Corbin and her colleagues wanted to understand how the gut microbiome might be involved in regulating weight and metabolic health, so they designed a clinical trial that was small but rigorous.
They recruited 17 healthy men and women and compared what happened when they were fed a fiber-rich diet vs. a diet of highly processed foods. The researchers provided the participants all of their meals and had them follow each diet for 22 days.
For half of their time on each diet, the participants lived in a metabolic ward, where researchers tracked every calorie they ate and controlled their physical activity levels. They also spent six days during each diet phase in a tiny, airtight room called a metabolic chamber. This allowed the scientists to determine exactly how many calories the participants burned. The researchers collected bowel movements and used special techniques to analyze things like the amount of energy and bacteria in their feces.
The two diets were polar opposites. One, called the Western diet, contained many highly processed foods typical of what the average American eats [...]
The other diet was called the “microbiome enhancer diet,” and it was designed so as much nourishing food as possible would reach the gut microbiota. [...]
[...]
The scientists found that the participants absorbed significantly fewer calories on the fiber-rich diet compared to the processed diet. On average, they lost 217 calories a day on the fiber-rich diet, about 116 more calories than they lost on the processed-food diet.
But there was a wide range: Some participants lost nearly 400 calories a day on the fiber-rich diet. These lost calories showed up in their stool in several ways. The participants had more undigested food in their feces for instance. But they also had significantly more bacterial “biomass” and short-chain fatty acids in their stool — a sign that their gut microbes were busy multiplying and fermenting.
“It takes energy to make bacteria,” Corbin said. “So, instead of the energy going to us, it’s going to expand this community, and we know that because in their poop the biomass went up by about eight and a half times.”
Not very. It’s still going to be very high in fat, and red meat in the hamburger patty is associated with a number of health issues that increase mortality. That being said, most Americans don’t...
Not very. It’s still going to be very high in fat, and red meat in the hamburger patty is associated with a number of health issues that increase mortality.
That being said, most Americans don’t get nearly enough fiber, so if you’re going to eat at Mickey D’s anyways, you might as well down a spoonful.
I'd skip the Metamucil and the fries and ask for the apple slices or the side salad. They put those apple slices in the Happy Meals on request, so they do have them. BTW, I'm a 60-year-old who has...
That being said, most Americans don’t get nearly enough fiber, so if you’re going to eat at Mickey D’s anyways, you might as well down a spoonful.
I'd skip the Metamucil and the fries and ask for the apple slices or the side salad. They put those apple slices in the Happy Meals on request, so they do have them.
BTW, I'm a 60-year-old who has a couple of cheeseburger Happy Meals each year. (And YES to the free toy.)
I'd add that the worst thing involved in the burger is the industrial white flour bun, with it's ultra simplified carbs, emulsifiers, dough conditioners and preservatives.
I'd add that the worst thing involved in the burger is the industrial white flour bun, with it's ultra simplified carbs, emulsifiers, dough conditioners and preservatives.
Yes. People misunderstand this a bit. There are two things here: does it cause cancer, and then how much cancer does it cause? We know that processed red meat ("red meat" means the muscle meat of...
Yes. People misunderstand this a bit. There are two things here: does it cause cancer, and then how much cancer does it cause?
We know that processed red meat ("red meat" means the muscle meat of any mammal, and processed means any smoking, curing, preserving, salting (not normal seasoning as you cook), or any other preserving method) causes cancer. There are four grades of evidence (we know it does; we think it does; we don't know whether it does or not, we'd need more evidence; we think it's safe because we don't have any evidence and there's not much of a plausible mechanism). Currently processed red meat is in that first group, and red meat is in that second group.
There's a lot of talk about the health benefits of meat, and I feel that sometimes people are over-confidant in that talk. Not just in the benefits of meat, but in the harms of meat. (Not in this thread though! In other places on the Internet). For one thing, a lot of meat product is simply terrible quality. And, as the linked article says, there's a lot that we don't know about nutrition. We can look at food all we like, and we have very good information about the food that goes in. What we don't know so much about is how bodies react to it.
One very interesting fact with research into the health effects of red meat is that it's looked at in a binary way. I.e. all red meat is treated equal, when we already know that what you eat...
One very interesting fact with research into the health effects of red meat is that it's looked at in a binary way.
I.e. all red meat is treated equal, when we already know that what you eat hugely affects your health --> all red meat is most likely not the same.
Eating meat that is raised ethically and purely grass fed (instead of just grass-finished) is likely to change the health impacts of eating it.
Since most heavily processed meat is generally made from cheaply sourced meat, this could also explain some part of why heavily processed meat has such detrimental health effects.
I don't think it would have the same effect, my limited understanding on the issue is that it's important for the fibre to be bound up with the other nutrients so while taking fibre supliments can...
I don't think it would have the same effect, my limited understanding on the issue is that it's important for the fibre to be bound up with the other nutrients so while taking fibre supliments can be beneficial to someone who doesn't get enough, it's not as beneficial as eating high fibre foods.
No. While you might get some few of those Calorie savings, supplemented fiber is nutritionally empty at worst or monochromatic at best. Varying our food is one of the ways we get our many...
fed someone junk food and then supplemented with high fiber. Is McDonald's with a bunch of metamucil healthy?
No. While you might get some few of those Calorie savings, supplemented fiber is nutritionally empty at worst or monochromatic at best. Varying our food is one of the ways we get our many nutritional needs -- there are about 40 nutrients essential to human health.
I don't see this discussed nearly often enough. I find healthy to be too vague when describing a diet. When you start talking about health, it goes into a bunch of different directions, like...
Varying our food is one of the ways we get our many nutritional needs
I don't see this discussed nearly often enough. I find healthy to be too vague when describing a diet. When you start talking about health, it goes into a bunch of different directions, like calories or carb vs fat. I think we should talk more about a nutritional diet, which is what has the most impact on your body's overall health.
That is not a lot, considering the 2000 Calorie reference diet (women, on average, somewhat less while men somewhat more). For example, foods high in protein "lose" 25-30% of their Calories due to...
On average, they lost 217 calories a day on the fiber-rich diet, about 116 more calories than they lost on the processed-food diet.
That is not a lot, considering the 2000 Calorie reference diet (women, on average, somewhat less while men somewhat more). For example, foods high in protein "lose" 25-30% of their Calories due to the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) compared to Carbs (7-10%) and fats (about 3%) -- all three macronutrients contain essential micronutrients so don't take this as a tip promoting an all protein diet. Also consider that the two diets chosen were polar opposites and most of us live lifestyles in the middle of those trialed examples.
It’s nearly double the amount, so the effect is significant. And even relative to the 2k RDI, it’s still ten percent, which is very high. And I think the point is that “calories in, calories out”...
That is not a lot
It’s nearly double the amount, so the effect is significant. And even relative to the 2k RDI, it’s still ten percent, which is very high.
And I think the point is that “calories in, calories out” is utter bullshit. I’ve been calling BS on it for a long time and what I usually hear is “oh but you can’t call BS on physics” which, sure, if you break things down to the micro scale it works like this.
