Twinkies

“We are what we repeatedly do; excellence is then not an act, but a habit.” - Aristotle

In 1978, San Francisco mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were shot and killed by Dan White, a fellow Supervisor. The high-profile killings gathered significant media attention, primarily due to the defense’s attempt to prove White was incapable of deliberately planning the murders and instead acted in the heat of passion. The defense argued that White suffered from depression which caused him to act irrationally. To build their case, they highlighted the poor decisions he made in the time leading up to the shooting, highlighting his excessive consumption of sugar, specifically Twinkies, as part of their theory. The media latched on to this idea, spreading the word that White was in a crazed state from too much sugar, launching what is now known in legal circles as “the Twinkie Defense”.

Although there is no evidence that too many Twinkies makes one a crazed murderer, White’s defense was not the first to use a defendant’s diet as a litmus test of rationality. There have been other court cases that have used a person’s eating behavior as evidence of impairment: overconsumption of junk food, sodas, caffeine, and even over the counter cough syrup have been used to support irrationality. That we even consider using junk food as a defense speaks to our culture’s troubled relationship with what we eat. We love to demonize certain foods, especially sugar, salt, and fat, and what better way to prove the evils of those foods than to associate them with criminal behavior—it was the Twinkie that made me do it. But is junk food really all that bad?

First, we should define what “junk” food is, which is more complicated than it may seem. Nutritionists put foods into one of three broad categories: ultra-processed, processed, and whole or fresh. Not all processed foods are bad; they can be placed on a spectrum that runs from minimally processed, such as milk, to more processed, such as canned vegetables and cheeses. According to the FDA a food can only be called fresh when it is served in its natural state, the way it is when it comes out of the ground or off the tree. Fresh is a very narrow category: a potato pulled from the ground is considered fresh, but once it is baked in the oven, it is categorized as processed, even if it is served plain. Spinach plucked from the garden is fresh, but once it is frozen it becomes processed. These definitions lead to a lot of confusion and can muddle our efforts to make healthy choices.

Rather than get caught up in the minutia of food categories, we find more guidance in focusing on the kinds of processed food that we know cause trouble--the “ultra-processed” foods, what we collectively refer to as “junk” food. Along the spectrum of processed food, the definition of what is ultra-processed is quite clear. Researchers at Tufts University and the University of Sao Paulo define it as, “formulations of several ingredients which, besides salt, sugar, oils, and fats include food substances not used in culinary preparations.” These foods use flavors, colors, sweeteners, emulsifiers, and additives to make them taste like minimally processed foods. Using this definition, a cup of plain Greek yogurt is considered minimally processed, but yogurt that comes in a tube with a weird orange color and added sugars is “ultra-processed”. I heard one nutritionist explain that what makes a food ultra-processed can seem a bit muddled, but most of us know it when we eat it.

We assume that ultra-processed foods are unhealthy because they contain added sugar, fat, and salt. If this were true, then foods made from scratch would have the same physiological effect as store bought, packaged items with preservatives, colors, and added oils. But several studies challenge this assumption. Subjects who ate home cooked dinners, defined as meals prepared mostly from whole ingredients, a total of six to seven days per week consumed less food, including fewer carbohydrates, sugar, and fat than those who ate take out or prepackaged food. Studies find that people who eat home cooked meals consume an average of 200 calories less, even if they are not trying to lose weight. One interesting study sequestered subjects in a controlled setting for a month. Everyone was fed meals that contained the same number of calories, fiber, and nutrients, except for two weeks, one group had meals that were cooked from scratch, while the other ate only ultra-processed foods such as packaged muffins, fruit cups, and frozen dinners. These folks also got a fiber pill so that the ingredients and calories in each meal were equivalent. The researchers predicted that the weight gain would be the same for each group at the end of two weeks. Not so, as those who ate the food from scratch lost weight while the ultra-processed food group gained, even though the calories were the same. At the end of two weeks the groups switched, and those who had previously eaten the ultra-processed meals lost weight, whereas the other group gained.

If calories, nutrients, and fiber are the same, why would subjects gain weight eating ultra-processed foods? Researchers have a few theories. First, ultra-processed foods are designed to provide an intense mouth appeal, with flavors and additives that stimulate salivation, making the food taste better, so we want more. Eat a handful of reduced salt potato chips and you’ll notice the difference. Secondly, ultra-processed foods have been stripped of fiber, making them easy to chew—they frequently melt in the mouth. We eat ultra-processed foods faster and, consequently, eat more. Thirdly, because these foods are broken down easily, they are absorbed into the bloodstream quickly providing a surge of energy that spikes insulin levels. The resulting peaks and valleys in blood glucose makes weight gain more likely and, in the long term, sets us up for developing metabolic syndrome and diabetes. And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, because ultra-processed foods require less chewing and are absorbed more quickly, we need to eat more to feel full. This is not surprising—it’s easy to overeat junk food but rarely, if ever, do we binge on a bag of carrots.

