Food

Come election season, politicians don't just have to kiss babies -- they have to eat junk food too.  It's about more than just being polite -- anywhere on the planet, it's an insult to turn down food, so you can't turn anything down without being labeled a jerk.  It's also about identity -- what you eat is an indication of what tribe you belong to.  And so come election season, every damn politician starts eating whatever "ordinary folks" eat.

Pick your party, pick your candidate, it doesn't matter.

"[Candidate X] has tried the new $4.39 Carl’s Jr. jalapeño chicken sandwich (“delicious”), celebrated the Reagan Library debate with fast-food burgers and fries (again, Carl’s Jr.), and dug into a Subway flatbread sandwich while sitting in an airport terminal (“better than the usual campaign diet of morning donuts”)."

That happens to be Mitt Romney, but it could just as easily have been any number of political figures in recent memory.  Remember when Barack Obama tried to connect with people by complaining about the price of arugula?  Or when John Kerry's hotel requests were leaked, and it specified "No Evian", because he was fighting a French image?

Here's the thing.  To the extent that Republican and Democratic candidates went to Ivy League schools and were brought up in the same culture of privilege, then they probably eat more similarly to each other than to a blue collar person of either party.

Let's look at our three most recent Presidents: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton came from a blue collar background (Arkansas), and only later rose up through the elite establishment (Rhodes Scholar).  His love of fast food was legendary -- he didn't have to pretend to "eat like the common man".  And yes, Clinton was always known for being able to connect, and a large part of that was his blue collar roots.  (Of course, now he's vegan.  Remember, veganism has a lot of identity value now that Clinton's world is the edgy and hip liberal, international scene.)

George W. Bush is kind of the reverse of Clinton.  He started from a privileged background, but he had a blue collar temperament.  He was always good at connecting with a lot of folks, being a guy who people wanted to have a beer with.  And yes, he ate in a mainstream way too.  This is from a site on what foods various Presidents liked: 

"There was a handful of things that the President wanted for lunch, and he almost never deviated from that list. There was a BLT...He liked his grilled cheese sandwiches made with Kraft Singles and white bread."

Many people who didn't like Bush would criticize him for "faking it" -- putting on a Texan affect and pretending that he didn't come from a well-off background.  That may be so, what do I know -- but on the other hand, you can't fake eating Kraft Singles and white bread for lunch all the time, far away from the media's flashbulbs.

Barack Obama

Remember during the Presidential Beer Summit, when the President drank a Bud Light?  And honestly, it didn't quite seem like a beer he would actually choose?  That's because President Obama isn't blue collar.   

"For sweets, the Obamas eat Fran's Chocolates, an artisan chocolate brand from Seattle. The president-elect prefers Fran's Smoked Sea Salt Caramel in Milk Chocolate ($24 for a 16-piece box); wife Michelle prefers dark chocolate, says Sean Seedlock, Fran's marketing chief. *Drinks. Obama is a fan of Black Forest Berry Honest Tea. "

Does Fran's Smoked Sea Salt Caramel in Milk Chocolate sound blue collar to you?  That may be one of the reasons why the President continues to have difficulty connecting with a lot of folks.

Now, here's the million dollar question: what does an authentic blue collar candidate eat?  Moose stew.

Food and identity, people -- food and identity.  Food preferences become fairly ingrained after young adulthood, and those relatively-fixed preferences become good signals for what group you're from.

Personality plays a mediating role, but that's for another post.

 "David Wasserman, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, recently calculated that 89 percent of the Whole Foods stores in the United States were in counties carried by Barack Obama in 2008, while 62 percent of Cracker Barrel restaurants were in counties carried by John McCain." 

The full article is here, mostly about how more people have been choosing to live near others with the same views they do.

Chipotle is one of the best fast food chains for eating wild.  They have higher quality meat and ingredients, and it's fully customizable.  There aren't a lot of menu options, so here's how to do it.

And there you have it.  You'll be able to fill up for under $10, you won't fall asleep afterwards, and you won't have to cheat on that late night run to go grab some chow with your buddies.

I received my first ever CSA box yesterday.  I bought a meat and egg share from High Point Farms.  Every two weeks through the summer they deliver two dozen eggs and 3 cuts of meat.  There's a cheese share too.

My first box had the eggs, a couple pounds of grass-fed ground beef, pastured pork bacon, and italian sausage made from the grass fed beef.  Yumm.  We ate the sausage last night -- pretty delicious.  Pictures below.

The farm is located in upstate New York, about four hours away.  I believe they still have a couple shares available, which they pro-rate if you're interested.  They drop-off at Jimmy's 43 in the East Village every other Monday.

I'm on a bus on my way up to Cambridge, Massachusetts for my 5th year college reunion.  So what better time than now to bore you with reflections on my past five years and with my answer to the age-old question: "If you could do it all over again, what would you do differently?"

If I could change one thing about my college experience, I would have been healthier.  Number one.  Better food, less drinking, more sleep, more sun, more exercise.  Did I mention less drinking?

I'm sure my four years were a lot like others' when it came to food.  French fries, pizza, and Dr. Pepper were the foundation of my food pyramid.  The cafeteria did have a few healthy options, and I would often make a little side salad.  But most people have this wierd notion that eating healthy is additive -- that if you add a few healthy items to your meal, like vegetables, you're eating healthy.  For most of us though, the first step to eating healthy is subtractive -- avoiding a lot of the worst foods out there.  And four years of all-you-can-eat is a bit more conducive to the additive approach to nutrition than the subtractive one.