But as humans we don’t work at that scale. CICO promotes a way of thinking that this carrot and this biscuit are of equal calories thus the same for your body. That if you eat this you’ll have to work out 30min more. That you are eating numbers, and when working out you are lowering these numbers.
In truth, we are slaves to our habits. And the best way to change our habits is to make the body want it. Teach your own body to want specific types of foods which fill you more, maintain a better microbiome, etc.
Studies like this are excellent reminders that there’s a lot more to it.
That is the point of the headline, except that CICO is not BS and this article proves it and explains it -- clarifies it, not defeats it nor discounts it. It's not that CICO was ever wrong, its...
I think the point is that “calories in, calories out” is utter bullshit.
That is the point of the headline, except that CICO is not BS and this article proves it and explains it -- clarifies it, not defeats it nor discounts it. It's not that CICO was ever wrong, its that we know more about it.
CICO promotes a way of thinking that this carrot and this biscuit are of equal calories thus the same for your body.
CI adds up fairly nicely, despite these nuances. CO is quite squishy and constrained. Despite that, it's still a mistake to think that humans are somehow the only animal which gains or loses mass in a way other than an energy imbalance.
I eat that carrot and some scientist comes and sees 20 carrot calories in my poop. I eat that biscuit and some scientist finds 10 biscuit calories in my poop. Why even look if CICO isn't a thing? Because it is a thing.
In truth, we are slaves to our habits.
Absolutely.
Studies like this are excellent reminders that there’s a lot more to it.
CICO is 'technically correct' but it's nearly impossible for an individual to measure. I spent my entire life believing that the 40 calories in a carrot would have the same impact as the 40...
I eat that carrot and some scientist comes and sees 20 carrot calories in my poop. I eat that biscuit and some scientist finds 10 biscuit calories in my poop. Why even look if CICO isn't a thing? Because it is a thing.
CICO is 'technically correct' but it's nearly impossible for an individual to measure. I spent my entire life believing that the 40 calories in a carrot would have the same impact as the 40 calories in a biscuit. I find CICO misleading in this respect.
I prefer to think of this in terms of data/measurement confidence and sufficient deficit-size. It's probably not useful to think that if we eat 100 under our metabolism that we'll lose a pound...
Exemplary
CICO is 'technically correct' but it's nearly impossible for an individual to measure.
I prefer to think of this in terms of data/measurement confidence and sufficient deficit-size.
It's probably not useful to think that if we eat 100 under our metabolism that we'll lose a pound every 35 days. The body is too adaptive to that, we are too inept to count with such precision, nuances such as those in this article cast the plan into legitimate doubt, our food data isn't that precise, our metabolism assumptions aren't either -- you're right to be dubious.
But this are the right tools. If we consider a -500 deficit from our presumed metabolism, it overcomes these hurdles sufficiently that we can see some progress in a few weeks. Our numbers aren't perfect but they're not useless, either.
Still, remember the human and remember to be you. Our habits are our destiny and health is a forever endeavor. Let's not confuse the tool as the way. The way is to lead a productive and good life. If we're eating weirdly and following some script that is not our life, then we're never going to keep off any weight that we lose that way. If we're leading our lives, eating our foods, minding our portions, keeping our nutrition good, and using these rough measurements to ensure that CI < CO generally and yet not extremely, we're probably getting someplace and doing so in a way that is maintainable both for weight loss and later keeping it off.
I spent my entire life believing that the 40 calories in a carrot would have the same impact as the 40 calories in a biscuit. I find CICO misleading in this respect.
I don't blame you, but that was and is a misperception but it does not invalidate CICO. Examples abound (the Twinkie Diet Professor) that would reinforce that misperception. CICO is the rule, but it has nuances.
If we took gravity to such extremes, then we couldn't move a heavy object (like a car) but we can and do move cars. Gravity hasn't changed, we just understand more about it.
I don't understand this. The article shows that you can eat 2000 calories from one diet and 2000 calories from another diet and your body reacts differently. The calories in are the same, the...
. It's not that CICO was ever wrong
I don't understand this. The article shows that you can eat 2000 calories from one diet and 2000 calories from another diet and your body reacts differently. The calories in are the same, the calories out are different.
Because it's gut microbiome you can give one person 2000 calories from one diet, and another person 2000 calories from the same diet, and they respond differently because calories in =/= calories out.
And because it's gut microbiome you can give one person 2000 calories from one diet today (and test their output), and then keep feeding them that diet (and test their output after a year), and that single person will respond differently over time because they change their gut biome, again showing that calories in =/= calories out.
For CICO to have any meaning one person eating 2000 calories has the same effect no matter what food they're getting those calories from.
They're both the same Calories. We just get to see better now where it goes. In the mainly junk-food diet, you put in 2000 and get 1900 gets used somewhere in the metabolism and 100 in waste. In...
The article shows that you can eat 2000 calories from one diet and 2000 calories from another diet and your body reacts differently. The calories in are the same, the calories out are different.
They're both the same Calories. We just get to see better now where it goes.
In the mainly junk-food diet, you put in 2000 and get 1900 gets used somewhere in the metabolism and 100 in waste. In the mainly nutritious-food diet, you put in 2000 and get 1800 goes somewhere in the metabolism and 200 in waste.
There always was nuance. Be reminded (or aware if you weren't) that a Calorie is 1000 calories, so we're not even talking about 116 Calories difference, we're talking about roughly 116,000 calories difference. There always has been some nuance here but we /1000 to make them useful in nutritional science.
For CICO to have any meaning one person eating 2000 calories has the same effect no matter what food they're getting those calories from.
Any? What if it's useful even if it isn't precise. Why must it be perfectly true or else be perfectly negated? Why can't it be good enough to be useful?
If you want to poke at CICO's lack of perfection, read Burn by Hermann Pontzer. Now that's a CICO bubble burster but once you've read it, you'll see what I am saying here. CICO is still the law, but the law has caveats and nuance.
When people say “calories in calories out”, it’s often in response to “I don’t understand how my sister can eat the same amount as me and be as active as me, but I gain weight and she doesn’t”....
When people say “calories in calories out”, it’s often in response to “I don’t understand how my sister can eat the same amount as me and be as active as me, but I gain weight and she doesn’t”.
And the implication often is, “that midnight snack you sometimes have is all the difference”, or “you take more sugar in your coffee than she does”.
Metabolism and gut microbiome both affect how much you passively burn and assimilate. The CICO shortcut is bullshit, and trying to tie this back to the physics behind it is as meaningless to people losing weight as claiming nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
To me, that reads as if you totally understand! You're reinforcing that the "CICO" soundbite is correct, almost tautologically so, but the nuance that most people shouting it miss is that the CO...
I don't understand this. [...] The calories in are the same, the calories out are different.
To me, that reads as if you totally understand! You're reinforcing that the "CICO" soundbite is correct, almost tautologically so, but the nuance that most people shouting it miss is that the CO part is an incredibly complex variable with dependencies on a thousand other things.
