A closer look at what we actually eat
By Holly Lake, Sun Media

If we truly are what we eat, no wonder junk-food addicted Canadians are getting fatter with every mouthful.
Ottawa Sun reporter HOLLY LAKE spent two months looking at what's at the end of your fork, and what it's doing to you.
The results aren't pretty.

Today: Unhealthy choices

Much like underweight Canadians, information on what we're eating is scarce.

The last national survey was conducted by Nutrition Canada in 1970-1972. Since then, the federal government has done little else to determine what the nation is feeding on. So to paint the picture of Canuck food habits, one must scrounge.

Fortunately, in 1997 and 1998, researchers at McGill University's school of dietetics and human nutrition opened the nation's collective mouth to see what we're putting in there.

After surveying 1,543 adults and nearly 200 adolescents, Food Habits of Canadians did whip up some good news: Our fat consumption has dropped by 10% since the 1970s.

On the other hand, while Canucks are eating less fat, and in most age-sex groups fewer calories, we're still getting fat -- an indication of a nation eating too much and moving too little.

Compounding the concern is that fruit and vegetable consumption is nowhere near the recommended five to 10 servings a day, particularly in men and women over 50. In fact, fewer than 30% of Canadians eat five servings daily.

We're also lacking in dairy products. Adults over 35 aren't even getting the recommended 2-4 servings a day, while youth are sucking back soda instead.

In all age groups, prominent energy sources include foods that don't fall into any major food group. Those accounted for 26%-29% of energy intake and 24%-34% of fat.

WHAT WE'RE EATING - DAILY
Adult men (age 18-65)
  Actual: Recommended:
Calories: 2,744 2,442
Carbs 353g 130g
Protein 116.4g 58.7g
Fat 91.7g < 80g
Based on average sedentary male, 172 cm and 73.4 kg
Adult women (age 18-65)
  Actual: Recommended:
Calories: 1,823 1,825
Carbs 245g 130g
Protein 77.5g 48.4g
Fat 59.3g < 60g
Based on average sedentary female, 159 cm and 60.5 kg
Source: Food Habits of Canadians
Teenage wasteland

These high fat, low protein and low nutrient foods -- many of which are laden with trans fats -- include cakes, cookies, pastries, pop, sugars, jams, syrups and salty snacks, margarine, fast food and salad dressings. Nutrient-dense foods like eggs and fish were barely on the radar and that leaves Food Habits' project coordinator Louise Johnson-Down concerned.

"Teen obesity is basically a result of the fact that they're eating more than they're burning off," she says.

What's worrying is that the second, fourth and sixth main sources of energy in adolescent boys are full of empty calories with no nutritional value.

"It just says to me that there's a lot more junk being eaten out there," Johnson-Down says. "We're talking about 20% of their calories just coming from things that would probably not even fit on Canada's Food Guide."

Girls fare no better, with the same foods comprising 18% of their energy intake. While milk, including chocolate milk, is high on the list, Johnson-Down says it's probably not as high as it should be. Two-thirds of girls aren't consuming the minimum number of milk products (2-4 servings a day), risking osteoporosis later in life.

"Girls at that age are laying down their bone mass," she says. "That's what's going to be carrying them for the rest of their lives. This is the time to be building it."

In most cases, milk is drowned out by soda. In this survey, 61% of teens consumed a soft drink on the day of recall. Most weren't diet and averaged 1,250 calories in a 740 ml bottle.

In 2003, 3.5 billion litres of soda pop were consumed in Canada -- which works out to about 111 litres per capita.

Consumption has been steadily bubbling up in the past 15-20 years, and only 20-25% of soft drinks sold are diet. Ottawa dietician Beth Mansfield can only shake her head.

"I don't even know why we have soft drinks. It's just empty calories -- sugar and water. With fruit juice, as least you're getting a bit of nutrition along with the water and sugar," she says.

Overall, Canadians have made improvements since 1970, Johnson-Down says. We're eating less fat, but we're also eating more processed foods and less fibre, "So I'm not sure we're eating better than we were 30 years ago," she says.

Part of the problem might be that people don't know what they're eating, especially when they eat out. To remedy that, legislation was proposed last year to require calorie labelling on fast food menu boards, next to the price. Large full service chain restaurants would have had to include calorie, sodium, plus combined saturated and trans fats on their menu. The private member's bill is expected to be reintroduced this fall.

