First Bite: How We Learn to Eat
First Bite: How We Learn to Eat
Bee Wilson
Fortnum & Mason Food Book of the Year 2016We are not born knowing what to eat. We all have to learn it as children sitting expectantly at a table. For our diets to change, we need to relearn the food experiences that first shaped us.Everyone starts drinking milk. After that it’s all up for grabs.We are not born knowing what to eat; we each have to figure it out for ourselves. From childhood onwards, we learn how big a portion is and how sweet is too sweet. We learn to love broccoli – or not. But how does this happen? What are the origins of taste? And once we acquire our food habits, can we ever change them for the better?In First Bite, award-winning food writer Bee Wilson draws on the latest research from food psychologists, neuroscientists and nutritionists to reveal how our food habits are shaped by a whole host of factors: family and culture, memory and gender, hunger and love. She looks at the effects siblings can have on eating choices and the social pressures to eat according to sex. Bee introduces us to people who can only eat food of a certain colour; toddlers who will eat nothing but hot dogs; doctors who have found radical new ways to help children eat vegetables. First Bite also looks at how people eat in different parts of the world: we see how grandparents in China overfeed their grandchildren, and how Japan came to adopt such a healthy diet (it wasn’t always so).The way we learn to eat holds the key to why food has gone so disastrously wrong for so many people. But Bee Wilson also shows that both adults and children have immense potential for learning new, healthy eating habits. An exploration of the extraordinary and surprising origins of our taste and eating habits, First Bite explains how we can change our palates to lead healthier, happier lives.
Copyright (#ulink_09bbfaa5-ac8f-54f4-996e-6bc428ade197)
4th Estate
An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers
1 London Bridge Street
London SE1 9GF
www.4thestate.co.uk (http://www.4thestate.co.uk)
First published in Great Britain in 2015 by 4th Estate
This 4th Estate paperback edition 2016
Copyright © Bee Wilson 2015
Cover image © Mat Taylor
The right of Bee Wilson to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
‘An Evening in Terezin’ from I Never Saw Another Butterfly: Children’s Drawings and Poems from Terezin Concentration Camp 1942–1944 by Hana Volavkova, copyright © 1978, 1993 by Artia, Prague. Compilation © 1993 by Schocken Books. Used by permission of Schocken Books, an imprint of the Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. All rights reserved.
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, down-loaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of HarperCollins.
Source ISBN: 9780007549726
Ebook Edition © December 2015 ISBN: 9780007549719
Version: 2016-11-10
Dedication (#ulink_0ccfddc2-b863-5a47-82c8-35ce06f470e8)
For Emily
Contents
Cover (#ud5058ac7-ffd0-5179-9e8c-08d86ae246a6)
Title Page (#u9433b618-abec-52a6-8d45-275635d38d5b)
Copyright (#u34bc3ce8-d3bc-5ad3-863e-c0cefb66d9e1)
Dedication (#u993e5728-d6d6-56d3-9cb7-bfa594fc3a54)
Preface (#u60c58b8e-1f49-5621-b43a-783261dc6c0d)
Introduction (#u23bcda49-9221-52cb-a5bc-cfa9b50ae250)
CHAPTER 1: Likes and Dislikes (#u5c90b3b2-4026-559b-b9a9-e7a6fde18edc)
BEETROOT (#ucea0fcc1-734f-5710-9331-fb5522b44729)
CHAPTER 2: Memory (#ucdfb8179-e067-51fd-8a5a-189cd8e505de)
MILK (#u3f7b992c-92ed-5548-bc46-f71d1a4f9edd)
CHAPTER 3: Children’s Food (#udc325cde-5643-5f62-b652-6c59ec903537)
BIRTHDAY CAKE (#uc58280f3-cd13-5a7c-a56e-64f3cafb1d62)
CHAPTER 4: Feeding (#u9359e106-a310-5e1f-8c04-7a77496cf38d)
LUNCHBOX (#u80bd3d59-bb2a-59d3-b903-9bd2d163f10e)
CHAPTER 5: Brothers and Sisters (#u91d8aff9-b54b-58a4-ba96-9c3f8807a299)
CHOCOLATE (#ua05fb6d9-bf95-53c0-b76e-6203121bddfc)
CHAPTER 6: Hunger (#ufa7d6364-14b1-58f3-8042-83eabbffc007)
BREAKFAST CEREAL (#udbc6f2e3-b4be-5f55-acc1-785586d4bda0)
CHAPTER 7: Disorder (#u18dcfac1-5388-5006-bbbb-0bd51b637ecc)
CRISPS (#u27e68d15-94e1-58ee-8028-8c3210fb65df)
CHAPTER 8: Change (#ud253f46a-582e-5b49-8c58-14f3461bca9a)
CHILLI (#u3a6ef406-9ec9-56b7-92a1-113f4ef912ab)
EPILOGUE: This is Not Advice (#u36c59f30-d4c1-5ebd-a923-8d809983d704)
Footnotes (#u8728975a-d501-57d1-a3d5-3d6a9a09bb3a)
Notes (#ud2620d74-bbc5-5a00-ab45-f68179a61a05)
Further Reading (#ua7c23cda-2a06-5b43-80f4-b7fc2991272b)
Bibliography (#u23d7a351-294c-526c-8cd9-747da447cb2a)
Index (#u09e2bd64-a5d2-5956-8132-56f7e3aad2c4)
Acknowledgements (#ud16d9221-9077-5b69-8602-092db5273cb3)
By the Same Author (#u52d92ae1-8f81-551a-b7ab-590c2128eafd)
About the Publisher (#u0a1156fc-eb5e-581a-82aa-9a26f18fd16a)
Preface (#ulink_52820e84-6e30-5f6e-9ed6-0b47fb11f4eb)
Some find the whole matter of eating easy, while others find it hard. I used to be on the wrong side of this great divide and somehow, to my own surprise and relief, leaped over to the other side. This book is my attempt to explore how this switch was possible.
You don’t have to look far in our world to encounter people – of all sizes – who relate to food in chaotic ways. The chaos can take many forms: compulsive overeating, undereating, or extreme pickiness. Some people become so obsessed with the purity of what enters their mouths that they cannot accept invitations to eat with friends. It is a lonely occupation, being someone who wrestles to control their responses to food, given that modern life is steeped with things to eat, both real and imaginary. Snacks assail us at the checkout; dream feasts tease us from hoardings, newspapers and TV cooking shows.
Without ever quite having a full-blown eating disorder – though I came close – I managed to make myself pretty miserable about eating for the best part of a decade, from the middle school years to young adulthood. I probably appeared fine: a bit overweight, nothing more. But food was my main relationship, and – although it had some of the thrills of romance, especially when I was in the kitchen with a hunk of sweet brioche dough – it wasn’t a stable or sustaining kind of love. We talk in a sickly way of ‘indulgent’ foods, but when you are trapped in compulsive habits of dependency on them, it does not feel like being pampered. There were days when I gave myself up to consuming guilty treats. Other days were for not eating, which was even worse, taunting myself with the foods that I wouldn’t permit myself.
Thankfully, that phase of life now seems distant. Eating well – by which I don’t mean ‘clean eating’ or raw juice fasts but regular meals of real, flavoursome food – just isn’t that complicated for me any more. Now that I am through on the other side, I can see that over a period of months, if not years, I learned to master a series of skills that I’d once deemed insurmountable. I learned that it was OK to eat a hearty meal when I was hungry; but also OK to stop when I was full. My cravings for pastries lessened and my cravings for vegetables increased. There are still plenty of things I worry and obsess about, believe me, but my own eating is seldom one of them. Dinner is just dinner: nothing more nor less than the high point of the day.
In our house, as in many others, the battleground over food has shifted to the children. As a parent trying to get my three children to eat healthily – but not obsessively so – I have sometimes felt as lost as I once did about my own eating. After the milk stage (and that was hard enough) none of the skills of feeding came naturally. How do you promote vegetables to an ironic teenager in a way that isn’t counterproductive? What do you do when your daughter comes home and says her friends have started skipping lunch? How do you keep a sense of proportion about fat and sugar without giving in completely to the ultra-processed food that is now ubiquitous?
In those busy moments after school and before bed, I cook a quick meal that I hope will please everyone. I may find that one child grumbles about the grilled aubergines, another says they are the best bit and the third sits quietly weeping because, while he actually likes aubergines, they are touching a piece of chicken and are therefore inedible. Did I say the high point of the day? And yet, comparatively speaking, my children are not problem eaters.
All parents have moments of thinking that it just isn’t possible to teach a child to eat well; or at least not your child. Many grown-ups are more pessimistic still about their own ability to change how they behave around food. But writing this book has taught me that there is immense potential for improving our eating habits. It may take longer for some people to get there than others, but learning how to eat better – which is quite different from going on a diet – is within anyone’s grasp. Perhaps the most eloquent argument for learning new ways to eat is that of pleasure. Eating is – or should be – a daily source of delight rather than something to fight against. It’s good here, on the other side of the divide. I do hope you’ll join me.
Introduction (#ulink_8b683705-479f-579c-b7aa-a7435d818b8c)
‘One of the reasons I like bread and jam,’ said Frances, ‘is that it does not slide off your spoon in a funny way.’
RUSSELL HOBAN, Bread and Jam for Frances
So many of our anxieties around diet take the form of a search for the perfect food, the one that will cure all our ills. Eat this! Don’t eat that! We obsess about the properties of various ingredients: the protein, the omega oils, the vitamins. But this is getting ahead of ourselves. Nutrients only count when a person picks up food and eats it. How we eat – how we approach food – is what really matters. If we are going to change our diets, we first have to relearn the art of eating, which is a question of psychology as much as nutrition. We have to find a way to want to eat what’s good for us.
Our tastes follow us around like a comforting shadow. They seem to tell us who we are. Maybe this is why we act as if our core attitudes to eating are set in stone. We make frequent attempts – more or less half-hearted – to change what we eat, but almost no effort to change how we feel about food: how well we deal with hunger, how strongly attached we are to sugar, our emotions on being served a small portion. We try to eat more vegetables, but we do not try to make ourselves enjoy vegetables more, maybe because there’s a near-universal conviction that it is not possible to learn new tastes and shed old ones. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
All the foods that you regularly eat are ones that you learned to eat. Everyone starts life drinking milk. After that, it’s all up for grabs.
Bone marrow from wild game is considered the best first baby food among the hunting tribes of Tanzania.
If you were born in the Far Eastern republic of Laos, it could be gelatinous rice, pre-chewed by your mother and transferred from her mouth to yours (this is sometimes called kiss-feeding).
For Western babies, that first bite of solid food may be powdered cereal from a packet or purée from a jar; it could be organic pumpkin, steamed and strained and served with a hypoallergenic spoon; or a random nibble from a parent’s plate. Aside from milk, there is simply no such thing as a universal food. Not even for babies.