It's a difficult one to discuss a lot of the time because people interpret such different things from it. You'll have one person saying "CICO is accurate [because of course that energy has to go somewhere, although the natural balance of a biological system varies widely for many different reasons and it really doesn't tell you that much useful]", another saying "CICO is accurate [and CO is fixed by age and gender, so any failure to lose weight is basically laziness]", a third saying "CICO is not accurate [because whilst technically true, I dispute its usefulness as a tool and find that the vast majority of those who say it do so under a significant misapprehension of the deeper implications]", and one more saying "CICO is not accurate [because it's actually all a matter of crystal vibrations and the removal of toxins]".
Nobody said the bracketed bits out loud, which means the people agreeing and disagreeing all just assume everyone else's understanding of the phrase is the same as theirs, and fill in the blanks for what they expect that others are putting in those brackets - both those they ostensibly agree with and those they don't.
Right, but all those different interpretations are why CICO is garbage. "CICO is the only thing that matters, but we can't know how many calories you're eating, we can't know how many calories...
Right, but all those different interpretations are why CICO is garbage.
"CICO is the only thing that matters, but we can't know how many calories you're eating, we can't know how many calories your body is using, we don't know how many calories you're excreting" -- then what's the point of people saying CICO in every discussion about diet? There's zero actionable information there. "CICO, but lol good luck doing anything useful with it".
And CICO is almost always used as per your second example - to say that failure to lose weight is lack of effort or lack of will.
In other words: If CICO needs an asterisk for all of its hidden complexity, then it shouldn't be treated as a simple, hard-and-fast "golden rule" to live by. But, nonetheless, this is how it's...
In other words: If CICO needs an asterisk for all of its hidden complexity, then it shouldn't be treated as a simple, hard-and-fast "golden rule" to live by. But, nonetheless, this is how it's often treated.
I largely agree except for "utter bullshit." (It seems like this is in danger of becoming a "contempt trial" where we debate what's worthy of contempt.) It sounds like you're taking "calories in,...
I largely agree except for "utter bullshit." (It seems like this is in danger of becoming a "contempt trial" where we debate what's worthy of contempt.)
It sounds like you're taking "calories in, calories out" to stand in for some dubious conclusions people have drawn from it, like that the types of food we eat don't matter, or maybe that doing calorie accounting in a spreadsheet is a worthwhile thing to do?
But I don't think it necessarily needs to be interpreted that way. I think of this study as refining and improving on calorie counting rather than overturning it. As you say, it works when they do it in a lab.
Outside a lab, we aren't going to track input or output like they did. The data we have to go on is pretty noisy.
I think we can still say that weight gain or loss comes from an imbalance between calories in and out. Portion control still matters. The calorie counts on food packages and on menus (sometimes) still give us a rough idea what we're in for. Maybe we can worry less about calories that come from high-fiber foods?
It was always true that some ways of improving your diet are easier than others and now we have a little better idea how that works.
I caught you mid edit, I think, so this second reply just for this line which is either a new line or just newly noticed by me. It's 116 difference between two really vastly-different rather...
I caught you mid edit, I think, so this second reply just for this line which is either a new line or just newly noticed by me.
And even relative to the 2k RDI, it’s still ten percent, which is very high.
It's 116 difference between two really vastly-different rather extreme-example diets, so closer to 5% instead of 10% at best in practical terms of the 2000 Calorie diet. I'll stick with my "not a lot" impression given the digestion costs (TEF) of various food types. But truly we don't need a label -- we have the actual number provided -- 116 difference.
Difference is what counts. We have to look at it against what we'd otherwise do. If you didn't eat this very nutritious diet, would you eat the all processed-food diet? That's what this study did (which is useful so that we see it but not necessarily applicable). Answering the question where the energy went in the higher-nutrition diet, it went out as poop. (It didn't go out as increased body heat nor as more physical activity.)
It is so interesting seeing all these studies come out over the last couple of years showing just how big of an impact our gut microbiome has on our health at large. I also remember seeing this...
It is so interesting seeing all these studies come out over the last couple of years showing just how big of an impact our gut microbiome has on our health at large. I also remember seeing this article: harvard.edu
I wonder what other connections we’ll see emerge in the coming years of research.
So many... It's peak times for microbiome research, and we're near the beginning in terms of understanding how it works. I'm excited for the point where we have empirically supported, practical...
So many... It's peak times for microbiome research, and we're near the beginning in terms of understanding how it works.
I'm excited for the point where we have empirically supported, practical responses to a microbiome analysis (eat more of this, avoid this)
It's been interesting recently to see some evidence calling into question the benefit of taking probiotics without a reason. Turns out it may decrease diversity, which is generally not what you want.
I can manage on a routine diet without a great deal of variety, so I make sure my day food is my lentil soup (make a batch on the weekends and it lasts 7-8 work days), fruit (a dozen grape...
I can manage on a routine diet without a great deal of variety, so I make sure my day food is my lentil soup (make a batch on the weekends and it lasts 7-8 work days), fruit (a dozen grape tomatoes and 10 blueberries), a carrot, and 1/3c. of mixed nuts. Water works for the bev, after morning coffee with heavy cream. It's plenty of fiber and protein, lean on calories, and effective fuel. It's easy on the wallet as well as the waistline because I don't drop 50-100 per week eating out. I'd estimate my daily cost at 3-4 dollars.
I found it online, but cant remember where, or I'd credit the site. I did some variation, though, so perhaps it's mine after all. :) Feel free to adjust to your tastes, so you can make it yours....
Exemplary
I found it online, but cant remember where, or I'd credit the site. I did some variation, though, so perhaps it's mine after all. :)
Feel free to adjust to your tastes, so you can make it yours.
The most recent batch I had half a bottle of kimchi in the fridge that was going to go bad, so I tossed that in, and I have no complaints about that change. Adding more garlic, carrots, or celery just makes it heartier.
Curry lentil soup (I like a lot of lentils, so it's pretty thick)
Prep your veg and spices in separate bowls and set aside. Get a pan hot and add some oil to coat the bottom (I use olive oil). Dump the veg in and sweat the onions a bit. I get them glassy and add the spices. Stir it into the veg. Add the broth. Stir. Add the lentils (you should rinse your lentils before hand). Stir. Bring to a boil. Turn it down to simmer and put a lid on it, simmer 45-50 mins, stirring once or twice along the way.
1 onion chopped
1 tsp cardamom
1/2 tsp tumeric
5-8 garlic cloves (minced or whole, your choice)
1 tbsp curry powder
1/2 teaspoon cumin
1 tbsp msg (optional)
1/2 tsp cinnamon
bay leaf
1 lb lentils (any color)
2qts broth (veg or chicken, but any will do)
1.5 tbsp parsley
4 celery sticks diced
4 carrots diced
1 diced jalapeno or anaheim chili
Or 1/4 - 1/2 tsp cayenne
Or 2 thai chili
Garnish options: sour cream or greek yogurt dollop
I'm excited about so much research on this topic in the past few years and I'm looking forward to (or concerned about) seeing how implementation runs into headwinds from the commercial food...