Ultra-processed foods come with a long list of ingredients that are hard to pronounce, but not all of these ingredients are necessarily bad for us. Some sound scary but are just the technical name of the artificial version of a natural ingredient. Some additives can even be helpful, providing nutrients needed to avoid certain diseases, such as iodine added to salt to prevent thyroid cancer. There are, however, certain artificial ingredients that wreak havoc with our system, especially those that interfere with our microbiome. Emulsifiers are one additive gaining attention in the medical community and causing increasing concern due to their role in inflammation. Added to pre-packaged foods for decades, emulsifiers prevent the fat and liquid in food from separating, extending the shelf life of packaged foods and giving them a smooth, rich mouth feel. Specifically, two common emulsifiers—polysorbate 80 (P80) and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) have been found to alter the microbial composition in mice. Even at low levels, these additives eat away at the protective layer of the gut, reducing concentrations of beneficial bacteria while increasing those strains that promote inflammation. Human trials that are now underway show that synthetic dietary emulsifiers may have the same impact on our microbiomes, causing inflammation that can lead to depression and disruptions in our cognitive processes.

Until we know exactly how certain additives in packaged food impact our health, we may want to eat more meals prepared at home using whole or minimally processed foods. And don’t be fooled by so-called “healthy” junk food, such as vegan frozen foods or gluten free products. Food designed to sit on a shelf needs to be altered, which always requires additives. This is why the growing field of culinary medicine promotes the health benefits of consuming meals made from simple ingredients in our own kitchens. We still don’t know the exact mechanisms of why home cooking is better for our health, but we do know that our bodies seem to process those calories differently. Could it be the lack of additives, increased fiber, or perhaps other, subjective factors related to the preparation itself? What is becoming clear is that the convenience of ultra-processed foods, as well as the speed at which they are digested, run counter to the natural rhythms of human digestion.

Food is more than just the calories and nutrients on our plate. It is an essential part of one’s social, cultural, religious, and family life. Humans hunger for the experience of food, including its taste, the process of chewing, the textures, and the overall satisfaction gained from the experience. Perhaps the steps we take to make our meals and how we consume them plays an important, but subtle, role in digestion. A friend from Peru told me that meals in her country are quite social and can extend for hours. Even though she felt as if she was always eating while in Peru, she would consistently drop a few pounds during these visits. Meals there focused more on enjoying family than on consuming calories.

Ultra-processed food requires minimal prep time and provides immediate gratification—typically these foods don’t require utensils and are easily eaten while doing something else, like driving. Their convenience, which makes them the preferred food when we are rushed, could hint at the important role our senses play in eating, as well as the subtle benefits of sharing a meal with others. Perhaps these factors point to the difference between eating food versus finding nourishment and explains why so many of us live in an environment that has an abundance of food while many remain malnourished.

Preparing a meal slows down the eating process—we must plan, prep, and then wait for the food to cook, creating a gap between our desire to eat and the act of consumption. Provided we don’t snack through this process, the gap offers an opportunity to enjoy the subtle sensations associated with cooking, including the smells, visual presentation, and hands-on connection with what will be digested. Eastern healing traditions have for centuries counseled that how a food is prepared has a direct impact on digestion—food prepared mindlessly, in the presence of negative emotions, or by strangers will be absorbed poorly and throw our system off balance. Although we Westerners may find this advice weird, science is uncovering evidence supporting what Eastern traditions have known all along--that eating starts way before the food enters our mouth, and that how we eat is just as important as what we eat.

How do you approach the act of eating? An understanding of your relationship with food and the process of eating provides important clues as to how you nourish yourself. Is eating for you a fast and efficient process, done mindlessly or while scrolling through your phone or watching TV? Is it a tedious task that requires portion control and counting calories? We may be wise to follow Eastern traditions that honor eating as a necessary break in the day, a time to slow things down, turn inward, and revitalize. What would happen if you approached most of your meals this way? What types of foods would you choose if you carved out time to eat, and how would they taste? Ultra-processed food is designed to be consumed quickly—try eating a Twinkie (or any other junk food) slowly and you will find it quickly loses its appeal.

Not every meal needs to be an elaborate gastronomical event, and there will be times when we must turn to convenience foods or take out due to busy schedules or conflicting priorities. Although we want to eat well, we should retain our freedom to enjoy food, avoiding obsessing over each and every nutrient that enters our mouth. Obsessing over good and bad foods is just as detrimental to our health as being malnourished. And keep in mind that just as we have good days and challenging days, so it goes with food—some meals are better than others when viewed in the larger context of our lives. Regardless of how fresh or processed a food may be, it nourishes us only when it creates balance, and is eaten in a way that restores and revitalizes us. This week, I invite you to approach your meals by noticing how the subtle effect of what you eat and the way you eat impacts your sense of well-being. What might you discover when you slow down to savor all the steps involved in making a meal, approaching eating as an act of self-care rather than simply calories and nutrients?