From our first year of life, human tastes are astonishingly diverse. As omnivores, we have no inbuilt knowledge of which foods are good and safe. Each of us has to use our senses to figure out for ourselves what is edible, depending on what’s available. In many ways, this is a delightful opportunity. It’s the reason there are such fabulously varied ways of cooking in the world.
But we haven’t paid anything like enough attention to another consequence of being omnivores, which is that eating is not something we are born instinctively knowing how to do, like breathing. It is something we learn. A parent feeding a baby is training them how food should taste. At the most basic level, we have to learn what is food and what is poison. We have to learn how to satisfy our hunger and also when to stop eating. Unlike the anteater which eats only small termites, we have few natural instincts to fall back on. Out of all the choices available to us as omnivores, we have to figure out which foods are likeable, which are lovable and which are disgusting. From these preferences, we create our own pattern of eating, as distinctive as a signature.
Or that’s how it used to be. In today’s food culture, many people seem to have acquired uncannily homogenous tastes, markedly more so than in the past. In 2010 two consumer scientists argued that the taste preferences of childhood provided a new way of thinking about the causes of obesity. They noted a ‘self-perpetuating cycle’: food companies push foods high in sugar, fat and salt, which means that children learn to like them, and so the companies invent ever more of these foods ‘that contribute to unhealthy eating habits’.
The main influence on a child’s palate may no longer be a parent but a series of food manufacturers whose products – despite their illusion of infinite choice – deliver a monotonous flavour hit, quite unlike the more varied flavours of traditional cuisine.
I went to the cinema with one of my children recently. We stood at the ice-cream concession and I realized, with a jolt, that almost all the options – other than plain vanilla – contained chocolate in one form or another. Would we pick mint chocolate chunk or cherry chocolate chunk or chocolate ice cream with chocolate brownie pieces or caramel ice cream with pieces of caramel chocolate? The danger of growing up surrounded by these endless sweet and salty industrial concoctions is not that we are innately incapable of resisting them but that the more frequently we eat them, especially in childhood, the more they train us to expect all food to taste this way.
Once you recognize the simple fact that food preferences are learned, many of the ways we currently approach eating start to look a little weird. To take a small example, consider the parents who go to great lengths to ‘hide’ vegetables in children’s meals. Is broccoli really so terrible that it must be concealed from innocent minds? Whole cookbooks have been devoted to this arcane pursuit. It starts with the notion that children have an innate resistance to vegetables, and will only swallow them unawares, blitzed into pasta sauce or baked into sweet treats; they could never learn to love courgette for its own sake. In our harried, sleep-deprived state, parents find it hard to play the long game. We think we are being clever when we smuggle some beetroot into a cake. Ha! Tricked you into eating root vegetables! But since the child is not conscious that they are consuming beetroot, the main upshot is to entrench their liking for cake. A far cleverer thing would be to help children learn to become adults who choose vegetables consciously, of their own accord.
By failing to see that eating habits are learned, we misunderstand the nature of our current diet predicament. As we are often reminded, in doom-laden terms, eating has taken a dramatic collective wrong turn in recent decades. As of 2010, poor diet and physical inactivity accounted for 10 per cent of all deaths and disease worldwide, ahead of tobacco smoke (6.3 per cent) and household air pollution (4.3 per cent).
Around two-thirds of the population are either overweight or obese in rich countries; and the rest of the world is fast catching up. The moral usually drawn from these statistics is that we are powerless to resist the sugary, salty, fatty foods that the food industry promotes. Everything tastes better with bacon! As the journalist Michael Moss exposed in 2013, the big food companies engineer foods with a chemically calculated ‘bliss point’ designed to get us hooked.
Newspapers sometimes project a future in which obesity levels continue to rise indefinitely until almost everyone in the world is affected.
But there’s something else going on here, which usually gets missed. Not everyone is equally susceptible to the dysfunction of our food supply. Some people manage to eat sugary, salty, fatty foods in modest quantities, and then stop. Others find these supposedly irresistible foods the opposite of blissful. If two-thirds of the population are overweight or obese, then fully a third are not. This is astonishing, given just how many opportunities there now are to eat doughnuts. Exposed to the same food that bombards us all, these lucky people have learned different responses. It’s in all our interests to find out how they have done it.
Many campaigners would say cooking is the answer. If only children could be taught how to cook and plant vegetable gardens, they would automatically become healthier. It sounds convincing: school gardens are a lovely thing. But by themselves, they are not enough to make a child relate to food in healthy ways. Our difficulty is not just that we haven’t learned to cook and grow food, however important that is: it’s that we haven’t learned to eat in ways that support health and happiness. Traditional cuisines across the world were founded on a strong sense of balance, with norms about which foods go together, and how much one should eat at different times of day. Much cooking now, however, is nothing like this. In my experience as a food journalist, chefs and food writers are, if anything, more prone to compulsive eating and other disordered food obsessions than non-cooks. For cooking to become the solution to our diet crisis, we first have to learn how to adjust our responses to food. Cooking skills are no guarantee of health if your inclinations are for twice-fried chicken, Neapolitan rum babas and French aligot: potatoes mashed with a ton of cheese.
The reason many find it hard to eat healthily is that we have never learned any differently. Like children, most of us eat what we like and we only like what we know. Never before have whole populations learned (or mislearned) to eat in societies where calorie-dense food was so abundant and policed with so few norms about portion sizes and mealtimes. Nor is overeating the only problem that plagues modern affluent civilizations. Statistics suggest that around 0.3 per cent of young women are anorexic and another 1 per cent are bulimic, with rising numbers of men joining them.
What statistics are not particularly effective at telling us is how many others – whether overweight or underweight – are in a perpetual state of anxiety about what they consume, living in fear of carbs or fat grams and unable to derive straightforward enjoyment from meals. A 2003 study of 2,200 American college students suggested that weight concern is very common: 43 per cent of this sample were worried about their weight most of the time (across both sexes) and 29 per cent of the women described themselves as ‘obsessively preoccupied’ with weight.
Our dietary malaise is often discussed in fatalistic terms, as if our preference for hamburgers were a life sentence: diets don’t work, sugar is addictive and so on. What we forget is that, as omnivores, we are extremely gifted at changing the way we eat to accommodate different environments. Admittedly, no one has ever encountered a food environment quite like the one we now find ourselves in, flooded with cheap calories in deceptive packaging. To survive in our current situation will entail very different skills from those needed by a Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer. Yet there is every reason to suppose that we are capable of acquiring these skills, if we give ourselves half a chance.
If our food habits are learned, they can also be relearned. Imagine you were adopted at birth by parents who lived in a remote village in a far-flung country. Your tastes would be quite unlike the ones you ended up with. We all begin life with an innate liking for sweetness and a suspicion of bitterness, yet there is nothing inevitable in our physiology that says that we will grow up dreading vegetables and craving fudge. The trouble is, we do not tend to see it this way.
My premise in First Bite is that the question of how we learn to eat – both individually and collectively – is the key to how food, for so many people, has gone so badly wrong. The greatest public health problem of modern times is how to persuade people to make better food choices. But we have been looking for answers in the wrong places.
Our discussion about diet is usually framed in terms of better information. A sea of articles and books suggests that the reason for the obesity crisis is that we were given the wrong advice: we were told to avoid fat when the real demon was sugar.
There’s something in this. It certainly didn’t help that many of the ‘low-fat’ products marketed as healthy over the past few decades were padded with refined carbohydrates and were therefore more fattening than the fats we were being advised to give up.
During the period that dieticians were admonishing us to abstain from saturated fats such as those in butter, cream and meat, obesity rates were consistently going up, not down. It is becoming increasingly clear that eating fat is not in and of itself the thing that makes you fat or gives you heart disease.
Before we start blaming the confusing low-fat advice for our current ill health, however, it might be useful to consider the extent to which we ever followed those anti-fat warnings. The vast majority of people heard what the ‘food police’ had to say on the subject of fat and ignored it. At the height of the low-fat orthodoxy, in 1998, some of the leading nutrition scientists in the world co-authored a paper in which they lamented the public’s failure to follow their guidelines. The scientists found, to their dismay, that after more than two decades of being advised to reduce fat, people were still eating ‘about the same’ amount of it. The percentage of calories from fat in the American diet dropped slightly from 1976 to 1991 (from about 36 per cent in 1976 to 34 per cent in 1991) but this was only because people were consuming more total calories. In absolute terms, the fat grams people consumed on average remained the same.
David L. Katz of the Yale University Prevention Research Center is a rare voice of sanity in the clamorous world of nutrition. He disputes the commonly held view that the reason we don’t eat better is because there is so much confusion over what the ‘best diet’ really is. Katz points out that the essential tenets of a healthy life – moderate helpings of a variety of real whole foods, plus regular exercise – have been very well established for decades. The medical evidence suggests that it doesn’t matter whether we reach this point via a low-fat route or a low-carb one (or vegan or Paleo or just good old-fashioned home cooking).
Across all diets, there is, notes Katz, a huge ‘aggregation of evidence’ that the best pattern of eating for health is a diet of minimally processed foods, mostly plant-based. ‘Our problem,’ notes Katz, ‘is not want of knowledge about the basic care and feeding of Homo Sapiens. Our problem is a stunning and tragically costly cultural reluctance – to swallow it.’
Take vegetables. The advice to eat more vegetables for health could hardly have been clearer. We have been given the message many times, in many forms. Unlike with fat or sugar, there is no about-turn or controversy in mainstream nutrition over the ‘eat more vegetables’ message. Yet since the 1970s the total intake of calories from vegetables in America has actually declined by 3 per cent, which is a bigger drop than it sounds considering that vegetables contain very few calories compared to other foods.
This decline came at a time when there has never been a wider variety of tempting vegetables available, from deep orange butternut squash to pale green Romanesco broccoli. Many people, however, have absorbed the lesson from childhood that vegetables and pleasure – and more generally, healthy food and pleasure – can never go together. Witness the waves of antipathy directed at public figures such as Michelle Obama when they dare to suggest that we eat more of them. Consumer scientists have found that when a new product is described as ‘healthy’, it is far less likely to be a success than if it is described as ‘new’.
When it comes to our dining habits, there is a giant mismatch between thought and deed; between knowledge and behaviour. ‘Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants,’ says influential food writer Michael Pollan.
A wise and simple mantra, much repeated; yet for many it seems anything but simple to follow in daily life. To adhere to it you need to: ‘Like real food. Not enjoy feeling overstuffed. And appreciate vegetables.’ These are skills that many people have not yet acquired, however intelligent or advanced in years they may be. There’s another complication, too. The ‘not too much’ part of Pollan’s dictum needs modifying to take account of those who have learned to eat too little, or at least not enough of the right foods. I am not just talking about the underweight. The term ‘malnutrition’ now covers obesity as well as starvation; there is evidence that obese populations across the world suffer disproportionately from micronutrient deficiencies, notably vitamins A and D, plus zinc and iron.