I'm excited about so much research on this topic in the past few years and I'm looking forward to (or concerned about) seeing how implementation runs into headwinds from the commercial food industry. Some changes toward preventative medicine tend to be less profitable for current industry and don't see widespread adoption in our corporate information driven culture. @skybrian, have you seen any research on the economics of the processed food production and distribution industries, especially with regard to highly- vs minimally-processed foods?
I haven't seen that kind of research. It seems like a big subject? Research into the supply chain for one kind of food is enough to write a book. Reading about the history of grain was pretty...
I haven't seen that kind of research. It seems like a big subject? Research into the supply chain for one kind of food is enough to write a book. Reading about the history of grain was pretty interesting. I remember reading a long article about orange juice (a bit about that here.) Here's a long read about the sandwich industry.
Just thinking of a few examples, it seems like "processing" is pretty vague and just one factor among many. Table grapes, raisins, grape juice, jam, and wine all come from grapes, and the processing varies. Some wines are expensive due to marketing and others are pretty cheap.
A good story is worth a lot. An example of that: our cherry tree gave us really amazing cherries this year. My wife gave her sister a gift of cherries from our tree, which is different from buying cherries at a store. Maybe a store would sell cherries that are just as good, but I wouldn't know because normally we don't eat cherries at all. The ones we have are really sweet though.
Packaging can make a difference: glass bottles and corks add expense to higher-end wines. The cheapest ones and juices use plastic, which is cheap.
Sometimes processing makes food cheaper. Juice from concentrate is easier to store and ship, because water is heavy.
I suspect that a lot of the food industry is driven by how much people like the taste. Nutritious food is all well and good, but if people dislike the taste, or even if it's just kind of meh, they'll buy something else. This is true even of foodies. Therefore the food industry has to pay a lot of attention to taste too.
Well yes, and typically in academics or in any kind of research people will take a bite size chunk out of big topics. Sure, and preferences are a big subject in economics, with a lot of debate...
It seems like a big subject? [...] it seems like "processing" is pretty vague
Well yes, and typically in academics or in any kind of research people will take a bite size chunk out of big topics.
I suspect that a lot of the food industry is driven by how much people like the taste.
Sure, and preferences are a big subject in economics, with a lot of debate arising in the past couple decades particularly within behavioral economics. And a bedrock of marketing is that preferences can be manipulated.
I'm far from familiar with the economics of the food industry, but my assumption is that highly (or "ultra") processed food is cheaper to produce and distribute because it benefits from economies of scale and from the stability of input ingredients. And if demand remains high, this allows high profit margins which firms will defend through marketing and even lobbying to manipulate the regulatory environment (like the impact on school lunches or attempts to lobby against regulation of sugar-heavy foods). So I guess a simple question (just pondering, and not specifically a question for you) is: are profits higher in highly-processed foods vs the microbiome enhancing diet used in this research? And if so, what kind of resistance would be expected from the food industry? And then, what efforts should be made to counter that resistance?
I think there’s some tension between concern about high prices and concern that people eat unhealthy food. It seems like we should be relatively okay with unhealthy food being more expensive and...
I think there’s some tension between concern about high prices and concern that people eat unhealthy food. It seems like we should be relatively okay with unhealthy food being more expensive and be more concerned with healthy food being cheaper. Price signals only go so far, though. Meat is relatively expensive, but in the US in modern times, most people don’t usually cut back on meat to economize. Eating out tends to be more expensive and it took a pandemic for people to cut back significantly on that.
Also, I think before speculating about the cause of high profit margins, we should figure out where there are high profit margins. I can speculate a bit about common situations in the US, in broad terms.
Sometimes the food industry can be very competitive. Walmart and Costco have some pretty good deals and there are lots of discount grocery stores. Where I live you can often get better prices at Asian and Mexican groceries. Maybe their customers are more price-conscious?
I associate higher food prices with small convenience stores and restaurants in urban areas. These are often small businesses and it doesn’t seem like they’re all that profitable? Restaurants often fail. The higher prices are from rent and labor and sometimes delivery. People pay quite a bit more for convenience, compared to the cheapest places to shop for food. Someone needs to deliver the food and urban shoppers aren’t going to do all that much schlepping or store all that much at home to save money. When I visited my brother in Queens, it seemed like people there weren’t really set up for buying low-cost food easily, compared to people in suburban or rural areas. He has a car and could do an occasional large shopping run to a bigger store, but it’s not that practical on foot.
It seems like on average, Americans eat what they want and get food in the way they want and often don’t go all that far out of their way or switch to cheaper alternatives to economize on food? The food industry caters to that even when costs are higher that way.
I agree with that. How to get there is a challenge. Of course sugary drink taxes and tobacco taxes are two examples. But that is a type of regulation targeting fairly specific things, and could...
It seems like we should be relatively okay with unhealthy food being more expensive and be more concerned with healthy food being cheaper
I agree with that. How to get there is a challenge. Of course sugary drink taxes and tobacco taxes are two examples. But that is a type of regulation targeting fairly specific things, and could become almost farcical if applied too broadly.
Walmart and Costco have some pretty good deals and there are lots of discount grocery stores. Where I live you can often get better prices at Asian and Mexican groceries.
Same here, at least for fresh seafood and produce. The Asian grocery stores here seem to have razor thin profit margins and work on very high volume of exceptionally short shelf life foods. My sense is that this is a cultural carryover from their customers' home countries (here, primarily China and Korea) where people shop in small quantities nearly every day.
You make a good point about the challenge of speculating about profit signals in trying to understand this. And I agree also about the role of convenience in consumption patterns. I'm interested to read more on this and related subjects. Very generally, I'm interested in the question of: "What are the factors leading people to make self-harming consumption decisions (like eating unhealthy vs healthy food) and what interventions successfully nudge away from such decisions?"
This is of course a question that wraps up a number of social sciences, but I've seen you talk many times from an economics perspective which is why I pinged you above. Maybe I'm unfairly pointing the finger at corporate (marketing, lobbying) influence on our culture, but I suspect that's a pretty important factor.
This is not really responding to you directly, but you got me thinking about something, so I’ll post it here: Advertising and other ways of marketing do presumably work a lot of the time, which is...
This is not really responding to you directly, but you got me thinking about something, so I’ll post it here:
Advertising and other ways of marketing do presumably work a lot of the time, which is why so much money is spent on them. I think sometimes people give them magical powers, though.
Convincing people to do something they were already inclined to do is often pretty easy. People have habits. Simply reminding people of their favorite food or their favorite restaurant may be enough to get them to buy it again today. Otherwise, maybe they would forget and do something else? And that’s why reminders are big business.
I doubt any amount of advertising is going to convince people to buy something they hate, though. They have to be at least a little curious and open-minded to try something new. Even kids are not always open to new things, particularly new foods. Sometimes they can be, but often they’re cautious or stubborn.
