Paul Rozin Ph.D., looks at the psychologyof eating, culture and
health
The French have their cake and eat it, but don't show it their
bodies. Americans supposedly deny themselves the cake -- but show it on
their bodies nonetheless. This is the French paradox, the apparent
conflict between low cardiovascular disease in France and what we take to
be the rather unhealthful French diet.
The American dilemma actually has two parts: First, Americans think
the French situation is a paradox. Second, Americans are more concerned
about health and heart disease than the French (and try to do more about
them), and yet our rate of heart disease is about 30% higher.
On the face of it, this seems like a violation of Newton's second
law of mechanics (which deals with the conservation of energy)-something
that has more certainty and status than any claim ever made by a
psychologist.
But the French paradox isn't really a paradox at all.
In many ways, the French do eat more healthful diets than
Americans. Most critically, they eat fewer calories and a more varied
overall diet. Yes, they eat more grams of fat by and large, but the major
effect of fat is its contribution to excess calories.
Americans are the ones who have the problem with excess calories.
And even if the French ate an unhealthful diet, there would still be no
paradox. After all, the Dutch and Swedes eat what we would call an
unhealthful diet, and they live longer than Americans. The reason is
simple: Although there are relationships between diet and health, there
are many other determinants of health.
Partly persuaded by a sizable segment of the American medical
establishment, Americans believe that diet is the principal cause of
disease. But the biggest predictor of mortality is simply age. Diet
indeed contributes to health -- but so do genetics, lifestyle, quality of
medical care, quality of environment, stress, and many other
factors.
Compare our attitudes toward medicine, for example. The standard
American prescription for illness is antibiotics, diets and the like. For
the French, illness is seen primarily as an internal imbalance, and is
likely to be treated with relaxation, vacations and spa visits.
When it comes to diet, the fact is that we know very little about
why people eat as much as they do, or what makes them choose one food
over another. This is partly because psychology, as a field, has had very
little interest in food choice. We have focused instead on the amount of
food eaten -- in an attempt to understand that very visible condition,
obesity, which causes grief and compromises health. I think that as a
field, psychology has erred in both ignoring food choice, and in studying
food intake in nonoptimal ways.
Generally, researchers in this field (and I have been one of them,
to a modest extent) illustrate a very understandable predisposition in
scientists. We like clarity, simplicity and control. It is like the story
of the man who is looking for something at night under a street light.
Someone asks him what he is doing, and he says he is looking for his
keys. He is asked where he thinks he lost them, and he points, across the
street, to a much darker area. When asked why he doesn't look there, he
says because the light is here.
We have looked for the secrets of how meals begin and end, where we
have good control and techniques: we look at the physiological events
that precede and follow the meal. But I hold, as do a number of other
major investigators in this field, particularly Peter Herman, Ph.D., at
the University of Toronto, that the major determinants of how much we eat
during a meal are not physiological. And, by the way, they are not that
hard to study.
Perhaps the biggest determinant of how much we eat in a meal is how
much we are served. If food is reasonably palatable, we tend to eat what
is put in front of us. And here is part of the resolution of the French
paradox: French portion sizes are notably smaller than American portions.
This is particularly striking when comparing the size of ice cream
cones -- the French serve small golf ball-sized spheres while Americans get
tennis ball-sized mounds. The standard size individual portion of yogurt
in France is 125 grams; the standard size in America: 225 grams. Yes, the
French yogurt has somewhat more fat, but it has many fewer
calories.
Another major determinant of how much we eat during a meal is how
much we like the food. This is so obvious that it needs no
documentation.
But another main determinant is less obvious. It has to do with
culture and situation. We eat at certain times and in certain contexts,
and typically eat a culturally prescribed meal. For Americans, lunch is
most likely a sandwich, a beverage, perhaps some chips and a dessert. We
eat it in the early afternoon, and we stop when we finish the dessert. Do
we stop primarily because we are not hungry? That's doubtful, since we
probably lost our hunger before we started the dessert. We're just
accustomed to ending meals with dessert. The French snack much less than
Americans, and do almost all of their eating at extended lunches and
dinners. When we are served an appropriate meal at an appropriate time,
we eat it.
Tags:
american dilemma,
apparent conflict,
cardiovascular disease in france,
care quality,
conservation of energy,
culture,
culture and health,
determinants of health,
diet,
eating,
eating culture,
excess calories,
fewer calories,
french diet,
french paradox,
healthful diets,
medical establishment,
paul rozin,
physical health,
principal cause,
sizable segment,
swedes,
weight