Learning how to eat better is not about reducing consumption across the board. While we undoubtedly need to eat less of many foods – sugar springs to mind – we need more of others. Among other lost eating skills – see also not ‘spoiling your appetite’ and not ‘wolfing down your dinner’ – we seem to have lost the old-fashioned concept of ‘nourishing’ ourselves.
A tone of judgemental impatience often creeps into discussions of obesity. ‘It’s not exactly rocket science, is it?’ is a frequent observation on newspaper comment boards, from some of those lucky ones who have never struggled to change their eating, followed by the quip that all that needs to be done to fix the situation is to ‘eat less and move more’. The implication is that those who do not eat less and move more are somehow lacking in moral fibre or brains. But consider this. American firefighters, who are not people notably lacking in courage or quick-wittedness, have higher rates of obesity and overweight – at 70 per cent – than the general population.
The way we eat is not a question of worthiness but of routine and preference, built over a lifespan. As the philosopher Caspar Hare has said: ‘It is not so easy to acquire or drop preferences, at will.’
Once we accept that eating is a learned behaviour, we see that the challenge is not to grasp information but to learn new habits. Governments keep trying to fix the obesity crisis with well-intentioned recommendations. But advice alone never taught a child to eat better (‘I strongly advise you to finish that cabbage and follow it with a glass of milk!’), so it’s strange that we think it will work on adults. The way you teach a child to eat well is through example, enthusiasm and patient exposure to good food. And when that fails, you lie. In Hungary, children are taught to enjoy eating carrots by being told that they bestow the ability to whistle. The point is that before you can become a carrot eater, the carrots have to be desirable.
When this book started taking shape in my head, I thought that my subject was childhood food. Bit by bit, I started to see that many of the joys and pitfalls of children’s eating were still there for adults. As grown-ups, we may still reward ourselves with treats, just as our parents did, and continue to ‘clean our plates’, though they are no longer there to watch us. We still avoid what disgusts us, though we probably know better than to throw it under the table when no one is looking. Put a lit-up birthday cake in front of anyone and they are young again.
One of the questions I wanted to explore was the extent to which children are born with hard-wired preferences. As I trawled through endless academic papers in the library, I predicted fierce disagreement among contemporary scientists. On one side, I would find those who argued that food likes and dislikes were innate; and on the other, those who insisted they were acquired: nature versus nurture. To my astonishment, I found that this was not the case. Far from controversy, there was a near-universal consensus – from psychologists, from neuroscientists, from anthropologists and biologists – that our appetite for specific foods is learned.
Within this broad agreement, there are, as you might expect, still plenty of scholarly disputes, such as the brouhaha over whether our love–hate relationship with bitter vegetables such as Brussels sprouts has a genetic underpinning. There are also competing theories on the extent to which our food learning is mediated by particular genes, hormones and neurotransmitters. But the fundamental insight that human food habits are a learned behaviour is not the subject of scientific debate.
This scientific consensus is remarkable, given that it is the opposite of how we usually discuss eating habits in everyday conversation. There’s a common assumption – shared, curiously enough, by those who are struggling to eat healthily and many of the nutritionists who are trying to get them to eat better – that we are doomed by our biology to be hooked on junk food. The usual story goes something like this: our brains evolved over thousands of years to seek out sweetness, because in the wild we would have needed a way to distinguish wholesome sweet fruits from bad bitter toxins. In today’s world, where sugary food is abundant, or so the thinking goes, our biology makes us powerless to turn down these ‘irresistible’ foods. We know that tasting something sweet activates the pleasure-generating parts of the brain and even acts as an analgesic, comparable to drugs or alcohol. Palaeolithic brain + modern food = disaster.
What’s missing from this account is the fact that, while the taste for sweetness is innate to all human beings and common to all cultures, when it comes to actual sweet foods – and other unhealthy processed foods – we show profoundly varied responses. As one 2012 study of food preferences states, our attitudes to sweetness vary ‘in terms of perception, liking, wanting and intake’.
Different people enjoy sweetness in very different forms. Sweetness could mean a whole cob of corn at the height of summer; or a plate of milky-fresh mozzarella; or fennel cooked long and slow until it is toffee-brown. Our love of sweetness may be universal but there are vast individual differences in how we learn to ingest it. Put another way: not everyone wants to get their sweet hit in the form of Froot Loops.
Nutritionists use the word ‘palatable’ to describe foods high in sugar, salt and fat, as if it were impossible to prefer a platter of crunchy greens dressed with tahini sauce to a family-sized bar of chocolate. Yet around a third of the population – Palaeolithic brain or not – manage to navigate the modern food world just fine and select a balanced diet for themselves from what’s available.
I’m not saying that to be thin is necessarily healthy. Some of the non-overweight may be anorexic or bulimic. Others avoid food through cigarettes and drugs or burn off a junk-food habit with manic exercise. When we speak of an ‘obesity epidemic’, as well as making those trying to lose weight feel worse than they already do, we miss the fact that the situation is more complex than thin = good and fat = bad. Professor Robert Lustig, a leading specialist on the effects of sugar on the human body, points out that up to 40 per cent of normal-weight people have exactly the same metabolic dysfunctions associated with obesity – ‘diabetes, hypertension, lipid problems, cardiovascular disease … cancer and dementia’ while around 20 per cent of obese people get none of these diseases and have a normal lifespan.
So we cannot assume that everyone who is ‘normal weight’ has a healthy relationship with food. (Incidentally, given that these people are in a minority, isn’t it time we stopped calling them ‘normal’? How about ‘exceptional’ instead?) The situation is more complicated than the numbers suggest. But I’d still hazard that this exceptional third of the population has something important to tell us. There are hundreds of millions of individuals who somehow swim against the tide of the dysfunctional modern food supply and feed themselves pretty well. There are those who can eat an ice-cream cone on a hot day without needing to punish themselves for being ‘naughty’; who automatically refuse a sandwich because it isn’t lunchtime yet; who usually eat when they are hungry and stop when they are full; who feel that an evening meal without vegetables isn’t really a meal. These individuals have learned the eating skills that can protect them in this environment of plenty.
Viewed through the lens of behavioural psychology, eating is a classic form of learned behaviour. There is a stimulus – an apple tart, let’s say, glazed with apricot jam. And there is a response – your appetite for it. Finally, there is reinforcement – the sensory pleasure and feeling of fullness that eating the tart gives you. This reinforcement encourages you to seek out more apple tarts whenever you have the chance and – depending on just how great you feel after eating them – to choose them over other foods in the future. In lab conditions, rats can be trained to prefer a less sweet diet over a sweeter one when it is packed with more energy and therefore leaves them more satisfied: this is called post-ingestive conditioning.
We know that a lot of this food-seeking learning is driven by dopamine, a neurotransmitter connected in the brain with motivation.
This is a hormone that is stimulated in the brain when your body does something rewarding, such as eating, kissing or sipping brandy. Dopamine is one of the chemical signals that passes information between neurons to tell your brain that you are having fun. Dopamine release is one of the mechanisms that ‘stamps in’ our flavour preferences and turns them into habits. Once animals have been trained to love certain foods, the dopamine response can be fired up in the brain just by the sight of them: monkeys have a dopamine response when they see the yellow skin of bananas as they anticipate the reward.
Anticipating dopamine release is the incentive that makes lab rats work hard for another treat by pressing a lever.
Humans, needless to say, are not lab rats.
In our lives, the stimulus–response behaviour around food is as infinitely complex as the social world in which we learn to eat. It’s been calculated that by the time we reach our eighteenth birthday, we will have had 33,000 learning experiences with food (based on five meals or snacks a day).
Human behaviour is not just a clear-cut matter of cue and consequence, because human beings are not passive objects, but deeply social beings. Our conditioning is often indirect or vicarious. We do not just learn from the foods we put in our own mouths, but from what we see others eat, whether in our own families, at school or on TV.
As children watch and learn, they pick up many things about food besides how it will taste. A rodent can press a lever to get a sweet reward, but it takes an animal as strange and twisted as a human being to inject such emotions as guilt and shame into the business of eating. Before we take our first bite of a certain food, we may have rehearsed eating it in our minds many times. Our cues about when to eat and what to eat and how much extend beyond such drives as hunger and hormones into the territory of ritual (eggs for breakfast), culture (hotdogs at a baseball match) and religion (turkey at Christmas, lamb at Eid).
It soon became clear to me that I could not get the answers I sought about how we learn to eat without exploring our wider food environment, which is a matter of mealtimes and cuisine, parenting and gender as well as neuroscience.
Our modern food environment is fraught with contradictions. The burden of religious guilt that has been progressively lifted from our private lives has become ever more intense in the realm of eating. Like hypocritical temperance preachers, we demonize many of the things we consume most avidly, leaving us at odds with our own appetites. Numerous foods that were once reserved for celebrations – from meat to sweets – have become everyday commodities, meaning not only that we over-consume them but that they have lost much of their former sense of festal joy.
The idea that you don’t eat between meals now seems as outdated as thinking you must wear a hat when you step out of the house.
Yet while the nutritional content of our food supply has changed hugely over the past fifty or so years, other aspects of eating have not changed fast enough to keep pace with modern life. Parents are still using a range of traditional feeding methods – such as urging children to finish what’s on their plate – that were devised for a situation where famine was always round the corner. As we’ll see, such feeding techniques are directly contributing to child obesity, in cultures as diverse as China and Kuwait.
The theme I returned to more than any other was families. Most of what we learn about food happens as children, sitting at the kitchen table (if your family is lucky enough to have one), being fed. Every bite is a memory and the most powerful memories are the first ones. At this table, we are given both food and love, and we could be forgiven if, later in life, we have trouble distinguishing the two. It is here that we develop our passions and our disgusts and get a sense of whether it is more of a waste to leave something on the side of the plate or to eat it up when we are not hungry.
Our parents – like governments – hope we will learn about food from the things they tell us, but what we see and taste matters more than what we hear. In many ways, children are powerless at the table. They cannot control what is put in front of them, or where they sit, or whether they are spoken to kindly or harshly as they eat. Their one great power is the ability to reject or accept. One of the biggest things many children learn at that table is that our choice to eat or not eat unleashes deep emotions in the grown-ups close to us. We find that we can please our parents or drive them to rage, just by refusing dessert. And then the adults complain that we are difficult at mealtimes!