You could think about advertising as preying on people’s weaknesses. There’s some truth to that. Habits can be bad habits. Being curious and open minded can make you vulnerable when a more stubborn person wouldn’t be.
But they may not see it that way, because maybe they don’t see it as a bad habit at all, or maybe they know it’s not the healthiest thing in the world, but it’s what they want and it’s okay as an occasional indulgence. It’s a fun thing that they like to do sometimes. It’s just liking ice cream, or chocolate, or whatever.
Having this model of advertising seems more empowering because it means you can choose to do something else. You can decide not to go to McDonalds anymore and then all the McDonalds commercials in the world have no power over you, because it’s not something you do anymore.
This seems better than thinking of people as brainwashed sheep. They’re not sheep, they disagree with you, and changing people’s minds is actually pretty hard. If someone doesn’t like broccoli, they’re more likely to stick to their guns than to give in under pressure, and you’re just going to annoy them if you try too hard. (Particularly if they have memories of food getting forced on them as a kid.)
Sometimes you do know your weaknesses and want to avoid the triggers and that’s when blocking those kinds of ads is useful. But I think it’s like the old joke about how many psychiatrists it takes to change a light bulb: first, you have to want to change.
So the question is, how do you study that, at scale? Economics studies aren’t usually based on psychologically realistic models of people and their food preferences. It’s not that economists don’t know they’re simplifying. They know this very well, but they often need to simplify to do the research. A clever research design will simplify everything except the one thing that they’re studying.
Anyway, yeah, it would be interesting to be read more about studies like that.
Yep, this is exactly how I think of it. It is a big theme in several of Adam Curtis' films that deal with the legacy of Edward Bernays, which were some pretty interesting works although not social...
You could think about advertising as preying on people’s weaknesses.
Yep, this is exactly how I think of it. It is a big theme in several of Adam Curtis' films that deal with the legacy of Edward Bernays, which were some pretty interesting works although not social science. Studying it systematically would be a big undertaking, probably very multidisciplinary as well.
The other angle is how corporate lobbying against regulation or in favor of subsidies, etc. helps maintain existing industrial structures or to shape them in favor corporate profits over public benefit. But that's also another huge topic and veering far away from the posted article -- which I do thank you for posting!
It's part of it, but saying it just preys on people's weaknesses is sort of like saying that all notifications are bad, and that's too simple. Sometimes you get a good reminder of something you...
It's part of it, but saying it just preys on people's weaknesses is sort of like saying that all notifications are bad, and that's too simple. Sometimes you get a good reminder of something you enjoy. You forgot about a movie, you see an ad reminding you that it's out, so you go see it, and you like it. What's wrong with that?
We do get a lot more notifications than we need, though. I deny most website and mobile notifications, unsubscribe from many kinds of email that websites try to send me, and so on.
This is basically a kind of ad blocking. Some ads don't look like ads, they just look like notifications.
This is fascinating, but the study was tiny, less than 10 people in each group. The fiber group lost more weight, and their body composition indicated more fat loss, but it was clinically...
This is fascinating, but the study was tiny, less than 10 people in each group. The fiber group lost more weight, and their body composition indicated more fat loss, but it was clinically insignificant. I still agree that increasing fiber is way healthier, but I don’t know that it would increase weight loss. Maybe it would be easier to keep the weight off though, who knows?
Yes, the study wasn’t designed like a clinical trial and shouldn’t be mistaken for one. It looks like it was designed to maximize effect size by using contrasting diets, so that they could measure...
Yes, the study wasn’t designed like a clinical trial and shouldn’t be mistaken for one. It looks like it was designed to maximize effect size by using contrasting diets, so that they could measure it and show convincingly that something is happening, using techniques that aren’t practical to do outside the lab. For that purpose, they didn’t need a big trial and the people in it didn’t need to lose a lot of weight. Hopefully it will be replicated, but it seems like they will be successful in convincing other scientists that they measured something real? I guess we will see if the paper gets cited.
I thought it was interesting that there was so much variation between the people in the study. I hope there’s more research to figure out what causes that.
In the meantime, if it seems worth it, it’s often practical to try out a diet that seems safe enough and see how it works for you. Here’s a series of blog posts about better ways to do n=1 experiments.
From the article:
[...]
I wonder what would happen if you fed someone junk food and then supplemented with high fiber. Is McDonald's with a bunch of metamucil healthy?
Not very. It’s still going to be very high in fat, and red meat in the hamburger patty is associated with a number of health issues that increase mortality.
That being said, most Americans don’t get nearly enough fiber, so if you’re going to eat at Mickey D’s anyways, you might as well down a spoonful.
I'd skip the Metamucil and the fries and ask for the apple slices or the side salad. They put those apple slices in the Happy Meals on request, so they do have them.
BTW, I'm a 60-year-old who has a couple of cheeseburger Happy Meals each year. (And YES to the free toy.)
I'd add that the worst thing involved in the burger is the industrial white flour bun, with it's ultra simplified carbs, emulsifiers, dough conditioners and preservatives.
The patty itself is also quite terrible, being linked to colon cancer.
Yes. People misunderstand this a bit. There are two things here: does it cause cancer, and then how much cancer does it cause?
We know that processed red meat ("red meat" means the muscle meat of any mammal, and processed means any smoking, curing, preserving, salting (not normal seasoning as you cook), or any other preserving method) causes cancer. There are four grades of evidence (we know it does; we think it does; we don't know whether it does or not, we'd need more evidence; we think it's safe because we don't have any evidence and there's not much of a plausible mechanism). Currently processed red meat is in that first group, and red meat is in that second group.
There's a lot of talk about the health benefits of meat, and I feel that sometimes people are over-confidant in that talk. Not just in the benefits of meat, but in the harms of meat. (Not in this thread though! In other places on the Internet). For one thing, a lot of meat product is simply terrible quality. And, as the linked article says, there's a lot that we don't know about nutrition. We can look at food all we like, and we have very good information about the food that goes in. What we don't know so much about is how bodies react to it.
One very interesting fact with research into the health effects of red meat is that it's looked at in a binary way.
I.e. all red meat is treated equal, when we already know that what you eat hugely affects your health --> all red meat is most likely not the same.
It is known, for example, that the fatty acid profiles in red meat differs based on the feed of the animals.
Eating meat that is raised ethically and purely grass fed (instead of just grass-finished) is likely to change the health impacts of eating it.
Since most heavily processed meat is generally made from cheaply sourced meat, this could also explain some part of why heavily processed meat has such detrimental health effects.
I don't think it would have the same effect, my limited understanding on the issue is that it's important for the fibre to be bound up with the other nutrients so while taking fibre supliments can be beneficial to someone who doesn't get enough, it's not as beneficial as eating high fibre foods.
No. While you might get some few of those Calorie savings, supplemented fiber is nutritionally empty at worst or monochromatic at best. Varying our food is one of the ways we get our many nutritional needs -- there are about 40 nutrients essential to human health.
