The death of the calorie is long overdue, in my humble estimation.

Okay, okay. So we had burgers at P&u tonight.

This is a long read and an absolutely essential one.

However I'm not sure what my mother would think, being a home economics teacher trained during the period of post-war food industrialization.

Since January 1, ten pounds have somehow disappeared from my (shall we say excessive) frame. I've gotten somewhat less outdoor exercise than during warmer months, although I'm still walking and am more active with my duties at the pub.

My beer consumption, which has declined considerably in recent years, has remained steady. Less beer, a tad more liquor and wine where merited. We've been eating lots of meat, comfort foods and vegetables, because our experiment for 2019 has been to eat most meals at home, reserving "eating out" for special occasions.

The latter probably explains where the ten pounds went; specifically, we're probably consuming a quarter of the deep-fried food we'd normally be having when dining out, which invariably is salty and inspires another beer while cleaning one's plate of an oversized portion.

Less sugar and salt. Small breakfasts and lunches; larger evening meal, taken early with only a few snacks allowed until the following morning, for instance fruit, peanut butter and maybe cheese on crackers. We're not counting calories or following any particular regimen, just being (mostly) sensible.

There are lapses, to be sure, though overall it parallels the advice dispensed near the end of this article. Maybe it's only a 35% change for us, but I feel pretty good. What's more, I don't feel as if I've sacrificed much in the way of enjoyment.

DEATH OF THE CALORIE (The Economist's 1843 Magazine)

For more than a century we’ve counted on calories to tell us what will make us fat. Peter Wilson says it’s time to bury the world’s most misleading measure

 ... Today Camacho could be described as a calorie dissident, one of a small but growing number of academics and scientists who say that the persistence of calorie-counting compounds the obesity epidemic, rather than remedying it. Counting calories has disrupted our ability to eat the right amount of food, he says, and has steered us towards poor choices. In 2017 he wrote an academic paper that was one of the most savage attacks on the calorie system published in a peer-reviewed journal. “I’m actually embarrassed at what I used to believe,” he says. “I was doing everything I could to follow the official advice but it was totally wrong and I feel stupid for never even questioning it.”

Given the vast evidence that calorie-counting is imprecise at best, and contributes to rising obesity at worst, why has it persisted?

The simplicity of calorie-counting explains its appeal. Metrics that tell consumers the extent to which foods have been processed, or whether they will suppress hunger, are harder to understand. Faced with the calorie juggernaut, none has gained wide acceptance.

The scientific and health establishment knows that the current system is flawed. A senior adviser to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation warned in 2002 that the Atwater “factors” of 4-4-9 at the heart of the calorie-counting system were “a gross oversimplification” and so inaccurate that they could mislead consumers into choosing unhealthy products because they understate the calories in some carbohydrates. The organisation said it would give “further consideration” to overhauling the system but 17 years later there is little momentum for change. It even rejected the idea of harmonising the many methods that are used in different countries – a label in Australia can give a different count from one in America for the same product.

Officials at the WHO also acknowledge the problems of the current system, but say it is so entrenched in consumer behaviour, public policy and industry standards that it would be too expensive and disruptive to make big changes. The experiments that Atwater conducted a century ago, without calculators or computers, have never been repeated even though our understanding of how our bodies work is vastly improved. There is little funding or enthusiasm for such work. As Susan Roberts at Tufts University says, collecting and analysing faeces “is the worst research job in the world”.

The calorie system, says Camacho, lets food producers off the hook: “They can say, ‘We’re not responsible for the unhealthy products we sell, we just have to list the calories and leave it to you to manage your own weight’.” Camacho and other calorie dissidents argue that sugar and highly processed carbohydrates play havoc with people’s hormonal systems. Higher insulin levels mean more energy is converted into fat tissues leaving less available to fuel the rest of the body. That in turn drives hunger and overeating. In other words the constant hunger and fatigue suffered by Camacho and other dieters may be symptoms of being overweight, rather than the cause of the problem. Yet much of the food industry defends the status quo too. To change how we assess the energy and health values of food would undermine the business model of many companies ...

