Why aren’t Italians as obese as Americans? It’s not really what they eat. - "They eat cookies for breakfast. Lunch and dinner are typically multicourse meals, with a pasta or risotto as a first course and a meat dish as a second. There are sometimes antipasti as well. Even schoolkids often get multicourse meals. And the foods! Charcuterie! Cheese! Ravioli! Pizza! Focaccia! Gelato! On its face, it doesn’t seem like a recipe for avoiding weight gain. Yet, according to the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, the obesity rate among Italian adults was 17 percent in 2022. In the United States, it was 42 percent...
Italians eat more fish than Americans do, 64 pounds per person per year to Americans’ 49 pounds. They drink quite a bit less alcohol overall, according to data from the World Health Organization. To account for differences in the alcoholic content of beer, wine and spirits, the numbers are expressed as pure alcohol: 1.9 gallons worth per year for Italians vs. 2.6 gallons for Americans. But they drink more wine: enough to contain 1.1 gallons of pure alcohol for Italians, 0.4 gallons for us. According to the International Pasta Organization (and really, it should know), Italians eat more pasta (51.2 pounds per person per year) than anyone on Earth. At 19.4 pounds, Americans don’t hold a candle to them. Even though vegetables are a vaunted part of the Mediterranean diet, Italians don’t eat more vegetables than Americans do. Italians do, however, eat much less meat. Americans eat 67 percent more. Italians also eat slightly less added sugar, 71 pounds per person in 2021, compared to 74.3 pounds in the U.S. Relatedly, Italians drink less soda. It’s hard to find comparable data, but U.S. consumers buy an average of about 37 gallons of soda a year, about three times what Italians drink. They certainly don’t eat low-carb; Italians get a slightly higher percent of calories from carbohydrates than Americans do (48.5 percent vs. 46.4 percent).
To avoid American-style weight gain, though, Italians don’t have to eat differently; they just have to eat less. That’s the simple thermodynamic truth. And although eating different foods can certainly contribute to eating less, many other factors come into play. Two of them, in particular, are on vivid display in Italy. Two really important ones, which could easily account for the weight-gain gap: portion size and snacking... it’s not just about eating between meals. It’s about living in a food environment that doesn’t facilitate eating between meals. I spent time in both small towns and large cities in the northern half of Italy, and there wasn’t food everywhere. The only foods I saw people eating on the street were gelato (a lot!) and focaccia or pizza (not as much). There weren’t places to duck in and get a quick Frappuccino. There were no shops selling giant cinnamon buns, or pretzels, or soda. The pharmacies and hardware stores didn’t have a rack of candy and salty snacks at checkout. The places where there was food had very little that you could just pick up and eat. The outdoor markets (and most cities have one) had stall after stall stocked with vegetables, fruit, cheese, charcuterie, bread and meat (alongside clothing, housewares and leather goods). But there were no funnel cakes. There were no smoothies. There were no corn dogs. People browsed the markets without eating. Go figure. And now the question changes. Why have the people who created the American food environment — Big Food, but also many smaller producers and franchises — been so much less successful in Italy than other places? Italians eat less processed food than Americans do, but they also eat less of it than almost anyone in Europe... Historian Rachel Laudan, author of “Cuisine and Empire,” told me that it wasn’t until about the 1960s that what we think of as Italian food fed most Italians. Before that, meat, cheese and eggs — key ingredients of the Italian menu — were mostly unaffordable for the poor. However it happened, there’s no question that food, and a way of eating it, is central to many Italians’ sense of Italianness. And a cuisine that forms part of a national identity is something America, a nation of immigrants, doesn’t have. Although I’m a big fan of a patchwork food culture where I can enjoy food from around the world, food here is something we eat, not something we are, so we never had that bulwark against the incursion of cheap, junky food everywhere."