I don't see this discussed nearly often enough. I find healthy to be too vague when describing a diet. When you start talking about health, it goes into a bunch of different directions, like calories or carb vs fat. I think we should talk more about a nutritional diet, which is what has the most impact on your body's overall health.
That is not a lot, considering the 2000 Calorie reference diet (women, on average, somewhat less while men somewhat more). For example, foods high in protein "lose" 25-30% of their Calories due to the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) compared to Carbs (7-10%) and fats (about 3%) -- all three macronutrients contain essential micronutrients so don't take this as a tip promoting an all protein diet. Also consider that the two diets chosen were polar opposites and most of us live lifestyles in the middle of those trialed examples.
It’s nearly double the amount, so the effect is significant. And even relative to the 2k RDI, it’s still ten percent, which is very high.
And I think the point is that “calories in, calories out” is utter bullshit. I’ve been calling BS on it for a long time and what I usually hear is “oh but you can’t call BS on physics” which, sure, if you break things down to the micro scale it works like this.
But as humans we don’t work at that scale. CICO promotes a way of thinking that this carrot and this biscuit are of equal calories thus the same for your body. That if you eat this you’ll have to work out 30min more. That you are eating numbers, and when working out you are lowering these numbers.
In truth, we are slaves to our habits. And the best way to change our habits is to make the body want it. Teach your own body to want specific types of foods which fill you more, maintain a better microbiome, etc.
Studies like this are excellent reminders that there’s a lot more to it.
That is the point of the headline, except that CICO is not BS and this article proves it and explains it -- clarifies it, not defeats it nor discounts it. It's not that CICO was ever wrong, its that we know more about it.
CICO doesn't promote -- humans promote. Simplistic, black-and-white thinking promotes.
CI adds up fairly nicely, despite these nuances. CO is quite squishy and constrained. Despite that, it's still a mistake to think that humans are somehow the only animal which gains or loses mass in a way other than an energy imbalance.
I eat that carrot and some scientist comes and sees 20 carrot calories in my poop. I eat that biscuit and some scientist finds 10 biscuit calories in my poop. Why even look if CICO isn't a thing? Because it is a thing.
Absolutely.
Yep. This too.
CICO is 'technically correct' but it's nearly impossible for an individual to measure. I spent my entire life believing that the 40 calories in a carrot would have the same impact as the 40 calories in a biscuit. I find CICO misleading in this respect.
I prefer to think of this in terms of data/measurement confidence and sufficient deficit-size.
It's probably not useful to think that if we eat 100 under our metabolism that we'll lose a pound every 35 days. The body is too adaptive to that, we are too inept to count with such precision, nuances such as those in this article cast the plan into legitimate doubt, our food data isn't that precise, our metabolism assumptions aren't either -- you're right to be dubious.
But this are the right tools. If we consider a -500 deficit from our presumed metabolism, it overcomes these hurdles sufficiently that we can see some progress in a few weeks. Our numbers aren't perfect but they're not useless, either.
Still, remember the human and remember to be you. Our habits are our destiny and health is a forever endeavor. Let's not confuse the tool as the way. The way is to lead a productive and good life. If we're eating weirdly and following some script that is not our life, then we're never going to keep off any weight that we lose that way. If we're leading our lives, eating our foods, minding our portions, keeping our nutrition good, and using these rough measurements to ensure that CI < CO generally and yet not extremely, we're probably getting someplace and doing so in a way that is maintainable both for weight loss and later keeping it off.
I don't blame you, but that was and is a misperception but it does not invalidate CICO. Examples abound (the Twinkie Diet Professor) that would reinforce that misperception. CICO is the rule, but it has nuances.
If we took gravity to such extremes, then we couldn't move a heavy object (like a car) but we can and do move cars. Gravity hasn't changed, we just understand more about it.
I don't understand this. The article shows that you can eat 2000 calories from one diet and 2000 calories from another diet and your body reacts differently. The calories in are the same, the calories out are different.
Because it's gut microbiome you can give one person 2000 calories from one diet, and another person 2000 calories from the same diet, and they respond differently because calories in =/= calories out.
And because it's gut microbiome you can give one person 2000 calories from one diet today (and test their output), and then keep feeding them that diet (and test their output after a year), and that single person will respond differently over time because they change their gut biome, again showing that calories in =/= calories out.
For CICO to have any meaning one person eating 2000 calories has the same effect no matter what food they're getting those calories from.
They're both the same Calories. We just get to see better now where it goes.
In the mainly junk-food diet, you put in 2000 and get 1900 gets used somewhere in the metabolism and 100 in waste. In the mainly nutritious-food diet, you put in 2000 and get 1800 goes somewhere in the metabolism and 200 in waste.
There always was nuance. Be reminded (or aware if you weren't) that a Calorie is 1000 calories, so we're not even talking about 116 Calories difference, we're talking about roughly 116,000 calories difference. There always has been some nuance here but we /1000 to make them useful in nutritional science.
Any? What if it's useful even if it isn't precise. Why must it be perfectly true or else be perfectly negated? Why can't it be good enough to be useful?
If you want to poke at CICO's lack of perfection, read Burn by Hermann Pontzer. Now that's a CICO bubble burster but once you've read it, you'll see what I am saying here. CICO is still the law, but the law has caveats and nuance.
When people say “calories in calories out”, it’s often in response to “I don’t understand how my sister can eat the same amount as me and be as active as me, but I gain weight and she doesn’t”.
And the implication often is, “that midnight snack you sometimes have is all the difference”, or “you take more sugar in your coffee than she does”.
Metabolism and gut microbiome both affect how much you passively burn and assimilate. The CICO shortcut is bullshit, and trying to tie this back to the physics behind it is as meaningless to people losing weight as claiming nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
To me, that reads as if you totally understand! You're reinforcing that the "CICO" soundbite is correct, almost tautologically so, but the nuance that most people shouting it miss is that the CO part is an incredibly complex variable with dependencies on a thousand other things.
It's a difficult one to discuss a lot of the time because people interpret such different things from it. You'll have one person saying "CICO is accurate [because of course that energy has to go somewhere, although the natural balance of a biological system varies widely for many different reasons and it really doesn't tell you that much useful]", another saying "CICO is accurate [and CO is fixed by age and gender, so any failure to lose weight is basically laziness]", a third saying "CICO is not accurate [because whilst technically true, I dispute its usefulness as a tool and find that the vast majority of those who say it do so under a significant misapprehension of the deeper implications]", and one more saying "CICO is not accurate [because it's actually all a matter of crystal vibrations and the removal of toxins]".
Nobody said the bracketed bits out loud, which means the people agreeing and disagreeing all just assume everyone else's understanding of the phrase is the same as theirs, and fill in the blanks for what they expect that others are putting in those brackets - both those they ostensibly agree with and those they don't.
Right, but all those different interpretations are why CICO is garbage.
"CICO is the only thing that matters, but we can't know how many calories you're eating, we can't know how many calories your body is using, we don't know how many calories you're excreting" -- then what's the point of people saying CICO in every discussion about diet? There's zero actionable information there. "CICO, but lol good luck doing anything useful with it".