After a certain point in our lives, it is us and not our parents spooning food into our mouths. We discover the glorious liberation of being able to choose whatever we want to eat – budget permitting. But our tastes and our food choices are still formed by those early childhood experiences. Rather alarmingly, it seems that our food habits when we were two – whether we played with our food, how picky we were, the amount of fruit we ate – are a pretty accurate gauge of how we will eat when we are twenty.
The acquisition of eating habits is a far more mysterious skill than other things we learn in childhood, such as tying our shoelaces, counting or riding a bike. We learn how to eat largely without noticing that this is what we are doing. Equally, we don’t always notice when we have learned ways of eating that are dysfunctional, because they become such a familiar part of ourselves. Having particular tastes is one of the ways that we signal to other people that we are unusual and special. We become known as the person in the family who adores munching on bitter lemon rind or the one who eats apples right down to the pips.
You might say that food dislikes do not matter much: each to their own. I won’t give you a hard time for hating the fuzzy skin of peaches if you will excuse my squeamishness about the gooey whites of soft-boiled eggs. The danger is when you grow up disliking entire food groups, leaving you unable to get the nutrition you need from your diet. Doctors working at the front line of child obesity say it has become common in the past couple of decades for many toddlers to eat no fruit and vegetables at all. This is one of the reasons constipation is now such a huge – though little mentioned – problem in Western countries, giving rise to 2.5 million doctor visits a year in the US.
Some hold the view that it doesn’t really matter if children have unhealthy tastes, because once they grow up they will effortlessly acquire a penchant for salad, along with a deeper voice and mature political opinions. Sometimes it does work out this way. Love and travel are both powerful spurs to change. In the 1970s it was a common rite of passage to reject the conventional bland watery foods of a 1950s childhood and embrace mung beans and spice. Many tastes – for green tea, say, or vodka – are acquired, if at all, in adulthood. When we learn to love these bitter but lovely substances, we undergo what psychologists call a ‘hedonic shift’ from pain to pleasure.
You may overcome your childish revulsion at the bitterness of espresso when you discover the wonderful after-effects, how it wakes up your whole body and infuses you with a desire for work. The great question is what it takes for us to undergo a similar ‘hedonic shift’ to enjoying a moderate diet of healthy food.
The process will be different for each of us, because all of us have learned our own particular way of eating. But wherever you start, the first step to eating better is to recognize that our tastes and habits are not fixed but changeable.
There’s a danger here that I’m making the process of changing how you eat for the better sound easy. It isn’t. In particular, it isn’t easy for those who feed themselves on a tight budget. Many have observed that – in developed countries – obesity disproportionately affects those on low incomes. Poverty makes eating a healthy diet harder in numerous ways. It’s not just because it is far more expensive, gram for gram, to buy fresh vegetables than it is to buy heavily processed carbohydrates. Maybe you live in a ‘food desert’ where nutritious ingredients are hard to come by; or in housing without an adequate kitchen. Growing up poor can engender a lifetime of unhealthy food habits, because a narrow diet in childhood is likely to narrow your food choices as an adult, even if your income later rises. When the flavour of white bread and processed meat are linked in your memory with the warmth and authority of a parent and the camaraderie of siblings, it can feel like a betrayal to stop eating them.
Yet it’s striking that some children from low-income households eat much better than others, and sometimes better than children from more affluent families. The problems with how we eat now cut across boundaries of class and income. It is feasible to create decent, wholesome meals – bean goulash, spaghetti puttanesca – on a shoestring budget. Equally, one can have the funds to buy chanterelle mushrooms and turbot but no inclination to do so. According to feeding therapists with whom I have spoken, there are successful business people who will – literally – pass out from hunger at their desks rather than allow an unfamiliar meal to pass their lips when their preferred junk food is not available. Assuming you are not living in a state of famine, the greatest determinant of how well you eat is the way you have learned to behave around food.
This behaviour is often immensely complex. As we grow up, we become capable of second order preferences as well as first order preferences. A first order preference is basic: you love crispy roast potatoes, smothered in butter and salt. A second order preference is more convoluted: you want to like eating carrots instead of the potatoes because you think they would be less fattening and healthier. Indeed, you probably can, at least sometimes, limit yourself to eating raw vegetables instead of the carb-laden potatoes. But the real question is what happens next. In 1998 the social psychologist Roy Baumeister did a famous experiment. Baumeister, who is known for his work on self-defeating behaviours, found that the struggle of will required when a group of people were asked to eat ‘virtuous’ foods such as radishes instead of the foods that they really wanted, such as chocolate and cookies, led to diminishing returns.
They were so depleted by the effort of the task that when faced with another difficult task – solving a tricky puzzle – they would give up more quickly. The emotional effort of not eating the cookies had a ‘psychic cost’.
Changing our food habits is one of the hardest things anyone can do, because the impulses governing our preferences are often hidden, even from ourselves. And yet adjusting what you eat is entirely possible. We do it all the time. Were this not the case, the food companies who launch new products each year would be wasting their money. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, housewives from East and West Germany tried each other’s food products for the first time in decades. It didn’t take long for those from the East to realize that they preferred Western yoghurt to their own.
Equally, those from the West discovered a liking for the honey and vanilla wafer biscuits of the East. From both sides of the wall, these German housewives showed a remarkable flexibility in their food preferences.
There is hope as well as concern in the fact that we remain like children in our eating patterns. We are like children in our fussiness and love of junk. But we also remain like children in that we have a capacity to learn new tricks, one that we seldom credit ourselves with. Even though most of us have tastes acquired very young, we can still change.
When I was a teenager I could eat whole pint-sized tubs of ice cream, and second and third helpings of everything. Everywhere I went, food screamed at me. Maybe it was a response to living with my older sister, who was anorexic, though this was never mentioned, because in our family we did not speak of such things. Or it could have been a consequence of growing up in a house where emotional talk was taboo. It definitely got worse when I was fourteen and my parents separated. Overeaters often say they are swallowing their feelings.
Around the age of twenty, something changed. I fell in love, got happier and my meals became more structured. I shrank from large to medium, without ever particularly dieting. I ate lots of vegetables, not because I had to, but because they were delicious, and they made me feel good. Then I had children. I could now bake a whole chocolate cake, eat a small slice and leave the rest. Recently I discovered yoga. My teenage self would have found my current self intensely annoying.
The strange thing, however, is that my behaviour changed without me ever particularly noticing that this was what was happening. Unlike the adolescent diets that I imposed on myself in a conscious, self-correcting way, this new healthier life crept up on me unawares. It’s not that I never carry on eating crisps long after I am full, especially when there’s a glass of wine in my hand. I may be safe around chocolate cake, but I wouldn’t fancy my chances with a Vacherin Mont d’Or cheese in the kitchen. But I have definitely reached the point where my second order food preferences – I want to like greens – and my first order food preferences – I do like greens – are fairly in sync. Food no longer screams but speaks to me. It helps that our concept of healthy eating has enlarged in recent years to take in satisfying meals such as chicken and chickpea soup, buckwheat pancakes, avocado toast or buttery scrambled eggs with herbs. I’m in the groove now of eating smaller lunches and larger dinners, but small or large, meals are occasions for pleasure, not angst. This feels good. I must have relearned how to feed myself somewhere along the way, treating myself with some of the solicitude I bestow on my children.
E.P. Köster, a behavioural psychologist who has spent decades studying why we make the food choices we do, says that food habits ‘can almost exclusively be changed by relearning through experience’.
That is, if we want to relearn how to eat, we need to become like children again. Bad food habits can only change by making ‘healthy food’ something pleasure-giving. If we experience healthy food as a coercion – as something requiring willpower – it can never taste delicious.
It’s seldom easy to change habits, particularly those so bound up with memories of family and childhood, but, whatever our age, it looks as if eating well is a surprisingly teachable skill. This is not to say that everyone should end up with the same tastes. Life would be dull if everyone preferred satsumas to clementines. But there are certain broad aspects of eating that can be learned and then tailored to your own specific passions and needs. There are three big things we would all benefit from learning to do: to follow structured mealtimes; to respond to our own internal cues for hunger and fullness rather than relying on external cues such as portion size; and to make ourselves open to trying a variety of foods. All these three can be taught to children, which suggests that adults could learn them too.
For our diets to change, as well as educating ourselves about nutrition – and yes, teaching ourselves to cook – we need to relearn the food experiences that first shaped us. The change doesn’t happen through rational argument. It is a form of reconditioning, meal by meal. You get to the point where not eating when you are not hungry – most of the time – is so instinctive and habitual it would feel odd to behave differently. Governments could do a great deal more to help us modify our eating habits. In place of all that advice, they could reshape the food environment in ways that would help us to learn better habits of our own accord. A few decades from now, the current laissez-faire attitudes to sugar – now present in 80 per cent of supermarket foods – may seem as reckless and strange as permitting cars without seatbelts or smoking on aeroplanes.
Given that our food choices are strongly determined by what’s readily available, regulating the sale of unhealthy food would automatically make many people eat differently. Banishing fast-food outlets from hospitals and the streets surrounding schools would be a start. One study shows that you can reduce chocolate consumption almost to zero in a student cafeteria by requiring people to line up for it separately from their main course.
But at an individual level, we won’t achieve much by waiting for a world where chocolate is scarce. The question is what it might take to become part of that exceptional third (give or take) of the population who can live in the modern world, with all its sugary and salty allurements, and not be agonized or seduced. Having a healthy relationship with food can act like a life jacket, protecting you from the worst excesses of the obesogenic world we now inhabit. You see the greasy meatball sandwich and you no longer think it has much to say to you. This is not about being thin. It’s about reaching a state where food is something that nourishes and makes us happy rather than sickening or tormenting us. It’s about feeding ourselves as a good parent would: with love, with variety, but also with limits.
Changing the way you eat is far from simple, but nor, crucially, is it impossible. After all, as omnivores, we were not born knowing what to eat. We all had to learn it, every one of us, as children sitting expectantly, waiting to be fed.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию (https://www.litres.ru/bee-wilson/first-bite-how-we-learn-to-eat/) на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
Bee Wilson
Fortnum & Mason Food Book of the Year 2016We are not born knowing what to eat. We all have to learn it as children sitting expectantly at a table. For our diets to change, we need to relearn the food experiences that first shaped us.Everyone starts drinking milk. After that it’s all up for grabs.We are not born knowing what to eat; we each have to figure it out for ourselves. From childhood onwards, we learn how big a portion is and how sweet is too sweet. We learn to love broccoli – or not. But how does this happen? What are the origins of taste? And once we acquire our food habits, can we ever change them for the better?In First Bite, award-winning food writer Bee Wilson draws on the latest research from food psychologists, neuroscientists and nutritionists to reveal how our food habits are shaped by a whole host of factors: family and culture, memory and gender, hunger and love. She looks at the effects siblings can have on eating choices and the social pressures to eat according to sex. Bee introduces us to people who can only eat food of a certain colour; toddlers who will eat nothing but hot dogs; doctors who have found radical new ways to help children eat vegetables. First Bite also looks at how people eat in different parts of the world: we see how grandparents in China overfeed their grandchildren, and how Japan came to adopt such a healthy diet (it wasn’t always so).The way we learn to eat holds the key to why food has gone so disastrously wrong for so many people. But Bee Wilson also shows that both adults and children have immense potential for learning new, healthy eating habits. An exploration of the extraordinary and surprising origins of our taste and eating habits, First Bite explains how we can change our palates to lead healthier, happier lives.