Food swamps have four unhealthy options for each healthy one, and they're a strong predictor of obesity rates.

I am shocked -- shocked -- to learn that fast food is an unhealthy option, and if I hadn't read this book a full 16 years ago, I'd be even more scandalized.

Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal (2001) is a book by investigative journalist Eric Schlosser that examines the local and global influence of the United States fast food industry.

First serialized by Rolling Stone in 1999, the book has drawn comparisons to Upton Sinclair's classic muckraking novel The Jungle (1906).

It's another swamp in need of draining, but at the same time, just about every day I'll read the social media comments of a local citizen demanding that he or she be given more chain restaurants and expanded fast food options -- or else we turn out the thieving bastards in charge.

In reality, most of these comments emanate from non-voters, and it's necessary to understanding that in an exploitation-driven economic system, the affordability of sustenance is key, whether or not it kills you in the end.

Rest assured, Jeff Gahan is working assiduously to provide more of these chains, especially up on the multinational strip mine known as Summit Springs.

It is my belief that these demands for uniformity reveal deeper sociological and psychological trends, although it's a topic for another day.

Food Swamps Are the New Food Deserts, by Olga Khazan (The Atlantic)

It’s not just a lack of grocery stores that’s making us fat. It’s an overabundance of fast food.

The term “food desert” conjures the image of a forlorn citizen, wandering through a barren landscape for miles and miles (or, by definition, for more than a mile) to reach the nearest fresh-food market. Populating food deserts with grocery stores is a favored cause among nutrition advocates, but the concept became controversial after some recent studies found the distance to the nearest grocery store doesn’t correlate with a region’s obesity rate.

(Because it’s nutrition, other studies have shown the opposite. Either way, most people would agree it’s nice to be able to buy produce with relative ease, even if doing so doesn’t make you fit into your high-school jeans again.)

Now, new research suggests food deserts might not be the culprit—or at least not the only one—for the high prevalence of obesity in certain areas. Instead, food swamps might be to blame.

In addition to being low on grocery stores, food swamps are also crammed with unhealthy food options like corner stores and fast-food places ...

Two perspectives on those foodstuffs entering your piehole.

They're slightly different perspectives on eating, but quite complementary. Both are from the New York Times. First, Mark Bittman:

A new column from Mark Bittman explores moderate, conscious eating: a diet higher in plants and lower in animal products and hyperprocessed foods.

The moderate, conscious eater — the flexitarian — knows where the goal lies: a diet that’s higher in plants and lower in both animal products and hyperprocessed foods, the stuff that makes up something like three-quarters of what’s sold in supermarkets. That’s the kind of cooking and eating I’ll be exploring in this monthly column.

Then, Frank Bruni:

Invasive species run roughshod over the rest of nature. That’s where our incisors and bicuspids come in.

For your personal health, you should probably eat more vegetables. But for the future of civilization as we know it?

More pork. Feral hogs, to be exact.

Alzheimer's, and more obviously, recurring litter in my yard.

As if we needed yet another instance of the high cost of low price ...

Alzheimer's could be the most catastrophic impact of junk food, by George Monbiot (Guardian)

... Even if you can detach yourself from the suffering caused by diseases arising from bad diets, you will carry the cost, as a growing proportion of the health budget will be used to address them. The cost – measured in both human suffering and money – could be far greater than we imagined. A large body of evidence now suggests that Alzheimer's is primarily a metabolic disease. Some scientists have gone so far as to rename it: they call it type 3 diabetes.

New Scientist carried this story on its cover on 1 September; since then I've been sitting in the library, trying to discover whether it stands up. I've now read dozens of papers on the subject, testing my cognitive powers to the limit as I've tried to get to grips with brain chemistry. Though the story is by no means complete, the evidence so far is compelling ...

... Plenty of research still needs to be done. But, if the current indications are correct, Alzheimer's disease could be another catastrophic impact of the junk food industry, and the worst discovered so far. Our governments, as they are in the face of all our major crises, seem to be incapable of responding.