Empty Pleasures

[wosnes]

Yesterday I read an article at Serious Eats about the 5 best non-cookbook food books of 2010. One of them was Empty Pleasures: The Story of Artificial Sweeteners from Saccharin to Splenda.

The book is more about how artificial sweeteners are used and consumed rather than whether or not they should be used or which one is the best to use.

Susan Wittig Albert wrote the only customer review and she said something I found interesting:

Throughout the book, De La Peña makes her thesis clear. It isn't that artificial sweeteners are "bad" for you, for there is no scientific evidence to prove their harm. But it is beginning to seem possible that we are not entirely satiated by these chemically de-calorized products and more likely to reach for another food. We have lost control of our appetites; we have become addicted to sweet-tasting chemicals; and we have allowed ourselves to be manipulated by the food industry and marketers. The real benefits of these "empty pleasures" accrue to the huge conglomerates that own these chemicals: to Monsanto, for instance, which now produces saccharin, Splenda, and NutraSweet. Artificial sweeteners, De la Peña says, have proved to be a superb, low-cost way "to move products through consumers by removing barriers to capacity." That is, if we don't have to count the calories in what we consume (and therefore risk additional pounds), we can eat as much as we want--although of course we have to buy it first. De la Peña: "The ability of the low-calorie market to expand the total market for American foods is surely proof of the ingenuity of capitalism, whether you admire or decry the results."

Perhaps even more importantly, artificial sweeteners teach us that it is indeed possible to get something for nothing, a strongly negative lesson for a high-consuming society. They are another encouragement for us to keep thoughtlessly, mindlessly stuffing ourselves with things that have no real or lasting or significant value. In accepting the false promise of the artificial sweetener industry, we have also accepted the false idea of the Free Lunch: we can consume as much as we want of anything we choose and never have to pay the price. The real price.

I think all of the foods that are low-calorie, low-fat, low-carb and low-sugar or sugar free may have contributed to this "negative lesson".

[Blithe Morning]

Removing a consequence from an action can create moral confusion as what is "right" is no longer clear and evident.

While I would not go so far as to say that using artificial sweetners is immoral, I do think it contributes to the mindset that we can have what we want, when we want it. I'm old school enough to think that this is deleterious to us individually and as a society if it becomes our default expectation.

[Nicest of the Damned]

I do think it contributes to the mindset that we can have what we want, when we want it. I'm old school enough to think that this is deleterious to us individually and as a society if it becomes our default expectation.

The ability to delay gratification is correlated with children's success in school, even more than IQ is:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... act_lehrer (long)

A quote from the article:

He knows that it’s not enough just to teach kids mental tricks—the real challenge is turning those tricks into habits, and that requires years of diligent practice. “This is where your parents are important,†Mischel says. “Have they established rituals that force you to delay on a daily basis? Do they encourage you to wait? And do they make waiting worthwhile?†According to Mischel, even the most mundane routines of childhood—such as not snacking before dinner, or saving up your allowance, or holding out until Christmas morning—are really sly exercises in cognitive training: we’re teaching ourselves how to think so that we can outsmart our desires.

(bolding mine)

I don't know if there are studies linking the ability to delay gratification to success in adults, but it seems to me to be a key skill to do well as an adult. There are lots of times when, as an adult, you have to do stuff you don't want to do, or put off doing what you do want to do.

The article mentions teaching kids to do better at delaying gratification. It's a skill that can be learned and practiced, not just something that some people have and some don't. Some people do manage to figure out tricks for delaying gratification on their own better than others, but just about everybody can learn to do better at it.

IANAPsychologist, but No S seems to me to be a good framework for learning to delay gratification. Nothing is forbidden, but you do have to wait until you're allowed to have food. It gets easier over time, which means you're learning skills to delay gratification.

I keep kosher. One of the kosher rules says that you can't eat meat and dairy together, and you have to wait between when you eat meat and when you can eat dairy. The time that you wait varies between people (for us it's 1 hour). This rule says you can't always have what you want, when you want it, and I think it's a very good rule for that reason.

[Sharpie]

Disturbingly accurate description of artificial sweeteners. I hadn't thought of them in that way before, though I was aware of the tendency for a 'diet' anything to be a gateway for binging on anything (or everything) at hand. The delayed gratification is a good point too- we are very much an impusive NOW NOW NOW society, and it is showing, in everything from our waistlines to economics.

[oolala53]

An interesting point of view, but I find myself thinking that just because people abuse alcohol doesn't mean it's all bad. I know there is a difference and some wise person here will probably be able to point it out, but I for one like having access to sugar substitutes, stevia most often in my case, but I'll use any, depending on the situation, mostly because I rely on them so seldom in the scheme of things that I don't worry about it. Being able to have a cup of coffee sweetened to my liking in between meals on occasion I believe is what has enabled me to stick to No S on many a day this past year. Perhaps as the years go on, I'll find even that drops away as a desire.

However, many of the criticisms do ring true. I don't eat any other foods with sugar substitutes. In fact, despite what I said before, I'd be willing to live in a world without them. But I also would live in a world without alcohol, and mostly do, because drinking it is contraindicated for a family health issue. If only someone could convince me that sweets were contraindicated as well.

[wosnes]

An interesting point of view, but I find myself thinking that just because people abuse alcohol doesn't mean it's all bad. I know there is a difference and some wise person here will probably be able to point it out, but I for one like having access to sugar substitutes, stevia most often in my case, but I'll use any, depending on the situation, mostly because I rely on them so seldom in the scheme of things that I don't worry about it. Being able to have a cup of coffee sweetened to my liking in between meals on occasion I believe is what has enabled me to stick to No S on many a day this past year. Perhaps as the years go on, I'll find even that drops away as a desire.

However, many of the criticisms do ring true. I don't eat any other foods with sugar substitutes. In fact, despite what I said before, I'd be willing to live in a world without them. But I also would live in a world without alcohol, and mostly do, because drinking it is contraindicated for a family health issue. If only someone could convince me that sweets were contraindicated as well.

oolala -- I have a question. Do you use the artificial sweeteners in your coffee because of the calories or because you think sugar is bad?

[oolala53]

I ended up writing a long response that got away from the topic some, so I sent it to wosnes as a private message. Basicallly, I plead the 5th.

[Blithe Morning]

I'm not against sugar substitutes because they are bad for your health, I am against sugar substitutes because with them one believes he can eat sweets w/o gaining weight.

As I said, I'm old school enough to believe that actions should have consequences. If you eat too many sweets, you should gain weight. If you drink too much, you should get drunk. If you drink WAY too much, you SHOULD get a hangover (hence the Glass Ceiling System) . By circumventing that cause and effect relationship, you can create the expectation that consequences can be avoided. On a societal level, this is detrimental. Action and consequence are the basis for ethics and morality. Once you disassociate them the primary motivation in decision making becomes solely what the self wants as there is no consequence to mitigate that primal desire.

I'm not saying that using sugar substitutes is immoral. Far from it. If that's what keeps you on track with No S, then by all means use away. People with especially compelling reasons to avoid sugar such as diabetics shouldn't feel they have to forego sugar substitutes either. My point is to consider the bigger picture - that are you really getting rid of sweets if you are using sugar substitutes. You are getting rid of the calories, yes, but the sweetness? Mmmmm... I don't think you are.

Anyway, that's my soapbox for the day. My intent is not to be judgmental or critical. At the end of the day, my hope is that we all find a way to make this thing work. If your mod is sugar substitute, then so be it.