Copyright (#ulink_09bbfaa5-ac8f-54f4-996e-6bc428ade197)
4th Estate
An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers
1 London Bridge Street
London SE1 9GF
www.4thestate.co.uk (http://www.4thestate.co.uk)
First published in Great Britain in 2015 by 4th Estate
This 4th Estate paperback edition 2016
Copyright © Bee Wilson 2015
Cover image © Mat Taylor
The right of Bee Wilson to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
‘An Evening in Terezin’ from I Never Saw Another Butterfly: Children’s Drawings and Poems from Terezin Concentration Camp 1942–1944 by Hana Volavkova, copyright © 1978, 1993 by Artia, Prague. Compilation © 1993 by Schocken Books. Used by permission of Schocken Books, an imprint of the Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. All rights reserved.
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, down-loaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of HarperCollins.
Source ISBN: 9780007549726
Ebook Edition © December 2015 ISBN: 9780007549719
Version: 2016-11-10
Dedication (#ulink_0ccfddc2-b863-5a47-82c8-35ce06f470e8)
For Emily
Contents
Cover (#ud5058ac7-ffd0-5179-9e8c-08d86ae246a6)
Title Page (#u9433b618-abec-52a6-8d45-275635d38d5b)
Copyright (#u34bc3ce8-d3bc-5ad3-863e-c0cefb66d9e1)
Dedication (#u993e5728-d6d6-56d3-9cb7-bfa594fc3a54)
Preface (#u60c58b8e-1f49-5621-b43a-783261dc6c0d)
Introduction (#u23bcda49-9221-52cb-a5bc-cfa9b50ae250)
CHAPTER 1: Likes and Dislikes (#u5c90b3b2-4026-559b-b9a9-e7a6fde18edc)
BEETROOT (#ucea0fcc1-734f-5710-9331-fb5522b44729)
CHAPTER 2: Memory (#ucdfb8179-e067-51fd-8a5a-189cd8e505de)
MILK (#u3f7b992c-92ed-5548-bc46-f71d1a4f9edd)
CHAPTER 3: Children’s Food (#udc325cde-5643-5f62-b652-6c59ec903537)
BIRTHDAY CAKE (#uc58280f3-cd13-5a7c-a56e-64f3cafb1d62)
CHAPTER 4: Feeding (#u9359e106-a310-5e1f-8c04-7a77496cf38d)
LUNCHBOX (#u80bd3d59-bb2a-59d3-b903-9bd2d163f10e)
CHAPTER 5: Brothers and Sisters (#u91d8aff9-b54b-58a4-ba96-9c3f8807a299)
CHOCOLATE (#ua05fb6d9-bf95-53c0-b76e-6203121bddfc)
CHAPTER 6: Hunger (#ufa7d6364-14b1-58f3-8042-83eabbffc007)
BREAKFAST CEREAL (#udbc6f2e3-b4be-5f55-acc1-785586d4bda0)
CHAPTER 7: Disorder (#u18dcfac1-5388-5006-bbbb-0bd51b637ecc)
CRISPS (#u27e68d15-94e1-58ee-8028-8c3210fb65df)
CHAPTER 8: Change (#ud253f46a-582e-5b49-8c58-14f3461bca9a)
CHILLI (#u3a6ef406-9ec9-56b7-92a1-113f4ef912ab)
EPILOGUE: This is Not Advice (#u36c59f30-d4c1-5ebd-a923-8d809983d704)
Footnotes (#u8728975a-d501-57d1-a3d5-3d6a9a09bb3a)
Notes (#ud2620d74-bbc5-5a00-ab45-f68179a61a05)
Further Reading (#ua7c23cda-2a06-5b43-80f4-b7fc2991272b)
Bibliography (#u23d7a351-294c-526c-8cd9-747da447cb2a)
Index (#u09e2bd64-a5d2-5956-8132-56f7e3aad2c4)
Acknowledgements (#ud16d9221-9077-5b69-8602-092db5273cb3)
By the Same Author (#u52d92ae1-8f81-551a-b7ab-590c2128eafd)
About the Publisher (#u0a1156fc-eb5e-581a-82aa-9a26f18fd16a)
Preface (#ulink_52820e84-6e30-5f6e-9ed6-0b47fb11f4eb)
Some find the whole matter of eating easy, while others find it hard. I used to be on the wrong side of this great divide and somehow, to my own surprise and relief, leaped over to the other side. This book is my attempt to explore how this switch was possible.
You don’t have to look far in our world to encounter people – of all sizes – who relate to food in chaotic ways. The chaos can take many forms: compulsive overeating, undereating, or extreme pickiness. Some people become so obsessed with the purity of what enters their mouths that they cannot accept invitations to eat with friends. It is a lonely occupation, being someone who wrestles to control their responses to food, given that modern life is steeped with things to eat, both real and imaginary. Snacks assail us at the checkout; dream feasts tease us from hoardings, newspapers and TV cooking shows.
Without ever quite having a full-blown eating disorder – though I came close – I managed to make myself pretty miserable about eating for the best part of a decade, from the middle school years to young adulthood. I probably appeared fine: a bit overweight, nothing more. But food was my main relationship, and – although it had some of the thrills of romance, especially when I was in the kitchen with a hunk of sweet brioche dough – it wasn’t a stable or sustaining kind of love. We talk in a sickly way of ‘indulgent’ foods, but when you are trapped in compulsive habits of dependency on them, it does not feel like being pampered. There were days when I gave myself up to consuming guilty treats. Other days were for not eating, which was even worse, taunting myself with the foods that I wouldn’t permit myself.
Thankfully, that phase of life now seems distant. Eating well – by which I don’t mean ‘clean eating’ or raw juice fasts but regular meals of real, flavoursome food – just isn’t that complicated for me any more. Now that I am through on the other side, I can see that over a period of months, if not years, I learned to master a series of skills that I’d once deemed insurmountable. I learned that it was OK to eat a hearty meal when I was hungry; but also OK to stop when I was full. My cravings for pastries lessened and my cravings for vegetables increased. There are still plenty of things I worry and obsess about, believe me, but my own eating is seldom one of them. Dinner is just dinner: nothing more nor less than the high point of the day.
In our house, as in many others, the battleground over food has shifted to the children. As a parent trying to get my three children to eat healthily – but not obsessively so – I have sometimes felt as lost as I once did about my own eating. After the milk stage (and that was hard enough) none of the skills of feeding came naturally. How do you promote vegetables to an ironic teenager in a way that isn’t counterproductive? What do you do when your daughter comes home and says her friends have started skipping lunch? How do you keep a sense of proportion about fat and sugar without giving in completely to the ultra-processed food that is now ubiquitous?
In those busy moments after school and before bed, I cook a quick meal that I hope will please everyone. I may find that one child grumbles about the grilled aubergines, another says they are the best bit and the third sits quietly weeping because, while he actually likes aubergines, they are touching a piece of chicken and are therefore inedible. Did I say the high point of the day? And yet, comparatively speaking, my children are not problem eaters.
All parents have moments of thinking that it just isn’t possible to teach a child to eat well; or at least not your child. Many grown-ups are more pessimistic still about their own ability to change how they behave around food. But writing this book has taught me that there is immense potential for improving our eating habits. It may take longer for some people to get there than others, but learning how to eat better – which is quite different from going on a diet – is within anyone’s grasp. Perhaps the most eloquent argument for learning new ways to eat is that of pleasure. Eating is – or should be – a daily source of delight rather than something to fight against. It’s good here, on the other side of the divide. I do hope you’ll join me.
Introduction (#ulink_8b683705-479f-579c-b7aa-a7435d818b8c)
‘One of the reasons I like bread and jam,’ said Frances, ‘is that it does not slide off your spoon in a funny way.’
RUSSELL HOBAN, Bread and Jam for Frances
So many of our anxieties around diet take the form of a search for the perfect food, the one that will cure all our ills. Eat this! Don’t eat that! We obsess about the properties of various ingredients: the protein, the omega oils, the vitamins. But this is getting ahead of ourselves. Nutrients only count when a person picks up food and eats it. How we eat – how we approach food – is what really matters. If we are going to change our diets, we first have to relearn the art of eating, which is a question of psychology as much as nutrition. We have to find a way to want to eat what’s good for us.
Our tastes follow us around like a comforting shadow. They seem to tell us who we are. Maybe this is why we act as if our core attitudes to eating are set in stone. We make frequent attempts – more or less half-hearted – to change what we eat, but almost no effort to change how we feel about food: how well we deal with hunger, how strongly attached we are to sugar, our emotions on being served a small portion. We try to eat more vegetables, but we do not try to make ourselves enjoy vegetables more, maybe because there’s a near-universal conviction that it is not possible to learn new tastes and shed old ones. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
All the foods that you regularly eat are ones that you learned to eat. Everyone starts life drinking milk. After that, it’s all up for grabs.
Bone marrow from wild game is considered the best first baby food among the hunting tribes of Tanzania.
If you were born in the Far Eastern republic of Laos, it could be gelatinous rice, pre-chewed by your mother and transferred from her mouth to yours (this is sometimes called kiss-feeding).
For Western babies, that first bite of solid food may be powdered cereal from a packet or purée from a jar; it could be organic pumpkin, steamed and strained and served with a hypoallergenic spoon; or a random nibble from a parent’s plate. Aside from milk, there is simply no such thing as a universal food. Not even for babies.
From our first year of life, human tastes are astonishingly diverse. As omnivores, we have no inbuilt knowledge of which foods are good and safe. Each of us has to use our senses to figure out for ourselves what is edible, depending on what’s available. In many ways, this is a delightful opportunity. It’s the reason there are such fabulously varied ways of cooking in the world.
But we haven’t paid anything like enough attention to another consequence of being omnivores, which is that eating is not something we are born instinctively knowing how to do, like breathing. It is something we learn. A parent feeding a baby is training them how food should taste. At the most basic level, we have to learn what is food and what is poison. We have to learn how to satisfy our hunger and also when to stop eating. Unlike the anteater which eats only small termites, we have few natural instincts to fall back on. Out of all the choices available to us as omnivores, we have to figure out which foods are likeable, which are lovable and which are disgusting. From these preferences, we create our own pattern of eating, as distinctive as a signature.