I drank a lot too.  I mean, not particularly more than any other extroverted guys at school (okay, maybe a little more), and Harvard isn't exactly known for prowess in drinking (though saying that might be a calculated decision to get you to underestimate us in a drinking competition, a dangerous mistake). But I remember losing ENTIRE DAYS to hangovers.  Big night out, to bed in the wee hours, and not being able to crawl out of bed (except to the bathroom) until dinner the next day.  And this was normal.

For me, being healthier wouldn't have been about weight.  I didn't gain much weight, if any, during college.  First and foremost, it would have been about mood and outlook.  My mood and energy was up and down, up and down.  My senior year, one of my good friends once called me "The happiest sad guy he knew."  What the hell type of commentary is that?  My mental state has improved to where I have difficulty remembering the types of negative thoughts that can enter a college student's head.  More on that later.

The second area would have been complexion -- my complexion is drastically improved and I rarely, if ever, get pimples or zits anymore.  This is a big deal.

And third, I would have been able to get more done.  See: "Hangovers, 12-hour".

Anyhow, it will be interesting to see how people turned out.  There's always a few that put on 25 pounds and look like they're 40 years old.  Who are the unlucky ones?

(Also, something to look forward to -- I'm dropping by Dan Lieberman's lab, where they've done all the cool work on barefoot running.  The bad news is that they're busy doing experiments and so can't do any gait analysis.  The good news is that they're running experiments on RAW MEAT!)

1. Tanning is associated with optimal Vitamin D status and higher bone mineral density.  (NOTE: But as one commenter pointed out, most tanning salons try to sell you UVA, when this paper is talking about UVB.  Don't rush to the solarium.)  And this:

2. Melissa McEwen's poetic description of learning to hunt, dress, butcher, and eat deer

"We carved the body cavity through and through, leaving bare ribs skinless so the light could shine through. The digestive system we left for the vultures, as it belongs to them. I read recently about one of the earliest religious sites, Göbekli Tepe, a marvel considering that hunter-gatherers had no cities, but they bothered to build this temple carved with vultures, lions, and other predators of humans dead...and alive. Some theorize that the hunter-gatherers left their dead here to be eaten by these fierce flesh eating creatures. The word for this is "excarnate," which is very beautiful to me, the idea of sharing your body with other carnivores. I think of then as a time when none owned another, except in death when it was an honor to be consumed and melded with others."

3. Tyler Cowen responds to fears that food markets will be turbulent in years ahead

4. Reasons for optimism: perch in downtown Milwaukee and tilapia in Colorado

5. I'll be in DC this weekend, and I'm looking forward to the well-regarded Mitsitam Cafe at the National Museum of the American Indian. 

"Mitsitam (pronounced Mit-see-tum) means “let's eat” in the Piscataway and Delaware language. The 350-seat restaurant is essentially an extension of the museum, specializing in authentic Native American cuisine. The seasonal menu changes on each equinox and solstice and is divided among five Native American regions: Northern Woodlands, Northwest Coast, Great Plains, Meso America and South America."

First Lady Michelle Obama has taken on childhood obesity as her signature issue, and today her task force released its report and recommendations.  I have not had time to read it thoroughly, but from a quick scan, many of the recommendations seem pretty sensible: increase breastfeeding rates, encourage women who breastfeed to do so for a longer period of time (A+), improve the quality of school lunches, and get kids away from the TV set.

But I was struck by statistics on the relationship between obesity, race, income.  Most people probably think that obesity is a problem of poverty and socioeconomic status.  The reasoning goes that the cheapest foods are the least healthy foods, and so people on a budget are eating the worst quality foods.  And the higher your education, the more you know about what's healthy.  This is all true, to an extent.  But the report, to its credit, casts doubts that socioeconomic status is the primary driver of disparities in health outcomes.

In reviewing disparities in obesity rates, the report mentions race first:

"Childhood obesity is more common among certain racial and ethnic groups than others. Obesity rates are highest among non-Hispanic black girls and Hispanic boys. Obesity is particularly common among American Indian/Native Alaskan children. A study of four year-olds found that obesity was more than two times more common among American Indian/Native Alaskan children (31%) than among white (16%) or Asian (13%) children. This rate was higher than any other racial or ethnic group studied."

For anyone paying the slightest attention to obesity and diabetes, this should come as no surprise.  Obesity and diabetes is most prevalent among races, like American Indians, that have had fewer generations to adapt to the agricultural revolution and modern foods.  Yet it's amazing how this plain as day finding doesn't cause more people to take a longer historical perspective when evaluating the health benefits of grains or dairy, or whether eating meat and natural fats might actually be good for you.

The report continues on socioeconomic status (my emphasis):

"Among adults, obesity rates are sometimes associated with lower incomes, particularly among women.

...

The relationship between income and obesity in children is less consistent than among adult women, and sometimes even points in the opposite direction. Another study from the early 2000s found that only among white girls were higher incomes associated with lower BMI. Among African-American girls, the prevalence of obesity actually increased with higher socioeconomic status, suggesting that efforts to reduce ethnic disparities in obesity must target factors other than income and education, such as environmental, social, and cultural factors."

See page 62 for further discussion of  "Is Poor Diet a Low Income Problem?"  The answer?

"...the similarities are more striking than the differences..."

Income and poverty matter -- see the section on food deserts, for example -- but it's not the whole story.  Two key points:

1. Obesity is a national issue that is effecting everyone, rich and poor alike.

2. If we want to understand the underlying cause of obesity and diabetes (and heart disease and hypertension and, and, and), look where the genetic disparities point.

In general, foods that are new to the human diet are killing us.  In general, foods that have been apart of the human diet for the longest time make us healthy and vital.