The truth about European food: Experts weigh in on whether it’s better than the U.S. - "“You can get food that’s just as good in the U.S., but on average, it’s easier to get good food [in Europe],” says Harry Klee, professor emeritus of the University of Florida Horticultural Sciences Department. When it comes to fresh produce, Europe’s agricultural practices are actually no different from those in the U.S., according to Klee. Fruits and vegetables are largely produced on a global scale, Klee says, rather than locally except for when certain foods are in season... Food scientist Abbey Thiel agrees that Europe doesn’t have superior food quality to the U.S. In fact, the U.S. was ranked third for food quality and safety in the 2022 Global Food Security Index, behind Canada and Denmark. Meat and poultry, however, is much better quality in Europe, Klee adds, because they have more varieties to choose from, and consumers are more aware of where the meat comes from because they are labeled with their origins. Both Klee and Thiel point out that Europeans’ grocery shopping habits are a lot different from Americans’. “[Europeans are] shopping regularly, almost every day, so things are by nature fresher,” Klee says. Thiel, who lived in the Netherlands, says that it was normal to shop nearly every day for fresh groceries—meanwhile in the U.S., it’s much more common to shop for groceries on a weekly, or sometimes monthly, basis. Because that’s what consumers want, she explains, bread that lasts weeks on end is more prevalent in the U.S., for example, over fresh European bread that will get moldy in a matter of days. Shopping more frequently leads to greater turnover in European stores, Klee explains, meaning that there will be fresher ingredients more readily available as food gets bought up... She went on to explain that while she was regularly eating baguettes, cheese, and butter, she attributed her weight loss to the smaller portion sizes in France, and the fact that meals included fruits and vegetables, or a small salad to start—which upped her fiber intake, helping to keep her fuller for longer and support overall health—and that desserts were often fruit, yogurt, and tea. Thiel says changes like these can be attributed to cultural differences. “I think there are some lifestyle aspects that have nothing to do with the quality and safety of the food”... Thiel notes that in Europe, more people walk and bike, keeping residents more active than the car-centric Americans. Home-cooked meals focused on socialization and family time are also central to European culture, while Americans on average eat out at least three times per month and order takeout or delivery four to five times per month. Seasonality can also impact how Americans experience food in Europe, he adds—as many American tourists visit Europe in the summer, when foods like peaches and tomatoes are at their peak, perception of the food quality will be based on eating foods when they taste the best. Europeans, Klee argues, are more informed about what’s in season and are more likely to buy in-season produce over Americans, who may be used to buying strawberries or tomatoes year-round. Klee also believes that Europeans are willing to pay higher prices for better quality food than Americans. Even though foods are available out of season across Europe, it’s not as common that Europeans will cook with those foods because they know the quality will suffer. Eating seasonally could have big health perks as well. The American Heart Association explains, that you are eating foods at their peak nutritional quality. Shifting your diet seasonally will also make you more likely to eat a greater diversity of foods—which is shown to boost gut health—as you eat a spectrum of fruits and vegetables throughout the year. Klee argues there’s no reason we can’t have tasty, quality food in the U.S.—we just have to know where to look... If you want to buy fruits and vegetables out of season, opt for frozen. Fruits and veggies are typically frozen when they are at their freshest, ripest stage, which helps to preserve the quality—the texture may suffer a bit, but they’re your best option"
What causes obesity? A major new study is upending common wisdom. - "For decades, common wisdom and public health messaging have assumed that people in highly developed nations, like the United States, are relatively sedentary and burn far fewer daily calories than people in less-industrialized countries, greatly increasing the risk for obesity. But the new study says no. Instead, it finds that Americans, Europeans and people living in other developed nations expend about the same number of total calories most days as hunter-gatherers, herders, subsistence farmers, foragers and anyone else living in less-industrialized nations. That unexpected finding almost certainly means inactivity is not the main cause of obesity in the U.S. and elsewhere, said Herman Pontzer, a professor of evolutionary anthropology and global health at Duke University in North Carolina and a senior author of the new study. What is, then? The study offers provocative hints about the role of diet and some of the specific foods we eat, as well as about the limits of exercise, and the best ways, in the long run, to avoid and treat obesity... Although the hunter-gatherers and other similar groups moved around far more throughout the day than a typical American, their overall daily calorie burns were nearly the same. The findings, though counterintuitive, align with a new theory about our metabolisms, first proposed by Pontzer. Known as the constrained total energy expenditure model, it says that our brains and bodies closely monitor our total energy expenditure, keeping it within a narrow range. If we start consistently burning extra calories by, for instance, stalking prey on foot for days or training for a marathon, our brains slow down or shut off some tangential biological operations, often related to growth, and our overall daily calorie burn stays within a consistent band. The upshot is that “there is no effect of economic development on size-adjusted physical activity expenditure,” Pontzer says. In which case, the fundamental problem isn’t that we’re moving too little, meaning more exercise is unlikely to reduce obesity much. What could, then? “Our analyses suggest that increased energy intake has been roughly 10 times more important than declining total energy expenditure in driving the modern obesity crisis,” the study authors write. In other words, we’re eating too much. We may also be eating the wrong kinds of foods, the study also suggests. In a sub-analysis of the diets of some of the groups from both highly and less-developed nations, the scientists found a strong correlation between the percentage of daily diets that consists of “ultra-processed foods” — which the study’s authors define as “industrial formulations of five or more ingredients” — and higher body-fat percentages... The findings don’t mean, though, that exercise is unimportant, Pontzer emphasized. “We know that exercise is essential for health. This study doesn’t change that,” he said."