Or that’s how it used to be. In today’s food culture, many people seem to have acquired uncannily homogenous tastes, markedly more so than in the past. In 2010 two consumer scientists argued that the taste preferences of childhood provided a new way of thinking about the causes of obesity. They noted a ‘self-perpetuating cycle’: food companies push foods high in sugar, fat and salt, which means that children learn to like them, and so the companies invent ever more of these foods ‘that contribute to unhealthy eating habits’.
The main influence on a child’s palate may no longer be a parent but a series of food manufacturers whose products – despite their illusion of infinite choice – deliver a monotonous flavour hit, quite unlike the more varied flavours of traditional cuisine.
I went to the cinema with one of my children recently. We stood at the ice-cream concession and I realized, with a jolt, that almost all the options – other than plain vanilla – contained chocolate in one form or another. Would we pick mint chocolate chunk or cherry chocolate chunk or chocolate ice cream with chocolate brownie pieces or caramel ice cream with pieces of caramel chocolate? The danger of growing up surrounded by these endless sweet and salty industrial concoctions is not that we are innately incapable of resisting them but that the more frequently we eat them, especially in childhood, the more they train us to expect all food to taste this way.
Once you recognize the simple fact that food preferences are learned, many of the ways we currently approach eating start to look a little weird. To take a small example, consider the parents who go to great lengths to ‘hide’ vegetables in children’s meals. Is broccoli really so terrible that it must be concealed from innocent minds? Whole cookbooks have been devoted to this arcane pursuit. It starts with the notion that children have an innate resistance to vegetables, and will only swallow them unawares, blitzed into pasta sauce or baked into sweet treats; they could never learn to love courgette for its own sake. In our harried, sleep-deprived state, parents find it hard to play the long game. We think we are being clever when we smuggle some beetroot into a cake. Ha! Tricked you into eating root vegetables! But since the child is not conscious that they are consuming beetroot, the main upshot is to entrench their liking for cake. A far cleverer thing would be to help children learn to become adults who choose vegetables consciously, of their own accord.
By failing to see that eating habits are learned, we misunderstand the nature of our current diet predicament. As we are often reminded, in doom-laden terms, eating has taken a dramatic collective wrong turn in recent decades. As of 2010, poor diet and physical inactivity accounted for 10 per cent of all deaths and disease worldwide, ahead of tobacco smoke (6.3 per cent) and household air pollution (4.3 per cent).
Around two-thirds of the population are either overweight or obese in rich countries; and the rest of the world is fast catching up. The moral usually drawn from these statistics is that we are powerless to resist the sugary, salty, fatty foods that the food industry promotes. Everything tastes better with bacon! As the journalist Michael Moss exposed in 2013, the big food companies engineer foods with a chemically calculated ‘bliss point’ designed to get us hooked.
Newspapers sometimes project a future in which obesity levels continue to rise indefinitely until almost everyone in the world is affected.
But there’s something else going on here, which usually gets missed. Not everyone is equally susceptible to the dysfunction of our food supply. Some people manage to eat sugary, salty, fatty foods in modest quantities, and then stop. Others find these supposedly irresistible foods the opposite of blissful. If two-thirds of the population are overweight or obese, then fully a third are not. This is astonishing, given just how many opportunities there now are to eat doughnuts. Exposed to the same food that bombards us all, these lucky people have learned different responses. It’s in all our interests to find out how they have done it.
Many campaigners would say cooking is the answer. If only children could be taught how to cook and plant vegetable gardens, they would automatically become healthier. It sounds convincing: school gardens are a lovely thing. But by themselves, they are not enough to make a child relate to food in healthy ways. Our difficulty is not just that we haven’t learned to cook and grow food, however important that is: it’s that we haven’t learned to eat in ways that support health and happiness. Traditional cuisines across the world were founded on a strong sense of balance, with norms about which foods go together, and how much one should eat at different times of day. Much cooking now, however, is nothing like this. In my experience as a food journalist, chefs and food writers are, if anything, more prone to compulsive eating and other disordered food obsessions than non-cooks. For cooking to become the solution to our diet crisis, we first have to learn how to adjust our responses to food. Cooking skills are no guarantee of health if your inclinations are for twice-fried chicken, Neapolitan rum babas and French aligot: potatoes mashed with a ton of cheese.
The reason many find it hard to eat healthily is that we have never learned any differently. Like children, most of us eat what we like and we only like what we know. Never before have whole populations learned (or mislearned) to eat in societies where calorie-dense food was so abundant and policed with so few norms about portion sizes and mealtimes. Nor is overeating the only problem that plagues modern affluent civilizations. Statistics suggest that around 0.3 per cent of young women are anorexic and another 1 per cent are bulimic, with rising numbers of men joining them.
What statistics are not particularly effective at telling us is how many others – whether overweight or underweight – are in a perpetual state of anxiety about what they consume, living in fear of carbs or fat grams and unable to derive straightforward enjoyment from meals. A 2003 study of 2,200 American college students suggested that weight concern is very common: 43 per cent of this sample were worried about their weight most of the time (across both sexes) and 29 per cent of the women described themselves as ‘obsessively preoccupied’ with weight.
Our dietary malaise is often discussed in fatalistic terms, as if our preference for hamburgers were a life sentence: diets don’t work, sugar is addictive and so on. What we forget is that, as omnivores, we are extremely gifted at changing the way we eat to accommodate different environments. Admittedly, no one has ever encountered a food environment quite like the one we now find ourselves in, flooded with cheap calories in deceptive packaging. To survive in our current situation will entail very different skills from those needed by a Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer. Yet there is every reason to suppose that we are capable of acquiring these skills, if we give ourselves half a chance.
If our food habits are learned, they can also be relearned. Imagine you were adopted at birth by parents who lived in a remote village in a far-flung country. Your tastes would be quite unlike the ones you ended up with. We all begin life with an innate liking for sweetness and a suspicion of bitterness, yet there is nothing inevitable in our physiology that says that we will grow up dreading vegetables and craving fudge. The trouble is, we do not tend to see it this way.
My premise in First Bite is that the question of how we learn to eat – both individually and collectively – is the key to how food, for so many people, has gone so badly wrong. The greatest public health problem of modern times is how to persuade people to make better food choices. But we have been looking for answers in the wrong places.
Our discussion about diet is usually framed in terms of better information. A sea of articles and books suggests that the reason for the obesity crisis is that we were given the wrong advice: we were told to avoid fat when the real demon was sugar.
There’s something in this. It certainly didn’t help that many of the ‘low-fat’ products marketed as healthy over the past few decades were padded with refined carbohydrates and were therefore more fattening than the fats we were being advised to give up.
During the period that dieticians were admonishing us to abstain from saturated fats such as those in butter, cream and meat, obesity rates were consistently going up, not down. It is becoming increasingly clear that eating fat is not in and of itself the thing that makes you fat or gives you heart disease.
Before we start blaming the confusing low-fat advice for our current ill health, however, it might be useful to consider the extent to which we ever followed those anti-fat warnings. The vast majority of people heard what the ‘food police’ had to say on the subject of fat and ignored it. At the height of the low-fat orthodoxy, in 1998, some of the leading nutrition scientists in the world co-authored a paper in which they lamented the public’s failure to follow their guidelines. The scientists found, to their dismay, that after more than two decades of being advised to reduce fat, people were still eating ‘about the same’ amount of it. The percentage of calories from fat in the American diet dropped slightly from 1976 to 1991 (from about 36 per cent in 1976 to 34 per cent in 1991) but this was only because people were consuming more total calories. In absolute terms, the fat grams people consumed on average remained the same.
David L. Katz of the Yale University Prevention Research Center is a rare voice of sanity in the clamorous world of nutrition. He disputes the commonly held view that the reason we don’t eat better is because there is so much confusion over what the ‘best diet’ really is. Katz points out that the essential tenets of a healthy life – moderate helpings of a variety of real whole foods, plus regular exercise – have been very well established for decades. The medical evidence suggests that it doesn’t matter whether we reach this point via a low-fat route or a low-carb one (or vegan or Paleo or just good old-fashioned home cooking).
Across all diets, there is, notes Katz, a huge ‘aggregation of evidence’ that the best pattern of eating for health is a diet of minimally processed foods, mostly plant-based. ‘Our problem,’ notes Katz, ‘is not want of knowledge about the basic care and feeding of Homo Sapiens. Our problem is a stunning and tragically costly cultural reluctance – to swallow it.’
Take vegetables. The advice to eat more vegetables for health could hardly have been clearer. We have been given the message many times, in many forms. Unlike with fat or sugar, there is no about-turn or controversy in mainstream nutrition over the ‘eat more vegetables’ message. Yet since the 1970s the total intake of calories from vegetables in America has actually declined by 3 per cent, which is a bigger drop than it sounds considering that vegetables contain very few calories compared to other foods.
This decline came at a time when there has never been a wider variety of tempting vegetables available, from deep orange butternut squash to pale green Romanesco broccoli. Many people, however, have absorbed the lesson from childhood that vegetables and pleasure – and more generally, healthy food and pleasure – can never go together. Witness the waves of antipathy directed at public figures such as Michelle Obama when they dare to suggest that we eat more of them. Consumer scientists have found that when a new product is described as ‘healthy’, it is far less likely to be a success than if it is described as ‘new’.
When it comes to our dining habits, there is a giant mismatch between thought and deed; between knowledge and behaviour. ‘Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants,’ says influential food writer Michael Pollan.
A wise and simple mantra, much repeated; yet for many it seems anything but simple to follow in daily life. To adhere to it you need to: ‘Like real food. Not enjoy feeling overstuffed. And appreciate vegetables.’ These are skills that many people have not yet acquired, however intelligent or advanced in years they may be. There’s another complication, too. The ‘not too much’ part of Pollan’s dictum needs modifying to take account of those who have learned to eat too little, or at least not enough of the right foods. I am not just talking about the underweight. The term ‘malnutrition’ now covers obesity as well as starvation; there is evidence that obese populations across the world suffer disproportionately from micronutrient deficiencies, notably vitamins A and D, plus zinc and iron.
Learning how to eat better is not about reducing consumption across the board. While we undoubtedly need to eat less of many foods – sugar springs to mind – we need more of others. Among other lost eating skills – see also not ‘spoiling your appetite’ and not ‘wolfing down your dinner’ – we seem to have lost the old-fashioned concept of ‘nourishing’ ourselves.
