shapes.”

But not respect for different body *sizes*? I’m sorry if I’m being pedantic, but I really want to understand where you and your co-bloggers are regarding size, fat acceptance and HAES.

posted on December 10th, 2009 at 11:32 am

16 On December 10th, 2009, Rachel said:

@Lisa: I often use “shapes” and “sizes” interchangeably. Rest assured, all three bloggers here share are on the same page regarding HAES and the dangers of weight-based discrimination and stereotyping.

posted on December 10th, 2009 at 11:41 am

17 On December 10th, 2009, FatNSassy said:

I think it is really important to distinguish between fatness and overeating. I certainly hope the author knows that unlike herself, not all fat people overeat or have addiction to food. Personally, I am boycotting New York because of the calorie law (not that I have much reason to go there anyway!) But if I ever do find myself in similarly backwards thinking place like Califonia, I will make sure and order the menu item with the highest calorie count as a way of protest. How hypocritical than any government which is nothing more than a puppet for the power-elite, who has done so much to harm working America for the benefit of the rich, DARE to try and tell me what is good for me. I think many people sense the same irony and their choices are a form of protest!

posted on December 10th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

18 On December 10th, 2009, hsofia said:

Is the study mentioned here the only study done regarding people’s choices with/without the calorie listings?

posted on December 10th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

19 On December 10th, 2009, Lisa said:

@ Rachel – thanks again for clarifying and I appreciate your patience! That’s good to hear.

posted on December 10th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

20 On December 10th, 2009, Miriam Heddy said:

@Rachel, it’s good to hear that your expectation is that your cobloggers “share in the belief that being fat is not just an issue of willpower and promote a respect for diversity, including that of body shapes.”

But I’d point to the following as problematic:
A) As I pointed to earlier, fatness (the state of being fat) is here presented as synonymous with obesity (the medicalized term for fatness as illness) and with food addiction, and set on a continuum with orthorexia, a form of disordered eating.
B) Greta presumes the “Obesity Epidemic” is a real medical problem. Critics like Paul Campos, Gina Kolata, Sandy Szwarc, et al have done a rather thorough job of debunking it and explaining the ways in which we are in the midst of a moral panic, out of which this “epidemic” language comes and through which most of the questions are posed.
C) Greta tells us the NY Board of Health’s “intention was good” and that “Clearly, there is no easy answer.” Again, FA/HAES would suggest that, when a plan backfires, it’s worth looking at whether it did so because the premise behind the action taken was fatally flawed.
D) Greta generalizes from individual experience in an attempt to look at a vast city filled with people with very different experiences when she writes, “Whether in the weight ranges of under, “normal,” or over, people in this city are definitely into food. I’m also living in a place where free exercise is at one’s disposal.” What does it mean to be “into food”? All of us are “into food” to the extent that we need it to survive. In this piece of writing, being “into food” is presumed to be something problematic rather than normative. What is “free exercise”? How is it “free”? What are the hidden costs of exercise? Why set up the sentences so that being “into food” is presented as a problem while “free exercise” is a solution (this is set up by what follows the semicolon: “however, we have one of the highest obesity rates.”)

I list all of this not to attack the post but because, as someone who lives in the area, I felt very much under attack by this post, and I was surprised to see it here rather than in the mainstream press, as it echoed so much of the rhetoric that I tend to think of as non-HAES and fatphobic.

posted on December 10th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

21 On December 10th, 2009, Rachel said:

I’ll let Greta explain her positions here in more detail, but please keep in mind that we are all here to debate and learn from each other, bloggers included. Greta has a strong clinical background in eating disorders, but may be new to concepts of fat rights. I like to think of this blog as a bridge between the worlds of eating disorders awareness and fat rights, two movements which have been slow to form online partnerships through the years.

posted on December 10th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

22 On December 10th, 2009, Blimp said:

New York City doesn’t go far enough. We need to punish anyone who tempts anyone to eat anything that supplies more calories than it requires to digest. Restaurants and food stores need to be renamed with intimidating names like “Wackenhut Grocery” or “Corrections Corporation of America Cafe”.

Instead of calorie counts, the food provider should print the number of hours of hard prison labor that will be required to burn off the calories, and there should be a big sign near the entrance to the store describing in graphic detail, with big color pictures of sweating and toiling inmates under the lash, what the hard labor entails.

Obesity should be a felony offense (all food providers must post a warning) with a minimum sentence of life on probation. The convict will have a clearly visible ‘O’ branded on his forehead immediately upon conviction. The convict will report to his probation officer atleast once a week and present an account of fat-burning activities since the previous visit. The probation officer will review the account, then issue a prison labor credit which the convict must present to the food seller or donor in order to buy or receive food. Anyone who is caught selling or providing food to an obesity convict in excess of the amount of prison labor credit surrendered by the obesity convict will be fined $1000 for each hour of prison labor worth of food, to offset the increased cost to society of the increase of obesity.

Keep it up, fascist Mayor Bloomberg. Very soon, New York City will be known as the Auschwitz of Healthy Lifestyles!

posted on December 10th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

23 On December 10th, 2009, Lori said:

I was thinking about this, and I’m not sure that the issue of why obesity exists is really all that complex. It’s certainly not just because some people eat too much (the simplistic answer that’s wrong), but I tend to think it’s just because human bodies naturally come in different sizes. I don’t think we’ll find any root causes for that, other than genetic diversity.

And I just want to join the chorus of “all fat people don’t have food addictions/all food addicts aren’t fat.” Personally I find the concept of “food addiction” very problematic. Compulsive overeating or binge-eating disorders, sure. But, if an “addiction” is a physical or psychological dependence upon something, who among us isn’t addicted to food? We need to eat to survive, and our bodies and minds will indeed rebel if we refuse to feed them.

I’m currently running a therapy group for people in recovery who have cross-addicted to food and are now overweight (more on that in another post!).

I wonder if it’s possible that some of these people have simply returned to their natural body size after years of ignoring their bodies natural hunger cues because they were using other substances, or because they were using substances that caused weight loss? I’m sure some addicts do indeed begin binge eating or compulsive overeating after quitting one addiction, but most of the addicts I’ve known have been so consumed by their addiction that they ignored their other needs (including their need for food), and did indeed gain weight once quitting the substance, not because they became “food addicts” but because they started taking care of their bodies again, including responding appropriately to physical hunger.

I would just wonder, if the reason they are assuming they are food addicts is because they are overweight (and not because of behaviors that genuinely meet the criteria for compulsive overeating), maybe it’s simply their bodies returning to a normal, healthy size for them. My husband has a cousin who went from a size 4 to a size 16 after quitting cocaine and heroin, but it wasn’t because she suddenly started eating compulsively. She just started eating again, and stopped using substances that caused weight loss, and got to a size that was natural for her body.

posted on December 10th, 2009 at 6:42 pm

24 On December 11th, 2009, Emerald said:

Blimp: don’t give them ideas!

I trust this is just a New York thing. I do like the odd Starbucks of a weekend, I’m actually heading out to Seattle tomorrow, and this scheme sounds like a great way to ruin a gingerbread latte.

posted on December 11th, 2009 at 6:01 am