IMHO, by characterizing foods as "comfort foods" we draw upon emotions rather than intellect. Many of the food products (or, as Pollan would put it, "food-like substances") we were given as children have been shown to be rather unhealthy. They have become "unhealthy" attachments and, in many cases, taste addictions. The topic came up in a list I belong to (fatfree vegan). My response got too long, hence this post.
Plastic white Wonder Bread, Cocoa Puffs, Campbell's Soups, Pizza, McDonald's Fries, Gummy Bears, and the list goes on and on. I remember when doctors would SMOKE in their offices (one in particular, advising me that my being a vegetarian was risky to my health). It's not a coincidence that food companies spend most of their advertising dollars targeting children ("hook 'em when the're young, you get them for life"). Then there's the "bond" to these unhealthy foods that comes from the fact that it's those we trust when we are young, (our parents and relatives) who give us that stuff.
It takes determination, will, and mental discipline, to remind ourselves that emotional attachments to unhealthy food are one of the reasons we have around 24 million diabetics in this country (6 million of those unaware of such), and lose near half a million (not counting those deaths from other cardiovascular-related problems) a year to heart attacks. Our public and governmental institutions have failed completely, for the most part, in helping people understand what is healthy and what isn't. Considering the amount of money spent on advertising bad food products it's not surprising how screwed up the conventional views of good nutrition are ("Over 10 billion dollars is spent on fast food advertising to children annually in numerous fashions.").
I see many vegetarians and vegans gleefully substitute high fat faux cheeses and meats, lots of sugar, excessive sodium, and/or added oil to recipes to duplicate "comfort foods." Large amounts of sugar and refined flour as "they deserve a treat" on Valentine's Day. "Deserve?" Hardly. They misleadingly believe that because they are vegan, they have removed the risk of having cardiovascular issues or diabetes. Far from it. It might be reduced some, but they can still get fat and saturated fat from non-animal sources that, from the body's risks standpoint, is essentially the same as from animal sources. Added oil fuels development of plaque that causes strokes (that's not a cholesterol issue) and inflames your blood vessels. One fatty meal decreases your blood vessels elasticity for several hours (that's a measured fact). Using more sugar in a meal than recommended per day by the American Heart Association is not a "treat." It's potential long-term suicide. Over time, it's probably gonna kill ya. A la McDougall, Esselstyn, Barnard, and Campbell: "Moderation kills."
This is why when celebrated vegan chefs like Tal repeatedly say, "Fat is Flavor," I believe he isn't really helping the human animals and is basically a nutritional moron. PCRM recently praised his cookbook, "Conscious Cooking" while dissing Julia Childs, mentioning heart disease, yadda, whereas in fact, some of his recipes are significantly higher in added fat then hers!
"Daiya Cheese," which so many vegans worship, has more fat per serving than WHOLE MILK mozzarella. It's essentially a nutritiously vapid food-like substance that's mostly oil. "But it melts!" proclaim the fat-addicted vegans. "It saves [non-human] animals!" yell the animal rights activists.
Big whoop. Remember that when they put the stents in. Which reminds me: how ironic that many articles about President Clinton's recent surgery mentioned that his last one (quadruple bypass) was successful. Successful? That means he didn't die from complications. If it were successful, he wouldn't need the stents. You see, modern medicine CANNOT cure heart disease, only extend one's life a bit. Yet, two people, independently, 20 years of peer-reviewed research, have REVERSED IT through a no-added fat diet (one was vegetarian, one was vegan). Both men recommend NO added oil, not even in moderation. Here's 15 documented and referenced reasons to avoid added oil to help elucidate the problems.
How can anyone intelligently argue against this? Added oil/fat, salt, and sugar is killing us in huge numbers. It's not just a meat or dairy issue. To argue against no added fat and limiting sugar and salt in your diet is like arguing against evolution, gravity, and the Earth revolving around the Sun. We're talking facts here people, not theory, conjecture, or educated guesses.
My "take no prisoners" approach stems from Dr. Esselsytn telling me in that interview I did with him three years ago this week. He didn't want to just reduce the numbers (a la Mediterranean Diet as he pointed out in someone else's interview), he wanted to crush it (different phraseology). By thinking of such fatty, salty, and or sugary foods as "comforting," it's too easy for many people to justify consumption of same, and continued addiction. Making a fatty vegan mac'n'cheese for your kids is not loving, it's potentially killing. Creating future fat addicts.
Re-training your taste buds to not crave excess salt, sugar, and fat, is doable (around 14 wks.), but, imho, like an alcoholic, it's usually an "all or nothing" situation for most of us. Fortunately, many of the so-called "comfort" foods can be duplicated, to varying degree, without the fat, sugar, salt, and unpronounceable chemicals. Perhaps, though, the best strategy, is to create new and healthier comfort foods. We can then break with the unhealthy past and establish new rituals based upon new knowledge.
For those interested, Jonathan Foer goes into the issue a lot in his book, "Eating Animals." His work surprised me in depth of thought and overall approach. The issue of family rituals and eating was one of the book's arcs that he was wrestling with in his eventual decision that eating factory farmed meat was wrong. There would be new family rituals regarding food, they would be healthy, and they would not involve meat. In effect, "healthy" comfort foods would be emphasized, and his child would have a better chance of living longer and healthier as a result.
Optimally, the healthiest comfort food is no-added oil, minimal sugar, minimal salt, and vegan. The evidence is in, and if one can eliminate the emotional attachments and taste addictions, one can drastically increase opportunities for a longer and healthier life.
For me, that's a comforting thought, and, the real treat.
Great post! I will have to write on this topic myself since I have thought about it a lot, particularly the family tradition issue. I always cringe when I look at the cooking magazine covers which regularly trumpet "comfort foods". They are always high fat terrors! However, as you mention (and McDougall does too, a lot) many "comfort foods" are starch based and easily made low fat. Which begs the question: is it the fat that is "comforting", or is it something else? If you have read Kessler's book The End of Overeating and/or Doug Lisle's The Pleasure Trap then the answer is at least partially that fat is comforting. But our experience suggests that "comfort" can and must be redefined.
[Thanks for the feedback, Lance. Agree with you on "remaking" comfort foods. Kessler's kind of a "Johnny Come Lately" on the topic (Barnard and others were well ahead of him), but I welcome any writing that helps bring the vital dietary issues into a new light.
I think there's a biological urge towards fat, salt, and sugar. But, it can get out of control with emotional attachment and more likely from corporate influence. It's clearly in their best interest (not unlike tobacco companies) to, well, fan that fire.
Again, thanks for your perspective... Best regards, Mark]
Posted by: Lance | 2010.02.16 at 23:07
Mark, keep ranting. I love your blog, and I will continue to read it. Low-fat veganism is really the only way to go; the evidence is indisputable. I agree with much of your rant, in particular the fact that many people share an emotional connection to these "comfort foods."
[Thanks for the feedback, Chaz... good to know you're out there and understand. Best regards, Mark]
Posted by: Chaz | 2010.02.16 at 22:38