Yet more evidence that exercise isn't that helpful for losing weight, but that makes a lot of people very upset
Fat jabs are changing the world. It’s time to embrace them - "At a recent business conference in London (Chatham House rules apply, so I have to keep it vague), an executive from a major American clothes retailer dropped this extraordinary statistic: the average item of women’s clothing sold by her company in the US has gone down by a size in the past year. Just one year! The nation that practically invented obesity, and then exported it around the world, is now shrinking so fast that clothing companies can’t keep up. Retailers which based their manufacturing orders on 2024 sizes stand to lose millions in unsold stock. I used to think the idea of solving the obesity crisis through drugs was borderline dystopian. It’s the modern food system that has made us fat, after all: the sheer abundance of cheap, sugary, mass-produced junk that has flooded the consumer landscape, and which our hungry caveman appetites are predisposed to crave. Shouldn’t we be trying to fix the broken system, rather than medicalising its victims? For decades, politicians and food companies have prevaricated, mumbling about personal responsibility and the importance of willpower, while a tidal wave of sickness rolled in. Diet-related disease now costs the UK around £98 billion a year – almost twice the current defence budget – in NHS treatments, lost productivity and welfare costs. Appetite-suppressing drugs seemed, at first, like an admission of defeat: we can’t work out how to improve the food system, so you’ll just have to inject your way out of it. But now it seems the drugs themselves might be about to fix the system, from the bottom up. Within the space of four years, a fifth of American adults have been prescribed GLP-1 medications. (In the UK, the figure is around one in ten, although we are catching up fast.) This is a long way off market saturation, given that three quarters of Americans are overweight, but enough to create significant changes in consumer behaviour. A study by Cornell University has found that in US households where one person is on GLP-1 drugs, spending on snacks fell by between 6.7 and 11.1 per cent. If that doesn’t sound like much, remember, this is the weekly shop for the entire household, not just the person on the jabs. Savoury snacks and sweet baked goods saw the biggest reductions, while spending on yoghurt, fresh meat and fruit and veg ticked upwards. In other words, the profits are on the move. Sales of snacks and ultra-processed foods will keep falling as the drugs become cheaper and more widely available. Within families, this may have unforeseen benefits. Children who grow up eating healthily are likely to maintain good habits into adulthood. It’s not impossible, as one economist suggested to me, that this first wave of GLP-1 prescriptions will transform the food landscape so dramatically that our children’s generation will no longer need drugs to survive it."
