The Gallup numbers comparing state by state obesity rates came out yesterday, and that made me curious about how we stack up vs other countries. Even the least obese states are only on par with the world’s worst, but the surprises for me are Canada and Italy. Canada because I’d figure their diet is pretty similar to the US, and Italy because 8.5% obesity in the land of pasta just seems nuts.
Thus my questions: what explains Canada’s lower numbers than even the lowest US state? I’ve spent time in Toronto on trips and didn’t notice anything particularly healthy about the food compared to here. Smaller portions, are people more active, the cold burns more calories, what?
Seems reasonable enough to me from what I’ve seen of USA food.
Masses of sugar, huge drinks, huge portions.
You may be overestimating the degree to which pasta may have an effect. I’ve eaten in Italy and in Italian restaurants in the states and there is no comparison regarding portion size.
Seriously, In the USA I have ordered a starter-sized portion of chicken Caesar salad that went on to serve as a full meal for both me and my wife. And we are not small eaters.
I will second Nov Bob - Canada was always a bit behind the USA in terms of portion sizes, container size of what’s for sale, etc. There’s stilll the complaint (about goods in general, not food) that stuff costs significantly more in Canada than USA for the same thing. Cup sizes at McD’s, IIRC, etc. have only recently - last 10 or 15 years - caught up to the USA sizes.
Until Free trade, around 1990, Canada had a heavily protected agricultural industry - but consumers, not the taxpayer, helped keep farm prices up on some products. (Law and Order had a recent episode about someone smuggling cheese into Canada from the USA).
However, we are experiencing the same issues as the USA by now.
I suspect in terms of portion size and cheap food, the europeans and the rest of the world are way behind North America.
Smaller portions FTW. To a Norwegian American portions are insane. And as for Italy, it’s solid evidence that “carbs are evil” is unmitigated bullshit.
I believe that in general, Canadian cities tend quite walkable, and have many public transportation options. (Here’s a comparative list for walkability.) And while there are many excellent walkable (and bus-able and subway-able) American cities, keep in mind that most of the Canadian population is concentrated in large cities, while the American population is more evenly distributed over areas where not having a car isn’t an option. I think our overall lower real estate prices give people more choices too. Most people I’ve met who live “out in the country” (say, an hour or more from the nearest city) do so not primarily as a cost-cutting measure, but because they enjoy active, outdoor activities.
I’d say this walkability plus public transportation leads to more walking overall, increasing exercise levels and maybe even changing eating habits. Aren’t Americans increasingly stopping at drive-throughs and eating fast food meals in their cars? It seems to me that’s a significant contributor to obesity. (Not that we’re innocent of that: I’m pretty sure the only reason drive-through poutine hasn’t taken off is that it’s hard to eat in a car without spilling gravy everywhere… )
Years ago, on a 2-week road trip vacation into British Columbia and Vancouver Island, upon returning to the states I was blown away by the drastic difference in portion sizes. It was remarkable.
So compared to those in the United States Canadians eat lots more fruits and vegetables, less packaged (more likely highly processed) foods, less red meat, a lot more fish and seafood, are more nutrition conscious, and significantly more physically active and fit.
Shocking that they have less obesity and diabetes.
As for Italy, it does sort of put a pause in the carbs are the devil mindset, don’t it. The Mediterranean Diet really is one effective nutrition plan. Not to worry though. Italians are cominground (heh) to eating the Standard Amercian Diet more and more and getting fatter too.
I believe portion size is the most readily observable difference (it is hard for the average person to see trends over time like consuption of fresh fruits and veggies).
If you are Canadian, you tend to notice how much larger average servings are south of the border - though increasiningly (perhaps inevitably) that is happening north of the border, too.
In fact, Canadian restaurant chains have started up capitalizing on the reputation US restaurants have of serving gigantic portions. I can think of two Canadian chains which have adopted “US names” specifically to appeal to Canadians and which are mostly famous for serving massive portions of food - Boston Pizza and Montana’s. Neither have anything to do with Boston or Montana originally (though the former has in fact expanded into the US!).
Montana’s in particular serves truly gargantuan portions - in true “US style” (at least, according to Canadians :D), an appetizer serves as an ordinary meal; only the most determined could possibly eat an appetizer, a main, and a dessert.
People focus on restaurant portion size as if that is the cause of Americans being fat, but I think it’s more likely that our portion sizes simply reflect American appetites. Restaurants aren’t dishing out big servings just for kicks, and most people aren’t living off restaurant food. Business are catering to an existing demand, not creating it.
So a better question (to me) is why are American appetites so much larger than other peoples? Does food comprise a more important part of American culture than in other cultures? Are Americans more likely to be emotional eaters than other people? Why exactly are Americans poor judges of how much food they actually need relative to others?
It is not actually so clear that we do. It is easy to document that we have the most energy available per capita in our food supply, roughly 250 more KCal per day than in Canada, but we also waste the most (what gets thrown into the garbage either never bought or tossed from the fridge, etc.).
Assume it so though … by far the leading hypothesis for why we eat so much is that we have successfully surrounded ourselves with outrageously palatable foods designed to trigger overconsumption. It is just much easier to eat more calories as highly sweetened, high refined carbohydrates, low fiber, high fat, high salt, highly processed and packaged to trigger more consumption (read sales) foods, than it is to overconsume boiled potatos, broiled salmon, plain yogurt, cheese, fresh fruit, steamed vegetables and other “real foods.” It is marketed to us because that is what our wiring demands we eat if it is there, already had enough calories or not; it sells so it is packaged even more appealingly. What is worse is that it then actually physically induces brain changes that make us want to eat it more.
Restaurant portions sizes are reflective of tastes, and they’re focused on because they’re objective. You could cite the large portions in US homes, but everyone would cite anecdotes about how they were raised on itty-bitty *haute cuisine *portions. Restaurant portions aren’t big because they’re generous, they’re big due to customer demand.
I’m guessing it might be a left-over (heh) from admonishments to clean your plate, grow big and strong, or just when work was more physical and we burned more calories. Some people never ramp down when their activity level drops, which is why you see so many chubby people saying “You work out, huh? I used to <blank>.”
Restaurant portions are large as an attractor - “you’re getting more for your dollar!” It costs a few cents to add 50% more fries, but it makes it look like the meal has more “value” because it’s bigger.
You see a similar sizing contest happening in the fast food world - a McBurger used to be a normal serving, and a quarter pounder was a whopper (so to speak). Now we have Angus and others vying for the 1/3pound title. Wendys has offered the triple-decker which I like to call the “cube o’ meat”, and McD a decade or so ago introuduced “double quarter-pounder” and “double big mac” (4x1/10lb patties).
Similarly the old 8-oz. coke used to be a standard serving, try finding that size outside of “retro” specials nowadays.
I agree with epbrown01 - people focus on restaurant portion sizes because they are readily observable. Particularly if you live somewhere where average portion sizes tend to be smaller. Many a Canadian has had the experience of making the mistake of ordering a “full meal” at a restaurant when visiting the US - that is, appetizer, main and dessert - only to discover it is, shall we say, rather more than was expected.
I agree with you that restaurant portion sizes are not “the” cause. It is still unclear to me what the cause is.
Just in case it’s not clear, it’s not a mystery to me why we look at portion sizes when we talk about obesity. Just want to point out that it’s not necessarily a cause, but rather an effect.
)