11 meals a week

The bill's supporters say it would cover a gap in the mandatory labelling required on most processed and packaged foods by 2005. It would also help people make small diet changes and pay dividends in the long run, considering more Canadians are eating a greater number of meals outside the home.

We go to restaurants about 300 times a year -- on average 11.3 times every two weeks for a meal or snack. The vast majority of visits are to quick-service restaurants.

In 2001, 30c of every food dollar was spent in a restaurant, up from 28c five years before.

While eating out could be an opportunity to eat well, most people do the complete opposite, says Mansfield. No one ever recommends a place because of its small portions. Rather, people want to go where the portions are large and the food is cheap. Invariably, that's going to mean a ton of fries, no legumes and little protein-rich food.

"People destroy their best efforts by this perception that they have to have a lot when they go out," Mansfield says. "They want value for their money."

Restaurant meals generally have more calories and sodium than homecooked fare and it's estimated kids consume about almost twice as many calories when they eat out. No surprise considering little folk's menus usually consist of chicken fingers, pizza, hot dogs and macaroni and cheese.

Canadians are also buying more of what Statistics Canada calls "other foods, materials and food preparations," things such as baked goods, peanut butter, potato chips, soups and baby foods. At lunch, instead of making a sandwich, more of us are grabbing a heat-and-eat entree from the freezer.

Mansfield is not surprised. In the past 30 years, branded products have simplified food preparation and taken it out of the home. Today 54% of all dinners prepared at home include a prepared convenience food. It's assembly cooking. A shift in family situations has also left more people eating on the run, snacking in the day and eating fast food.

A 1996 survey conducted by Kraft and the Dieticians of Canada found at least once a week 39% of employed Canadians and 26% of homemakers ate in a car or another vehicle.

Whether you're eating in a car or in front of a computer or TV screen, you're not aware of what you're eating, Mansfield says leaves you likely to consume more calories.

Top 10 restaurant foods in 2003

  1. French fries
  2. Unsweetened baked goods (bread, bagels, croissants)
  3. Hamburgers
  4. Salads
  5. Chicken (nuggets/strips, wings, grilled, baked, roasted)
  6. Pizza
  7. Sandwiches
  8. Sweet baked goods (muffins, doughnuts, etc.)
  9. Desserts (cakes, pastries, pies, cookies) Ice cream/frozen yogurt
-- Source: CRFA Foodservice Facts 2004
Unhealthy appetites
When it comes to food at the end of our fork, Canadians have a two-pronged problem. Not only are we eating too much, we're eating too much of the wrong foods.

So are we a nation lacking in willpower? Not quite.

We've got great uncle Ned's willpower and our physiology is the same. We even crave the same sweets, fats and salt, a throwback to the days when we had to hunt for food. Sweets were sought because sour things tended to be poisonous.

What's changed since Ned's time? The sweets are more accessible and more affordable. Compounding the problem is the tyranny of the moment.

Dr. Brian Wansink, a professor of marketing and nutritional science and director of the Food and Brand Lab at the University of Illinois, says that allows us to rationalize anything, even when we know it's bad. The tyranny can dominate any common sense about food. If we want it, we'll justify it.

Supersize us: Is this value for money?
CINNABON Minibon
  • Weight: 2.1 oz.
  • Costs: $2.10
  • Calories: 300
Classic Cinnabon
  • Weight: 5.5 oz.
  • Costs: $3.10
  • Calories: 730
DO THE MATH: 143% more calories for 48% more money
McDONALD'S BIG MAC COMBO
  • Costs: $5.19
  • Calories: 1,140
SUPERSIZE MAC COMBO
  • Costs: $5.78
  • Calories: 1,460
DO THE MATH: 28% more calories for 11% more money
MOVIE POPCORN REGULAR
  • Weight: 46 oz.
  • Costs: $4.79
  • Calories: 478
LARGE
  • Weight: 85 oz.
  • Costs: $5.21
  • Calories: 600
DO THE MATH: 26% more calories for 9% more money
7 ELEVEN 454mlSLURPEE
  • Costs: $1.09
  • Calories: 227
1.18-litre SLURPEE
  • Costs: $1.59
  • Calories: 590
DO THE MATH: 160% more calories for 46% more money
Glass half full

But overindulgers can take solace in more than food this time around. Back to willpower, Wansink says there's more afoot than a lack of it when people overindulge. At work are cues most people aren't even aware of.