Potatoes get a bad rap. They don’t deserve it. - The Washington Post - "Alice H. Lichtenstein, professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, also finds reason to be skeptical about the potato’s bad reputation — in part, and a bit counterintuitively, because consumption has been tied to so many bad outcomes. “When it’s associated with everything, you have to suspect that there’s something else that is . . . accounting for it,” she says. “Rarely in the science of nutrition do we have any dietary factors that span all outcomes.” When you move on from population data to research in which people are fed potatoes in a lab, the picture changes a bit. The knock on potatoes is that the quick spike in blood sugar and subsequent insulin response leave people hungry, but when you feed people potatoes and then ask them how full they are a couple hours later, and track what they eat at the next meal, potatoes seem to be quite satiating... Generally, there is enough disagreement over whether the speed of insulin response correlates with satiety that we shouldn’t be so hard on the potato. A food is undoubtedly more than its contribution to blood sugar, and it’s not unreasonable to believe that potatoes have other qualities (fiber, water, resistant starch) that could contribute to satiety. Part of the potato’s problem is simply its classification. When you call it a vegetable, you ask it to fight above its weight class. Compare potatoes with green vegetables, and you get more calories and less nutrition. But compare potatoes with whole grains, and you find surprising similarities, and even a case that potatoes are more nutritious... potatoes produce about 15 million calories per acre to broccoli’s 2 million... if we’re trying to feed a planet, we have to look at how to maximize both the calories and the nutrients we can grow on the land we have, and potatoes do that very well."
Individual-Level Cognitive and Personality Predictors of Ideological Worldviews: The Psychological Profiles of Political, Nationalistic, Dogmatic, Religious, and Extreme Believers - "Why are some brains more easily gripped by ideological doctrines than others? An emerging research program on the psychological underpinnings of ideological thinking suggests that domain-general individual differences in perception, cognition, and personality can predict people’s ideological orientations. Traditionally, the relationship between ideological attitudes and psychological attributes was primarily assessed in the domains of cognitive ability, self-reported cognitive style, or the Big Five personality attributes. Yet a new wave of cognitive and computational research indicates that the tools of cognitive psychology and neuroscience can be harnessed to measure a wider range of individual differences, including cognitive and perceptual traits on flexibility, caution, inhibition, working memory, and sensory evidence accumulation. This review systematically synthesizes theory-driven and data-driven research on the psychological profiles of ideological worldviews including ideological extremism, dogmatism, political conservatism, nationalism, patriotism, religiosity, authoritarianism, system justification, and social dominance orientation. Summaries of the individual-level cognitive and personality predictors of over a dozen ideological orientations are outlined, and core psychological similarities and differences between these ideologies are compared and discussed. The review depicts subtle nuances between the psychological profiles of interrelated ideologies as well as common cognitive, affective, and personality signatures that underpin ideological thinking regardless of the mission of the ideology. The findings illustrate that individual differences in low-level psychophysical perceptual traits shape the dogmatism, extremity, and substance of individuals’ ideological beliefs. Addressing pertinent debates in the field, the results depict clear differences in the psychological profiles of dogmatic and conservative ideologies. Consequently, expanding the conceptual and methodological vocabulary with which cognitive dispositions are linked to ideological worldviews is a critical step in widening and deepening our theories on the origins and consequences of ideological thinking – as well as what makes some minds particularly susceptible to adopting particular ideologies."