And CICO is almost always used as per your second example - to say that failure to lose weight is lack of effort or lack of will.
In other words: If CICO needs an asterisk for all of its hidden complexity, then it shouldn't be treated as a simple, hard-and-fast "golden rule" to live by. But, nonetheless, this is how it's often treated.
I largely agree except for "utter bullshit." (It seems like this is in danger of becoming a "contempt trial" where we debate what's worthy of contempt.)
It sounds like you're taking "calories in, calories out" to stand in for some dubious conclusions people have drawn from it, like that the types of food we eat don't matter, or maybe that doing calorie accounting in a spreadsheet is a worthwhile thing to do?
But I don't think it necessarily needs to be interpreted that way. I think of this study as refining and improving on calorie counting rather than overturning it. As you say, it works when they do it in a lab.
Outside a lab, we aren't going to track input or output like they did. The data we have to go on is pretty noisy.
I think we can still say that weight gain or loss comes from an imbalance between calories in and out. Portion control still matters. The calorie counts on food packages and on menus (sometimes) still give us a rough idea what we're in for. Maybe we can worry less about calories that come from high-fiber foods?
It was always true that some ways of improving your diet are easier than others and now we have a little better idea how that works.
I caught you mid edit, I think, so this second reply just for this line which is either a new line or just newly noticed by me.
It's 116 difference between two really vastly-different rather extreme-example diets, so closer to 5% instead of 10% at best in practical terms of the 2000 Calorie diet. I'll stick with my "not a lot" impression given the digestion costs (TEF) of various food types. But truly we don't need a label -- we have the actual number provided -- 116 difference.
Difference is what counts. We have to look at it against what we'd otherwise do. If you didn't eat this very nutritious diet, would you eat the all processed-food diet? That's what this study did (which is useful so that we see it but not necessarily applicable). Answering the question where the energy went in the higher-nutrition diet, it went out as poop. (It didn't go out as increased body heat nor as more physical activity.)
I wonder if fibre supplementation works the same way
It is so interesting seeing all these studies come out over the last couple of years showing just how big of an impact our gut microbiome has on our health at large. I also remember seeing this article: harvard.edu
I wonder what other connections we’ll see emerge in the coming years of research.
So many... It's peak times for microbiome research, and we're near the beginning in terms of understanding how it works.
I'm excited for the point where we have empirically supported, practical responses to a microbiome analysis (eat more of this, avoid this)
It's been interesting recently to see some evidence calling into question the benefit of taking probiotics without a reason. Turns out it may decrease diversity, which is generally not what you want.
I can manage on a routine diet without a great deal of variety, so I make sure my day food is my lentil soup (make a batch on the weekends and it lasts 7-8 work days), fruit (a dozen grape tomatoes and 10 blueberries), a carrot, and 1/3c. of mixed nuts. Water works for the bev, after morning coffee with heavy cream. It's plenty of fiber and protein, lean on calories, and effective fuel. It's easy on the wallet as well as the waistline because I don't drop 50-100 per week eating out. I'd estimate my daily cost at 3-4 dollars.
What is your lentil soup recipe?
I found it online, but cant remember where, or I'd credit the site. I did some variation, though, so perhaps it's mine after all. :)
Feel free to adjust to your tastes, so you can make it yours.
The most recent batch I had half a bottle of kimchi in the fridge that was going to go bad, so I tossed that in, and I have no complaints about that change. Adding more garlic, carrots, or celery just makes it heartier.
Curry lentil soup (I like a lot of lentils, so it's pretty thick)
Prep your veg and spices in separate bowls and set aside. Get a pan hot and add some oil to coat the bottom (I use olive oil). Dump the veg in and sweat the onions a bit. I get them glassy and add the spices. Stir it into the veg. Add the broth. Stir. Add the lentils (you should rinse your lentils before hand). Stir. Bring to a boil. Turn it down to simmer and put a lid on it, simmer 45-50 mins, stirring once or twice along the way.
1 onion chopped
1 tsp cardamom
1/2 tsp tumeric
5-8 garlic cloves (minced or whole, your choice)
1 tbsp curry powder
1/2 teaspoon cumin
1 tbsp msg (optional)
1/2 tsp cinnamon
bay leaf
1 lb lentils (any color)
2qts broth (veg or chicken, but any will do)
1.5 tbsp parsley
4 celery sticks diced
4 carrots diced
1 diced jalapeno or anaheim chili
Or 1/4 - 1/2 tsp cayenne
Or 2 thai chili
Garnish options: sour cream or greek yogurt dollop
That is awesome. I have a bag of black pearl lentils that I want to make this week.
Thank you!
This is excellent - I made a batch this evening and will definitely be repeating it. Thanks for sharing!
I'm excited about so much research on this topic in the past few years and I'm looking forward to (or concerned about) seeing how implementation runs into headwinds from the commercial food industry. Some changes toward preventative medicine tend to be less profitable for current industry and don't see widespread adoption in our corporate information driven culture. @skybrian, have you seen any research on the economics of the processed food production and distribution industries, especially with regard to highly- vs minimally-processed foods?
I haven't seen that kind of research. It seems like a big subject? Research into the supply chain for one kind of food is enough to write a book. Reading about the history of grain was pretty interesting. I remember reading a long article about orange juice (a bit about that here.) Here's a long read about the sandwich industry.
Just thinking of a few examples, it seems like "processing" is pretty vague and just one factor among many. Table grapes, raisins, grape juice, jam, and wine all come from grapes, and the processing varies. Some wines are expensive due to marketing and others are pretty cheap.
A good story is worth a lot. An example of that: our cherry tree gave us really amazing cherries this year. My wife gave her sister a gift of cherries from our tree, which is different from buying cherries at a store. Maybe a store would sell cherries that are just as good, but I wouldn't know because normally we don't eat cherries at all. The ones we have are really sweet though.
Packaging can make a difference: glass bottles and corks add expense to higher-end wines. The cheapest ones and juices use plastic, which is cheap.
Sometimes processing makes food cheaper. Juice from concentrate is easier to store and ship, because water is heavy.
I suspect that a lot of the food industry is driven by how much people like the taste. Nutritious food is all well and good, but if people dislike the taste, or even if it's just kind of meh, they'll buy something else. This is true even of foodies. Therefore the food industry has to pay a lot of attention to taste too.
Well yes, and typically in academics or in any kind of research people will take a bite size chunk out of big topics.
Sure, and preferences are a big subject in economics, with a lot of debate arising in the past couple decades particularly within behavioral economics. And a bedrock of marketing is that preferences can be manipulated.
I'm far from familiar with the economics of the food industry, but my assumption is that highly (or "ultra") processed food is cheaper to produce and distribute because it benefits from economies of scale and from the stability of input ingredients. And if demand remains high, this allows high profit margins which firms will defend through marketing and even lobbying to manipulate the regulatory environment (like the impact on school lunches or attempts to lobby against regulation of sugar-heavy foods). So I guess a simple question (just pondering, and not specifically a question for you) is: are profits higher in highly-processed foods vs the microbiome enhancing diet used in this research? And if so, what kind of resistance would be expected from the food industry? And then, what efforts should be made to counter that resistance?
