Or: What is the purpose of our taste buds?
The foods that work against our better health—candy, potato chips, soda, deep fried Twinkies—seem to have the greatest appeal to the taste buds.
Those that are good for us may not taste bad, but they don’t have anything that I would call enticing, either. Broccoli and peas, for example, don’t have much of a taste on their own. I can’t stand the taste of Brussels sprouts or spinach. I haven’t met too many potato chips that I don’t like, however.
Why does it seem that, for many of us, our taste buds give preference to the unhealthy snack over the healthy one.
The human body has evolved to prefer foods high in energy density for survival reasons. Foods with a high fat content typically have the most energy density.
There is a sensory preference for sweet-tasting foods that’s present at birth.
There are also cultural factors that come into play. In Western culture, Foods high in sugar and fat are preferred.
Before modern technology and economics made these plentifully available and cheap, they were relatively scarce and hard to come by. It makes sense from an adaptation standard to motivate us to look for them, because man does not live by celery alone. Since finding food back in the day took a lot of work, the reward from flavor was probably quite important in helping us to eat nutrient dense foods.
Of course, in a modern environment, you can exchange thirty of minutes of labor for 1500 calories of burgers, fries and soda. That’s not the environment that taste buds were adapted for.
To ask why these foods are bad for you is like asking why water is vital to health, yet we can also drown in water. The answer is all about quantity.
Who would eat unhealthy food that tastes bad?
Items that we are willing to call food need to fulfill some need. If it fills an important nutritional need, we are willing to give up some taste, if it tastes good, we are willing to eat something that is ultimately unhealthy. If it doesn’t occupy either category, it’s animal feed.
dracoi has already covered this, but think of it this way:
fat and sugar aren’t bad for you, only excessive intake of fat and sugar is
they used to be scarce, so desiring them was a successful adaptive trait
technology has allowed us to indulge in excess
“healthy” foods don’t inherently taste bad, but some people aren’t habituated to eating them in childhood, and are habituated to eating fat and sugar in excess, which makes the healthy foods taste bad to those people.
What dracoi said. Basically, back when our ancestors were hunting and gathering on the African plains, there wasn’t exactly a whole lot of risk of dying of chronic obesity and heart disease. Starvation and malnutrition were much more pressing concerns. Those individuals who sought out high calorie, high fat foods when they were available had an evolutionary advantage over those who would much rather have just had a salad than another helping of antelope fat.
It’s only been in the last century or two that the situation has changed, and these foods have started to become a problem. That’s not anywhere near enough time for evolutionary pressure to have brought about an adaptation. Perhaps in another hundred thousand years or so, our descendants will be buying radishes and celery from vending machines for quick snacks.
Grains and dairy are relatively high in opiates. Grains, in particular, are the single biggest reason for obesity in humans. Don’t believe it? Then why do you think cows/pigs/chickens are fed so much grain? To fatten them for slaughter.
Also, I disagree with the assumption. There are far, far, far more things that taste bad and are bad for us than things that taste good and are bad for us.
It’s just that you really don’t think very much about eating that week-old roadkill, or chowing down on a big bowl of sawdust, or having some soup de sewage, because THEY TASTE (SMELL) BAD!!
I’m sorry, that answer was incorrect. However, we have some lovely parting gifts, like obesity and other chronic health problems. Thanks for playing “do grains make you fat?”
“Binds to opiate receptors” != “opiate”. Also, I’d like to see the study that shows that the amount of gliadin people consume stimulates appetite to the tune of 440 kcal, as suggested in your link. Huebner et al. did show the opiate receptor binding way back in 1984, but to my knowledge, no data on increased appetite.
Sounds like BS to me; gliadin is not a new protein due to “genetic modification in the 1950s and 1960s”. It naturally occurs in wheat, barley and rye and other older cereal grains like kamut and spelt.
I have a hard time taking anybody seriously, MD or not, if they can’t even be bothered to do their due research diligence, or worse, make shit up to push their woo.
Crop selection, or good old-fashioned genetic modification, has been going on for centuries. It wasn’t something invented in the 1950s and 1960s. For example, maize is a pretty tough to eat version of corn. The sweet variety was a natural variant that showed up in the fields around 1770s and was selected for by the farmers. Overtime, the less sweet, more yellow corn was selected against and the sweeter, whiter corn was preferred for human consumption.
Normal crop manipulation that enhanced the existing sugar levels from low to higher.