A tone of judgemental impatience often creeps into discussions of obesity. ‘It’s not exactly rocket science, is it?’ is a frequent observation on newspaper comment boards, from some of those lucky ones who have never struggled to change their eating, followed by the quip that all that needs to be done to fix the situation is to ‘eat less and move more’. The implication is that those who do not eat less and move more are somehow lacking in moral fibre or brains. But consider this. American firefighters, who are not people notably lacking in courage or quick-wittedness, have higher rates of obesity and overweight – at 70 per cent – than the general population.
The way we eat is not a question of worthiness but of routine and preference, built over a lifespan. As the philosopher Caspar Hare has said: ‘It is not so easy to acquire or drop preferences, at will.’
Once we accept that eating is a learned behaviour, we see that the challenge is not to grasp information but to learn new habits. Governments keep trying to fix the obesity crisis with well-intentioned recommendations. But advice alone never taught a child to eat better (‘I strongly advise you to finish that cabbage and follow it with a glass of milk!’), so it’s strange that we think it will work on adults. The way you teach a child to eat well is through example, enthusiasm and patient exposure to good food. And when that fails, you lie. In Hungary, children are taught to enjoy eating carrots by being told that they bestow the ability to whistle. The point is that before you can become a carrot eater, the carrots have to be desirable.
When this book started taking shape in my head, I thought that my subject was childhood food. Bit by bit, I started to see that many of the joys and pitfalls of children’s eating were still there for adults. As grown-ups, we may still reward ourselves with treats, just as our parents did, and continue to ‘clean our plates’, though they are no longer there to watch us. We still avoid what disgusts us, though we probably know better than to throw it under the table when no one is looking. Put a lit-up birthday cake in front of anyone and they are young again.
One of the questions I wanted to explore was the extent to which children are born with hard-wired preferences. As I trawled through endless academic papers in the library, I predicted fierce disagreement among contemporary scientists. On one side, I would find those who argued that food likes and dislikes were innate; and on the other, those who insisted they were acquired: nature versus nurture. To my astonishment, I found that this was not the case. Far from controversy, there was a near-universal consensus – from psychologists, from neuroscientists, from anthropologists and biologists – that our appetite for specific foods is learned.
Within this broad agreement, there are, as you might expect, still plenty of scholarly disputes, such as the brouhaha over whether our love–hate relationship with bitter vegetables such as Brussels sprouts has a genetic underpinning. There are also competing theories on the extent to which our food learning is mediated by particular genes, hormones and neurotransmitters. But the fundamental insight that human food habits are a learned behaviour is not the subject of scientific debate.
This scientific consensus is remarkable, given that it is the opposite of how we usually discuss eating habits in everyday conversation. There’s a common assumption – shared, curiously enough, by those who are struggling to eat healthily and many of the nutritionists who are trying to get them to eat better – that we are doomed by our biology to be hooked on junk food. The usual story goes something like this: our brains evolved over thousands of years to seek out sweetness, because in the wild we would have needed a way to distinguish wholesome sweet fruits from bad bitter toxins. In today’s world, where sugary food is abundant, or so the thinking goes, our biology makes us powerless to turn down these ‘irresistible’ foods. We know that tasting something sweet activates the pleasure-generating parts of the brain and even acts as an analgesic, comparable to drugs or alcohol. Palaeolithic brain + modern food = disaster.
What’s missing from this account is the fact that, while the taste for sweetness is innate to all human beings and common to all cultures, when it comes to actual sweet foods – and other unhealthy processed foods – we show profoundly varied responses. As one 2012 study of food preferences states, our attitudes to sweetness vary ‘in terms of perception, liking, wanting and intake’.
Different people enjoy sweetness in very different forms. Sweetness could mean a whole cob of corn at the height of summer; or a plate of milky-fresh mozzarella; or fennel cooked long and slow until it is toffee-brown. Our love of sweetness may be universal but there are vast individual differences in how we learn to ingest it. Put another way: not everyone wants to get their sweet hit in the form of Froot Loops.
Nutritionists use the word ‘palatable’ to describe foods high in sugar, salt and fat, as if it were impossible to prefer a platter of crunchy greens dressed with tahini sauce to a family-sized bar of chocolate. Yet around a third of the population – Palaeolithic brain or not – manage to navigate the modern food world just fine and select a balanced diet for themselves from what’s available.
I’m not saying that to be thin is necessarily healthy. Some of the non-overweight may be anorexic or bulimic. Others avoid food through cigarettes and drugs or burn off a junk-food habit with manic exercise. When we speak of an ‘obesity epidemic’, as well as making those trying to lose weight feel worse than they already do, we miss the fact that the situation is more complex than thin = good and fat = bad. Professor Robert Lustig, a leading specialist on the effects of sugar on the human body, points out that up to 40 per cent of normal-weight people have exactly the same metabolic dysfunctions associated with obesity – ‘diabetes, hypertension, lipid problems, cardiovascular disease … cancer and dementia’ while around 20 per cent of obese people get none of these diseases and have a normal lifespan.
So we cannot assume that everyone who is ‘normal weight’ has a healthy relationship with food. (Incidentally, given that these people are in a minority, isn’t it time we stopped calling them ‘normal’? How about ‘exceptional’ instead?) The situation is more complicated than the numbers suggest. But I’d still hazard that this exceptional third of the population has something important to tell us. There are hundreds of millions of individuals who somehow swim against the tide of the dysfunctional modern food supply and feed themselves pretty well. There are those who can eat an ice-cream cone on a hot day without needing to punish themselves for being ‘naughty’; who automatically refuse a sandwich because it isn’t lunchtime yet; who usually eat when they are hungry and stop when they are full; who feel that an evening meal without vegetables isn’t really a meal. These individuals have learned the eating skills that can protect them in this environment of plenty.
Viewed through the lens of behavioural psychology, eating is a classic form of learned behaviour. There is a stimulus – an apple tart, let’s say, glazed with apricot jam. And there is a response – your appetite for it. Finally, there is reinforcement – the sensory pleasure and feeling of fullness that eating the tart gives you. This reinforcement encourages you to seek out more apple tarts whenever you have the chance and – depending on just how great you feel after eating them – to choose them over other foods in the future. In lab conditions, rats can be trained to prefer a less sweet diet over a sweeter one when it is packed with more energy and therefore leaves them more satisfied: this is called post-ingestive conditioning.
We know that a lot of this food-seeking learning is driven by dopamine, a neurotransmitter connected in the brain with motivation.
This is a hormone that is stimulated in the brain when your body does something rewarding, such as eating, kissing or sipping brandy. Dopamine is one of the chemical signals that passes information between neurons to tell your brain that you are having fun. Dopamine release is one of the mechanisms that ‘stamps in’ our flavour preferences and turns them into habits. Once animals have been trained to love certain foods, the dopamine response can be fired up in the brain just by the sight of them: monkeys have a dopamine response when they see the yellow skin of bananas as they anticipate the reward.
Anticipating dopamine release is the incentive that makes lab rats work hard for another treat by pressing a lever.
Humans, needless to say, are not lab rats.
In our lives, the stimulus–response behaviour around food is as infinitely complex as the social world in which we learn to eat. It’s been calculated that by the time we reach our eighteenth birthday, we will have had 33,000 learning experiences with food (based on five meals or snacks a day).
Human behaviour is not just a clear-cut matter of cue and consequence, because human beings are not passive objects, but deeply social beings. Our conditioning is often indirect or vicarious. We do not just learn from the foods we put in our own mouths, but from what we see others eat, whether in our own families, at school or on TV.
As children watch and learn, they pick up many things about food besides how it will taste. A rodent can press a lever to get a sweet reward, but it takes an animal as strange and twisted as a human being to inject such emotions as guilt and shame into the business of eating. Before we take our first bite of a certain food, we may have rehearsed eating it in our minds many times. Our cues about when to eat and what to eat and how much extend beyond such drives as hunger and hormones into the territory of ritual (eggs for breakfast), culture (hotdogs at a baseball match) and religion (turkey at Christmas, lamb at Eid).
It soon became clear to me that I could not get the answers I sought about how we learn to eat without exploring our wider food environment, which is a matter of mealtimes and cuisine, parenting and gender as well as neuroscience.
Our modern food environment is fraught with contradictions. The burden of religious guilt that has been progressively lifted from our private lives has become ever more intense in the realm of eating. Like hypocritical temperance preachers, we demonize many of the things we consume most avidly, leaving us at odds with our own appetites. Numerous foods that were once reserved for celebrations – from meat to sweets – have become everyday commodities, meaning not only that we over-consume them but that they have lost much of their former sense of festal joy.
The idea that you don’t eat between meals now seems as outdated as thinking you must wear a hat when you step out of the house.
Yet while the nutritional content of our food supply has changed hugely over the past fifty or so years, other aspects of eating have not changed fast enough to keep pace with modern life. Parents are still using a range of traditional feeding methods – such as urging children to finish what’s on their plate – that were devised for a situation where famine was always round the corner. As we’ll see, such feeding techniques are directly contributing to child obesity, in cultures as diverse as China and Kuwait.
The theme I returned to more than any other was families. Most of what we learn about food happens as children, sitting at the kitchen table (if your family is lucky enough to have one), being fed. Every bite is a memory and the most powerful memories are the first ones. At this table, we are given both food and love, and we could be forgiven if, later in life, we have trouble distinguishing the two. It is here that we develop our passions and our disgusts and get a sense of whether it is more of a waste to leave something on the side of the plate or to eat it up when we are not hungry.
Our parents – like governments – hope we will learn about food from the things they tell us, but what we see and taste matters more than what we hear. In many ways, children are powerless at the table. They cannot control what is put in front of them, or where they sit, or whether they are spoken to kindly or harshly as they eat. Their one great power is the ability to reject or accept. One of the biggest things many children learn at that table is that our choice to eat or not eat unleashes deep emotions in the grown-ups close to us. We find that we can please our parents or drive them to rage, just by refusing dessert. And then the adults complain that we are difficult at mealtimes!
After a certain point in our lives, it is us and not our parents spooning food into our mouths. We discover the glorious liberation of being able to choose whatever we want to eat – budget permitting. But our tastes and our food choices are still formed by those early childhood experiences. Rather alarmingly, it seems that our food habits when we were two – whether we played with our food, how picky we were, the amount of fruit we ate – are a pretty accurate gauge of how we will eat when we are twenty.
The acquisition of eating habits is a far more mysterious skill than other things we learn in childhood, such as tying our shoelaces, counting or riding a bike. We learn how to eat largely without noticing that this is what we are doing. Equally, we don’t always notice when we have learned ways of eating that are dysfunctional, because they become such a familiar part of ourselves. Having particular tastes is one of the ways that we signal to other people that we are unusual and special. We become known as the person in the family who adores munching on bitter lemon rind or the one who eats apples right down to the pips.
