A recent study conducted by Emory University at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta shows that monkeys with lower social status use comfort foods like chocolate, ice cream and chips to ease the sting of their subservience.
Those of us working at the bottom of the social and economic ladder didn’t need this study to tell us about the psychological benefits (and physical drawbacks) of comfort food. Bad day with the boss? Grab a donut. Ends not meeting? Candy is dandy. Living in substandard housing, with an out-of-work spouse and three kids would make anyone reach for a six-pack of Coke and a bag of chips. It is the only affordable solace and carries less of a stigma than alcohol or drugs, though our country’s obese increasingly face the sort of discrimination once reserves for heroin addicts.
Of course, rich people are thin. Being rich is a cushion against the harsher realities of life, which invariably produce cortisol (a stress hormone subdued only by calories) in the rest of us. If I were rich, I could be thin. Of course, I can also be thin and poor, but what’s the point? Life holds few enough pleasures for the poor and the one tangible pleasure that defies even economic hardship is a 50-cent McDonald’s apple pie. I may not be able to get my dopamine high from shoe-shopping, but for less than a buck I can get a similar fix from a Snickers.
These kinds of studies are not only nonsense in terms of relevant findings, but they waste money that could be better spent discovering why increasing numbers of children are becoming autistic. Additionally, similar studies (in Sweden, Germany, Mexico and Bahrain) show the same effect, which remains largely intact across all countries and ethnic groups.
Cravings for sugar may be triggered by what University of Toronto researchers have identified as a glucose transporter type 2 gene, but sugar is only one aspect of carbohydrate intake and food intake overall. In a study of about 750 people, those with the defective gene apparently craved, and ate, more sugar (which, in the 21st century, means refined white sugar), but their diets did not vary from the typical group consumption model of protein, fat and starch. Therefore, genetics can’t be cited as the primary cause of obesity.
Poverty and social status can. The MacArthur Network has done a number of studies on the subject showing that, in the U.S., those at highest risk for morbid obesity are African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Native Americans. The risk is higher for females, who are always lower on the socio-economic ladder than men, and one CDC study verifies this higher risk by citing figures which show that almost 70 percent of African American and Hispanic women are above what is generally regarded as a healthy body weight.
Part of this is metabolism. Female metabolism, especially after pregnancy and poor diet, works less efficiently than male metabolism, although male adrenal morphology is also triggered by social status, and an increasing number of ethnic minority males are facing obesity and diabetes. Again, this is partly genetic (with American Indian and Hispanic populations almost twice as likely to be diabetic). But the greatest factor in type 2 diabetes is still weight gain. The other likely reason behind ethnic males failing to gain as much weight as their female counterparts is that men have more social outlets for aggression, through sports and similar activities, and more inclination toward alcohol as a stress reliever, which particularly among minorities faces less of a social stigma for males than for females.
The next time you see a fat person, instead of feeling disgust, try to imagine what it is like to live on $6 an hour, as invisible as wallpaper, as helpless and controlled as a mouse in a maze, and see if you aren’t also inspired to hit the nearest donut shop.
Disclosure: I don’t own stock in MacDonald’s, Coca Cola or Mars Co., the makers of Snickers.