Do you think the size of a glass makes no difference to how much you're ultimately going to drink?

At the Food and Brand Lab, Wansink conducted two studies of 167 people and found that both kids and adults who were given a short glass poured 76% more than those randomly given a tall glass -- even though both held 22 ounces. Even bartenders poured about 26% more alcohol in short, fat glasses.

Speaking of size, plate diameter is also a factor in how much we eat. The larger the plate, the more food it takes to make it look full. Given the growth in plate size, it's not surprising we're eating more at each sitting.

Here's the dish
It's the same meal, but you're more likely to feel full after eating off the smaller plate, at right.


Those who tend to buy in bulk should also beware. While everyone who stockpiles food will eat more in the first three days, it's where the food is stored that will effect how much is consumed in the subsequent 10 days.

Wansink has compared those who stored the bulk in their cupboards and those who put it downstairs. Those who put food in the basement ate "dramatically less."

"It really becomes out of sight, out of mind," he says.

And just like large plates, large packages can be deceptive. In a study published in the Journal of Marketing, Wansink found if a package size is doubled, people will eat 42% more.

In the case of a 1-lb. bag of M&Ms, participants ate 80 pieces. Given a 2-lb. bag, participants ate about 112 in the same period of time.
Food politics

Big deal, some might say, it's only 125 calories, but those extra calories a day over the course of the year adds up to about 14 lbs. of extra weight.

Regardless if it's milk or laundry detergent, people will use 18-25% more from a large container.

Almost twice as much is consumed when junk food is involved. Large buckets of popcorn, tubs of ice cream and bags of chips lead people to consume up to 48% more in a sitting.

"Nobody believes these things happen to them -- that's what makes them so dangerous," Wansink says.

We see ourselves as getting value for our money and that's a perception that's lined the pockets of junk food companies and packed pounds of paunch onto the population.

Value marketing and supersizing might provide larger portion sizes at a small additional cost, but customers aren't getting a bargain. They're getting a calorie bang for their buck.

In Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health, author Marion Nestle says because food comprises only about 20% of retail costs, the larger portions don't cost companies much at all but they still turn a pretty penny.

And price isn't the only incentive. Staff often ask customers if they'd like to buy a bigger bite.

"People will eat the supersized meal because they see it as value and they want to eat that value," says Dr. Brian McCrindle, director of the Vascular Disease Prevention Clinic at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children.

More than meets the eye

When it comes to cost, smaller portions just don't offer the value of their larger counterparts.

A McDonald's hamburger, small fries and small drink bought individually cost $4.27 and packs 620 calories, while the Big Mac combo packed in 1140 calories and cost just 92c more.

The problem with all this? As studies like Wansink's have shown, the more food in front of a person, the more they'll eat.

The American Institute for Cancer Research found 67% of people eat their entire entree when they eat out -- not a good thing considering the size of today's restaurant portions.

It boils down to this: bigger is rarely better when it comes to food. Ironically, there was never a demand for things like 2.2 litre servings of pop. Marketers manufactured that demand but that hasn't prevented people from buying in.

"Supersizing is a great bargain," says Dr. David Katz, an associate clinical professor of public health at Yale University.

"Many people pay 10 times as much money to lose weight that they gained for at no extra charge. Hello? You almost want to slap people."

Where kids get calories
Source: Food Habits of Canadians

Boys (aged 13-17)
  • breads (9.4%)
  • cakes/cookies/pies/granola bars (8.6%)
  • milk/chocolate milk (8.3%)
  • carbonated beverages (6%)
  • beef/ground beef (5.2%)
  • sugars/syrups/gelatins/cocoa (4.8%)
  • cereals (4.6%)
  • rice/pasta/grains (4.5%)
  • salty snacks (3.6%)
  • sausages/lunch meats/bacon (3.2%)

Girls (aged 13-17)
  • breads (12.1%)
  • cakes/cookies/pies/granola bars (7.4%)
  • milk/chocolate milk (7.3%)
  • carbonated beverages (6%)
  • salty snacks (5.1%)
  • pasta/rice/grains (4.7%)
  • citrus fruit juices (4.6%)
  • cereals (4.4%)
  • beef/ground beef (3.5%)
  • non-citrus fruits (3.1%)