"What's the psychological profile of someone who is ideologically dogmatic? It includes a lower ability to sort through evidence, higher impulsivity, low agreeableness, and a willingness to take ethical risks.“
Nigel Biggar: Dropping atomic bombs on Japan was a moral necessity - "When I last wrote on this topic — to mark the 70th anniversary in 2015 — I said this: “For what it’s worth, my own amateur impression is that … the intention in dropping the bombs was more ‘political’ (or terroristic) than military. If that is so, then they shouldn’t have been dropped.” Now, however, having read Evan Thomas’ detailed account of the decision-making processes in both Washington and Tokyo (Road to Surrender: Three Men and the Countdown to the End of World War II [London: Elliott & Thompson, 2023]), I’ve changed my mind. Vengeance had nothing to do with it. The overriding motive of the U.S. government was the desire to save the lives of war-weary Americans by bringing the war to a swift end, through forcing the Japanese government to surrender. Two weeks before the first bomb was dropped, President Truman wrote: “My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a humane feeling for the women and children of Japan”. The problem facing the president and his colleagues was that, even as the Japanese were forced back onto their home territory, they showed no sign of giving up the fight. They still had about five million troops in and out of uniform all over Asia. In Japan, all men aged 15-60 and women aged 17-40 had been enlisted in a National Volunteer Corps, armed with muskets, spears, and pitchforks. The Japanese were intent on bleeding the Americans dry as they invaded. In July U.S. casualties (dead and wounded) while invading the outlying island of Okinawa were 50,000 and rising. Truman’s military advisors estimated that the invasion of the Japanese mainland in November would cost up to 1 million casualties (dead and wounded). One alternative was to blockade Japan, but that would have entailed starving the civilian population. It would also have taken a long time and General Carl Spaatz, the U.S. Army Air Force commander, was keen not to prolong the firebombing of Japanese cities, which had killed at least 85,000 people in Tokyo, most of them civilian, in March. Therefore, the U.S. government decided on the only other alternative: to use the newly developed atomic bombs to intimidate the Japanese into surrender. The possibility of a “demonstration” drop onto some sparsely populated desert or island was considered, but it was rejected because, at the time, the Americans only had two bombs and had never dropped such things from the air before. If the demonstration failed to have the desired political effect and the follow-up went awry and proved a dud, there would be no bombs left. So, the decision was made to bomb cities. What considerations were involved in deciding which cities to bomb? Was the size of population one? No. The focus was on military and economic objectives. The historic city of Kyoto was ruled out by Henry Stimson, Truman’s secretary of war, since it was sacred to the Japanese and its destruction would have excited such bitterness as to impede postwar reconciliation. Hiroshima, on the other hand, was known as a “military city” by the Japanese themselves. It housed the army headquarters for forces defending Kyushu, the southernmost island of Japan, which was the first target of U.S. invasion. It also had several small shipyards, supply depots, and some industry on the periphery. Nagasaki was a port town with munitions factories. Tragically, precise targeting was not an option. Due partly to technological limitations and partly to persistent cloud-cover, U.S. attempts at the precision-bombing of factories and industrial targets in Japan had generally failed. Moreover, those sites were often widely dispersed in residential districts... But was it really necessary to drop a second bomb? Yes, it was. The atomic explosion in Hiroshima failed to persuade Japan’s government to surrender. So, three days later, on Aug. 9, another U.S. bombing mission took to the air. Its intended target was in fact Kokura, whose centre hosted an enormous arsenal. In the event, however, Kokura was obscured by cloud-cover, so the bomber proceeded to the secondary target of Nagasaki... Even after the bombing of Nagasaki, the Japanese war minister, General Korechika Anami, was still arguing in favour of fighting on to the bitter end. “We will find life out of death,” he said. “Wouldn’t it be beautiful?” Fortunately, his counsel didn’t prevail. Finally— eighty years ago today, on Aug. 15 — the Japanese government decided to surrender."
Clearly, the Japanese were so ready to surrender that there was a coup to stop it. But whatever they did, they will be criticised by people who just hate the US and/or the West. Of course, adopting double standards means that the West will never be able to win a war again, but that is a feature rather than a bug