You might say that food dislikes do not matter much: each to their own. I won’t give you a hard time for hating the fuzzy skin of peaches if you will excuse my squeamishness about the gooey whites of soft-boiled eggs. The danger is when you grow up disliking entire food groups, leaving you unable to get the nutrition you need from your diet. Doctors working at the front line of child obesity say it has become common in the past couple of decades for many toddlers to eat no fruit and vegetables at all. This is one of the reasons constipation is now such a huge – though little mentioned – problem in Western countries, giving rise to 2.5 million doctor visits a year in the US.
Some hold the view that it doesn’t really matter if children have unhealthy tastes, because once they grow up they will effortlessly acquire a penchant for salad, along with a deeper voice and mature political opinions. Sometimes it does work out this way. Love and travel are both powerful spurs to change. In the 1970s it was a common rite of passage to reject the conventional bland watery foods of a 1950s childhood and embrace mung beans and spice. Many tastes – for green tea, say, or vodka – are acquired, if at all, in adulthood. When we learn to love these bitter but lovely substances, we undergo what psychologists call a ‘hedonic shift’ from pain to pleasure.
You may overcome your childish revulsion at the bitterness of espresso when you discover the wonderful after-effects, how it wakes up your whole body and infuses you with a desire for work. The great question is what it takes for us to undergo a similar ‘hedonic shift’ to enjoying a moderate diet of healthy food.
The process will be different for each of us, because all of us have learned our own particular way of eating. But wherever you start, the first step to eating better is to recognize that our tastes and habits are not fixed but changeable.
There’s a danger here that I’m making the process of changing how you eat for the better sound easy. It isn’t. In particular, it isn’t easy for those who feed themselves on a tight budget. Many have observed that – in developed countries – obesity disproportionately affects those on low incomes. Poverty makes eating a healthy diet harder in numerous ways. It’s not just because it is far more expensive, gram for gram, to buy fresh vegetables than it is to buy heavily processed carbohydrates. Maybe you live in a ‘food desert’ where nutritious ingredients are hard to come by; or in housing without an adequate kitchen. Growing up poor can engender a lifetime of unhealthy food habits, because a narrow diet in childhood is likely to narrow your food choices as an adult, even if your income later rises. When the flavour of white bread and processed meat are linked in your memory with the warmth and authority of a parent and the camaraderie of siblings, it can feel like a betrayal to stop eating them.
Yet it’s striking that some children from low-income households eat much better than others, and sometimes better than children from more affluent families. The problems with how we eat now cut across boundaries of class and income. It is feasible to create decent, wholesome meals – bean goulash, spaghetti puttanesca – on a shoestring budget. Equally, one can have the funds to buy chanterelle mushrooms and turbot but no inclination to do so. According to feeding therapists with whom I have spoken, there are successful business people who will – literally – pass out from hunger at their desks rather than allow an unfamiliar meal to pass their lips when their preferred junk food is not available. Assuming you are not living in a state of famine, the greatest determinant of how well you eat is the way you have learned to behave around food.
This behaviour is often immensely complex. As we grow up, we become capable of second order preferences as well as first order preferences. A first order preference is basic: you love crispy roast potatoes, smothered in butter and salt. A second order preference is more convoluted: you want to like eating carrots instead of the potatoes because you think they would be less fattening and healthier. Indeed, you probably can, at least sometimes, limit yourself to eating raw vegetables instead of the carb-laden potatoes. But the real question is what happens next. In 1998 the social psychologist Roy Baumeister did a famous experiment. Baumeister, who is known for his work on self-defeating behaviours, found that the struggle of will required when a group of people were asked to eat ‘virtuous’ foods such as radishes instead of the foods that they really wanted, such as chocolate and cookies, led to diminishing returns.
They were so depleted by the effort of the task that when faced with another difficult task – solving a tricky puzzle – they would give up more quickly. The emotional effort of not eating the cookies had a ‘psychic cost’.
Changing our food habits is one of the hardest things anyone can do, because the impulses governing our preferences are often hidden, even from ourselves. And yet adjusting what you eat is entirely possible. We do it all the time. Were this not the case, the food companies who launch new products each year would be wasting their money. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, housewives from East and West Germany tried each other’s food products for the first time in decades. It didn’t take long for those from the East to realize that they preferred Western yoghurt to their own.
Equally, those from the West discovered a liking for the honey and vanilla wafer biscuits of the East. From both sides of the wall, these German housewives showed a remarkable flexibility in their food preferences.
There is hope as well as concern in the fact that we remain like children in our eating patterns. We are like children in our fussiness and love of junk. But we also remain like children in that we have a capacity to learn new tricks, one that we seldom credit ourselves with. Even though most of us have tastes acquired very young, we can still change.
When I was a teenager I could eat whole pint-sized tubs of ice cream, and second and third helpings of everything. Everywhere I went, food screamed at me. Maybe it was a response to living with my older sister, who was anorexic, though this was never mentioned, because in our family we did not speak of such things. Or it could have been a consequence of growing up in a house where emotional talk was taboo. It definitely got worse when I was fourteen and my parents separated. Overeaters often say they are swallowing their feelings.
Around the age of twenty, something changed. I fell in love, got happier and my meals became more structured. I shrank from large to medium, without ever particularly dieting. I ate lots of vegetables, not because I had to, but because they were delicious, and they made me feel good. Then I had children. I could now bake a whole chocolate cake, eat a small slice and leave the rest. Recently I discovered yoga. My teenage self would have found my current self intensely annoying.
The strange thing, however, is that my behaviour changed without me ever particularly noticing that this was what was happening. Unlike the adolescent diets that I imposed on myself in a conscious, self-correcting way, this new healthier life crept up on me unawares. It’s not that I never carry on eating crisps long after I am full, especially when there’s a glass of wine in my hand. I may be safe around chocolate cake, but I wouldn’t fancy my chances with a Vacherin Mont d’Or cheese in the kitchen. But I have definitely reached the point where my second order food preferences – I want to like greens – and my first order food preferences – I do like greens – are fairly in sync. Food no longer screams but speaks to me. It helps that our concept of healthy eating has enlarged in recent years to take in satisfying meals such as chicken and chickpea soup, buckwheat pancakes, avocado toast or buttery scrambled eggs with herbs. I’m in the groove now of eating smaller lunches and larger dinners, but small or large, meals are occasions for pleasure, not angst. This feels good. I must have relearned how to feed myself somewhere along the way, treating myself with some of the solicitude I bestow on my children.
E.P. Köster, a behavioural psychologist who has spent decades studying why we make the food choices we do, says that food habits ‘can almost exclusively be changed by relearning through experience’.
That is, if we want to relearn how to eat, we need to become like children again. Bad food habits can only change by making ‘healthy food’ something pleasure-giving. If we experience healthy food as a coercion – as something requiring willpower – it can never taste delicious.
It’s seldom easy to change habits, particularly those so bound up with memories of family and childhood, but, whatever our age, it looks as if eating well is a surprisingly teachable skill. This is not to say that everyone should end up with the same tastes. Life would be dull if everyone preferred satsumas to clementines. But there are certain broad aspects of eating that can be learned and then tailored to your own specific passions and needs. There are three big things we would all benefit from learning to do: to follow structured mealtimes; to respond to our own internal cues for hunger and fullness rather than relying on external cues such as portion size; and to make ourselves open to trying a variety of foods. All these three can be taught to children, which suggests that adults could learn them too.
For our diets to change, as well as educating ourselves about nutrition – and yes, teaching ourselves to cook – we need to relearn the food experiences that first shaped us. The change doesn’t happen through rational argument. It is a form of reconditioning, meal by meal. You get to the point where not eating when you are not hungry – most of the time – is so instinctive and habitual it would feel odd to behave differently. Governments could do a great deal more to help us modify our eating habits. In place of all that advice, they could reshape the food environment in ways that would help us to learn better habits of our own accord. A few decades from now, the current laissez-faire attitudes to sugar – now present in 80 per cent of supermarket foods – may seem as reckless and strange as permitting cars without seatbelts or smoking on aeroplanes.
Given that our food choices are strongly determined by what’s readily available, regulating the sale of unhealthy food would automatically make many people eat differently. Banishing fast-food outlets from hospitals and the streets surrounding schools would be a start. One study shows that you can reduce chocolate consumption almost to zero in a student cafeteria by requiring people to line up for it separately from their main course.
But at an individual level, we won’t achieve much by waiting for a world where chocolate is scarce. The question is what it might take to become part of that exceptional third (give or take) of the population who can live in the modern world, with all its sugary and salty allurements, and not be agonized or seduced. Having a healthy relationship with food can act like a life jacket, protecting you from the worst excesses of the obesogenic world we now inhabit. You see the greasy meatball sandwich and you no longer think it has much to say to you. This is not about being thin. It’s about reaching a state where food is something that nourishes and makes us happy rather than sickening or tormenting us. It’s about feeding ourselves as a good parent would: with love, with variety, but also with limits.
Changing the way you eat is far from simple, but nor, crucially, is it impossible. After all, as omnivores, we were not born knowing what to eat. We all had to learn it, every one of us, as children sitting expectantly, waiting to be fed.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию (https://www.litres.ru/bee-wilson/first-bite-how-we-learn-to-eat/) на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
Би Уилсон
Тип: электронная книга
Жанр: Кулинария
Язык: на английском языке
Издательство: HarperCollins
Дата публикации: 16.04.2024
Отзывы: Пока нет Добавить отзыв
О книге: Fortnum & Mason Food Book of the Year 2016We are not born knowing what to eat. We all have to learn it as children sitting expectantly at a table. For our diets to change, we need to relearn the food experiences that first shaped us.Everyone starts drinking milk. After that it’s all up for grabs.We are not born knowing what to eat; we each have to figure it out for ourselves. From childhood onwards, we learn how big a portion is and how sweet is too sweet. We learn to love broccoli – or not. But how does this happen? What are the origins of taste? And once we acquire our food habits, can we ever change them for the better?In First Bite, award-winning food writer Bee Wilson draws on the latest research from food psychologists, neuroscientists and nutritionists to reveal how our food habits are shaped by a whole host of factors: family and culture, memory and gender, hunger and love. She looks at the effects siblings can have on eating choices and the social pressures to eat according to sex. Bee introduces us to people who can only eat food of a certain colour; toddlers who will eat nothing but hot dogs; doctors who have found radical new ways to help children eat vegetables. First Bite also looks at how people eat in different parts of the world: we see how grandparents in China overfeed their grandchildren, and how Japan came to adopt such a healthy diet (it wasn’t always so).The way we learn to eat holds the key to why food has gone so disastrously wrong for so many people. But Bee Wilson also shows that both adults and children have immense potential for learning new, healthy eating habits. An exploration of the extraordinary and surprising origins of our taste and eating habits, First Bite explains how we can change our palates to lead healthier, happier lives.