I think there’s some tension between concern about high prices and concern that people eat unhealthy food. It seems like we should be relatively okay with unhealthy food being more expensive and be more concerned with healthy food being cheaper. Price signals only go so far, though. Meat is relatively expensive, but in the US in modern times, most people don’t usually cut back on meat to economize. Eating out tends to be more expensive and it took a pandemic for people to cut back significantly on that.
Also, I think before speculating about the cause of high profit margins, we should figure out where there are high profit margins. I can speculate a bit about common situations in the US, in broad terms.
Sometimes the food industry can be very competitive. Walmart and Costco have some pretty good deals and there are lots of discount grocery stores. Where I live you can often get better prices at Asian and Mexican groceries. Maybe their customers are more price-conscious?
I associate higher food prices with small convenience stores and restaurants in urban areas. These are often small businesses and it doesn’t seem like they’re all that profitable? Restaurants often fail. The higher prices are from rent and labor and sometimes delivery. People pay quite a bit more for convenience, compared to the cheapest places to shop for food. Someone needs to deliver the food and urban shoppers aren’t going to do all that much schlepping or store all that much at home to save money. When I visited my brother in Queens, it seemed like people there weren’t really set up for buying low-cost food easily, compared to people in suburban or rural areas. He has a car and could do an occasional large shopping run to a bigger store, but it’s not that practical on foot.
It seems like on average, Americans eat what they want and get food in the way they want and often don’t go all that far out of their way or switch to cheaper alternatives to economize on food? The food industry caters to that even when costs are higher that way.
I agree with that. How to get there is a challenge. Of course sugary drink taxes and tobacco taxes are two examples. But that is a type of regulation targeting fairly specific things, and could become almost farcical if applied too broadly.
Same here, at least for fresh seafood and produce. The Asian grocery stores here seem to have razor thin profit margins and work on very high volume of exceptionally short shelf life foods. My sense is that this is a cultural carryover from their customers' home countries (here, primarily China and Korea) where people shop in small quantities nearly every day.
You make a good point about the challenge of speculating about profit signals in trying to understand this. And I agree also about the role of convenience in consumption patterns. I'm interested to read more on this and related subjects. Very generally, I'm interested in the question of: "What are the factors leading people to make self-harming consumption decisions (like eating unhealthy vs healthy food) and what interventions successfully nudge away from such decisions?"
This is of course a question that wraps up a number of social sciences, but I've seen you talk many times from an economics perspective which is why I pinged you above. Maybe I'm unfairly pointing the finger at corporate (marketing, lobbying) influence on our culture, but I suspect that's a pretty important factor.
This is not really responding to you directly, but you got me thinking about something, so I’ll post it here:
Advertising and other ways of marketing do presumably work a lot of the time, which is why so much money is spent on them. I think sometimes people give them magical powers, though.
Convincing people to do something they were already inclined to do is often pretty easy. People have habits. Simply reminding people of their favorite food or their favorite restaurant may be enough to get them to buy it again today. Otherwise, maybe they would forget and do something else? And that’s why reminders are big business.
I doubt any amount of advertising is going to convince people to buy something they hate, though. They have to be at least a little curious and open-minded to try something new. Even kids are not always open to new things, particularly new foods. Sometimes they can be, but often they’re cautious or stubborn.
You could think about advertising as preying on people’s weaknesses. There’s some truth to that. Habits can be bad habits. Being curious and open minded can make you vulnerable when a more stubborn person wouldn’t be.
But they may not see it that way, because maybe they don’t see it as a bad habit at all, or maybe they know it’s not the healthiest thing in the world, but it’s what they want and it’s okay as an occasional indulgence. It’s a fun thing that they like to do sometimes. It’s just liking ice cream, or chocolate, or whatever.
Having this model of advertising seems more empowering because it means you can choose to do something else. You can decide not to go to McDonalds anymore and then all the McDonalds commercials in the world have no power over you, because it’s not something you do anymore.
This seems better than thinking of people as brainwashed sheep. They’re not sheep, they disagree with you, and changing people’s minds is actually pretty hard. If someone doesn’t like broccoli, they’re more likely to stick to their guns than to give in under pressure, and you’re just going to annoy them if you try too hard. (Particularly if they have memories of food getting forced on them as a kid.)
Sometimes you do know your weaknesses and want to avoid the triggers and that’s when blocking those kinds of ads is useful. But I think it’s like the old joke about how many psychiatrists it takes to change a light bulb: first, you have to want to change.
So the question is, how do you study that, at scale? Economics studies aren’t usually based on psychologically realistic models of people and their food preferences. It’s not that economists don’t know they’re simplifying. They know this very well, but they often need to simplify to do the research. A clever research design will simplify everything except the one thing that they’re studying.
Anyway, yeah, it would be interesting to be read more about studies like that.
Yep, this is exactly how I think of it. It is a big theme in several of Adam Curtis' films that deal with the legacy of Edward Bernays, which were some pretty interesting works although not social science. Studying it systematically would be a big undertaking, probably very multidisciplinary as well.
The other angle is how corporate lobbying against regulation or in favor of subsidies, etc. helps maintain existing industrial structures or to shape them in favor corporate profits over public benefit. But that's also another huge topic and veering far away from the posted article -- which I do thank you for posting!
It's part of it, but saying it just preys on people's weaknesses is sort of like saying that all notifications are bad, and that's too simple. Sometimes you get a good reminder of something you enjoy. You forgot about a movie, you see an ad reminding you that it's out, so you go see it, and you like it. What's wrong with that?
We do get a lot more notifications than we need, though. I deny most website and mobile notifications, unsubscribe from many kinds of email that websites try to send me, and so on.
This is basically a kind of ad blocking. Some ads don't look like ads, they just look like notifications.
This is fascinating, but the study was tiny, less than 10 people in each group. The fiber group lost more weight, and their body composition indicated more fat loss, but it was clinically insignificant. I still agree that increasing fiber is way healthier, but I don’t know that it would increase weight loss. Maybe it would be easier to keep the weight off though, who knows?
Yes, the study wasn’t designed like a clinical trial and shouldn’t be mistaken for one. It looks like it was designed to maximize effect size by using contrasting diets, so that they could measure it and show convincingly that something is happening, using techniques that aren’t practical to do outside the lab. For that purpose, they didn’t need a big trial and the people in it didn’t need to lose a lot of weight. Hopefully it will be replicated, but it seems like they will be successful in convincing other scientists that they measured something real? I guess we will see if the paper gets cited.
I thought it was interesting that there was so much variation between the people in the study. I hope there’s more research to figure out what causes that.
In the meantime, if it seems worth it, it’s often practical to try out a diet that seems safe enough and see how it works for you. Here’s a series of blog posts about better ways to do n=1 experiments.