Letting safety override freedom makes us all 'pre-criminals' - "In recent years, governments and institutions have embraced what’s been called safetyism: the belief that safety, especially from physical or emotional harm, should override all other values, including freedom, autonomy and open debate. When safety becomes the highest good, risk becomes intolerable, state control is normalized “for your own good,” and dissent is cast as dangerous. Consider the uproar over American Christian worship singer Sean Feucht’s performances in Canada. Several cities cancelled or denied his permits under the guise of “health and safety,” not just physical safety, but protecting people from ideas or language they might find upsetting. Or take Nova Scotia’s sweeping ban on all forest activity this summer without a permit, accompanied by $25,000 fines (plus tax and a victim’s surcharge)... Punishing people who violate burn bans is reasonable. Treating every nature lover as a potential criminal is Minority Report logic, incompatible with a free society. Some defenders of the forest lockdown have even argued that hikers could cause fires by dropping water bottles that might, in a remote theoretical scenario, focus sunlight like a magnifying glass. By that standard, we could justify banning almost anything: driving, swimming, or stepping outside. Such fears say more about an individual’s risk tolerance than actual danger. This “safety above all else” mindset has been used repeatedly to justify government overreach. It was cited in 2022 to invoke the Emergencies Act against the non-violent Freedom Convoy protests. It underpinned the Trudeau government’s decision to list all plastic manufactured items, from straws and bags to hard hats and medical equipment, as “toxic” under federal environmental law. It drives “bubble zone” laws that prioritize emotional comfort for some while stripping others of constitutionally protected free speech and assembly rights. History shows where such thinking can lead. The Canadian Constitution Foundation recently released a report documenting some of the worst abuses of rights in the name of safety. In 1942, the federal government forcibly removed 22,000 Japanese Canadians from their homes, seized their property and confined them in internment camps, all under the pretext of national security after Pearl Harbor, despite no evidence of espionage or sabotage by Japanese Canadians. Safety was also the rationale for keeping Canadians locked down for so long during COVID-19. It justified the mass arrests at Toronto’s 2010 G20 summit, where police detained over 1,100 people, mostly peaceful protesters, journalists, legal observers and bystanders. It was the stated reason for Pierre Trudeau’s invocation of the War Measures Act during the 1970 October Crisis, which suspended civil liberties nationwide. This led to restrictions on public assembly, hundreds of people arrested and held without charge, the suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, and detention without legal counsel. When governments define everything as dangerous, everything becomes subject to control. When we are all treated as pre-criminals, we become “too dangerous” to have rights. This is the same thinking that has enabled the worst abuses in our history. Safety matters, but when it eclipses freedom, it becomes a weapon. We should be wary of leaders who promise to keep us safe at any cost, because history shows that cost is our liberty."
Clearly, only fascists don't trust left wing governments
When trust falls in the forest, can anybody hear? - "For a long while now, public opinion data have documented declining levels of trust in government by citizens. That is part of a pattern of eroding trust in all institutions — commercial, cultural, ecclesial. What happens when governments lose trust in their own people? That seems to be the case in Nova Scotia, where sweeping measures aimed at preventing forest fires have essentially banned freedom of movement in the woods... Extreme measures to prioritize safety have been a political and cultural norm for decades. Pandemic restrictions were the most high-profile example, but for decades now, expectant and nursing mothers, universally and scrupulously, avoid even a few molecules of the demon booze, even for years at a time, lest the mere bouquet of a Bordeaux inflict rampaging fetal alcohol syndrome upon their babies. That’s not a law, but standard medical advice rooted in the premise that mothers cannot exercise good sense and moderation about such things. Don’t blame the doctors entirely either; the cultural enforcement of that norm is fiercely enforced. The priority of safety over liberty has enjoyed wide popular support for some time — mandatory seat belts, helmets for hockey and cycling, permission slips to pick up children’s friends from school and burdensome measures at the airport. There is little controversy about any of that. Maritime Canadians appear to enjoy the smack of firm government, delighting as they did with the most severe pandemic restrictions in the country. They were not wholly singular though; it is forgotten now how popular the pandemic restrictions were across the country, with only less enthusiasm in Alberta. That the Nova Scotia fire restrictions are overkill is really the point. In times of danger, severe measures are required for untrustworthy people. Hence, lockdowns in prisons where there is trouble in the air... the Nova Scotia government does not trust Nova Scotians to refrain from mischief when hiking, so therefore no hiking. It’s been more than thirty years since Francis Fukuyama published his eponymous book on trust, with a focus on economics. Trust was essential to lowering the transaction costs of trade, Fukuyama observed. The more steps required to verify the trustworthiness of a potential customer or supplier, the more expensive trade becomes, and the less economic activity results. High trust societies can have highly efficient wealth-creating markets. Low trust societies cannot... Fukuyama’s observations — not original to him — do not only apply between private actors. Trust is essential in government-citizen interactions. In countries where there is low trust in the honesty and competence of the state, tax avoidance is much greater. Government regulation is only effective if citizens are generally willing to abide by the rules. If they feel at liberty to flout them, or to bribe the enforcing officials, a tool of governance is lost."
The same people who screech about "fascism" don't care about banning people from walking in the woods
