Free - to eat a Quarter Pounder with cheese

I love this great opinion piece by Kerry J. Byrne, a food and drink writer of the Boston Herald.

The government is not going to get a nation of anorexics, vegans, or perfectly proportioned people any time soon - because the very first attempt to regulate eating will make the American Revolution look like a shoving match.  No nation but in America can someone select what they want to eat, how much they want to eat, and at what price point they want to pay for what they eat.  We don't follow the anorexic or

I like going to b. good, which is burger joint that sells much healthier burgers and so forth.  A full meal with fries and a shake costs about $12 - and often I can afford it.  However, I also like to go to Burger King for a bacon double cheeseburger for half of that cost.  I can either have a yogurt parfait at Au Bon Pain, a yogurt shake at b. good, or ice cream at Ben & Jerry's (or a local joint).

Now, if you have $3 and you can feed yourself pretty well on that, you're lucky.  It might be true that we have healthy food deserts (but you also notice there are plenty of lottery and liquor oases), but if there is food and it sates us until the next meal, then someone's telling a big fat lie.  Moreover, if you can buy that meal off the dollar menu at Wendy's and work all 800 calories off in a day, bless you.  No one's forcing a gun to your head to do jumping jacks and mountain climbers - just move around and keep active.

How about this neat idea from a mother with three children - you can still have junk food, but you gotta work for it.  If there's a McDonald's three miles away, the Happy Meal is yours if want to walk for it.  Or if you want to go to Sonic, we take the dog too and give it a run.  I think that's a marvelous idea - work for your junk food, make it slightly more difficult to access (no knee-jerk food fascism such as bake sale bans and getting into a lathering snit over 2800 calories shakes - unless you've had major dental work and can't eat solid foods), and get some exercise in the bargain - it'll make you at least hungrier for it!

Byrne is certainly right about one thing - we aren't active enough.  I'm not and I'm free to admit it - I work 8-9 hours a day at a desk, and the last thought on my mind on the way to work or on the way home on the bus is exercise.  I could get a bicycle, but I like to ride with my huge noggin al fresco - no helmet.  When we aren't active, even if we're on a strict macrobiotic hypervegan diet, we gain weight.  The worst thing we can do is nag people to death to lose the weight, but given an appropriate, non-obnoxious incentive to do so, and people will flock to it.

Take out the fear of getting injured or being a victim to violent and non-violent crimes, and all those poor people who are overweight will be healthier.  It'll certainly knock down the Potemkin food deserts and the fun out of marching lockstep in the streets, extolling the virtues of Puritanism gone amok.

Julia Child: A foodie's goddess, a control freak's Mephistopheles

In this article, a member of the restaurant industry puts out the word that, yes, you can have your cake or hollandaise or Bloomin' Onion, but make sure you get some exercise. Otherwise, the armada of finger waggin' nannies will come to your door and raid your cabinets.

I'm currently into a program with a dietician that emphasizes fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and the like. I feel 100% better. At first, I missed caffeine and pancakes and that heavenly coffee roll with the white icing they sell at work, but then I discovered for half that amount of calories, I could have two slices of whole grain bread, peanut butter, and yogurt and be completely full hungry at 11am. I don't have those urges to raid the vending machine, except for the $2 Clif bar I buy. I even think I've lost weight.

That doesn't mean the health Puritans should slap the occasional cheeseburger and fries out of my hands. Sure, show me (not lecture, hector, cajole or anything resembling finger wagging) better food choices and their advantages, but unless you want a counterlecture on why strangers should mind their own damn business and not dictate their dogma to people, you'll walk right on by and shut your damn mouth.

In fact, I think a lot of what motivates these health Puritans (I'm looking directly at you, Tom Friedman of the CDC, the biggest nanny-state prick on the planet) is that they fear that the lower classes will discover that the foods that the upper classes take for granted are actually a lot better, and demand for these boutique foods will skyrocket. Hence, keeping the poor fat and happy on HFCS and cheap food is better than growing more food that gives out continuous energy, and charging an obscene amount for fruit ($3.99 for a half pound of pineapple at Au Bon Pain, when you can get a whole pineapple for 99 cents a pound and cut it up yourself?) and veggies kinda defeats the purpose of "beating obesity."

Which brings me to another point: health Puritans can't stand the sight of people who aren't perfect in weight and proportion. Most of the time it's the heavy and obese, but wouldn't it be nice if these dingalings cast their jaundiced eye on anorexic and bulimic girls, who sometimes are so underweight that they look like Holocaust death camp survivors? And for what purpose do these young girls count calories, exercise to exhaustion, and then wonder why their hair is falling out and their friends and parents are pleading them to stop losing weight? Fashion? To get that cute boy from her biology class to notice her? Being anorexic is just as bad as being obese - unless the goal of the health Puritans is to have a class of wafer-thin automatons who only survive on lettuce and water.

So the point of his letter, save the author's reputation, is to do what the great Julia Child did: be as much pain in the ass to the health Puritans as possible. Proclaim loudly and proudly that an entire stick of creamery butter makes the pies much better tasting, not some "weak as water" stand in. Incorporate as much liquor as Julia did, but not to the point where your entire dinner party is blitzed when the dessert comes around - including the children. And while your vegetarian friend looks at you in horror as you devour that 1/3 pound Angus burger, blithely mention that Julia Child lived till she was 92, and not on Gardenburgers and soy milk.

Then, after the dishes are cleared, head outside for a walk.

Food control - why it's a waste of time and a failure

Every time I enter the L'il Peach in Cleary Square, the kids from the Rogers and Hyde Park High load up on whatever sugar-laden or fat-laden treats they can get their hands on. Many a time, I joked out loud that there should be a snack tax - one that would discourage kids from bollixing up the line by forking over more money for Pixy Stix, Chef's Cajun/Ketchup/Soul chips, and Ring Pops.

That would give richer, tonier, wealthier towns a wicked idea, though. Tack on a quarter to a fist full of Tootsie Pops, a bag of chips, or anything else that looks like junk food. They take a harsher line: they ban any form of sugar in their schools.

I'm wondering if the dearth of cupcakes and crullers really raised the SAT scores - no wealthy family will have their spawn at UMass Amherst to flip burgers or work in a cubicle when they could be at a Big Six accounting firm with a hot trophy wife and five Stepford children.

I think these richer towns have it wrong: You cannot hope to rein in obesity if you have a group of resentful kids and equally resentful parents glaring at you as if you were Captain Queeg. Take away the sugar, and they're bound to find it elsewhere and consume it sub rosa.

Are the kids from Lynn going to become illicit sugar suppliers for the kids in Lynnfield? How about the North Andover kids, jonesing for a can of Coke Classic, surreptitiously going over the border to Lawrence to snag a can - at inflated prices? And Brookline is surrounded by Boston, and it's easy to sneak into Allston and Roxbury to get your fix of Ho-hos and Yoo Hoo.

If these richer towns really want to do something about obesity, the first thing is to take the advice of Richard Simmons - bring back gym, also known as physical education. Letting the kids run around for twelve minutes a day during recess will not only get all that pent-up energy out of their systems, it will help maintain their health without your school administration being branded a nanny-state killjoy. The MCAS and other boutique courses can wait - and you won't be taking away a single cupcake or cookie without a whimper, as they'll be burned off as soon as the recess bell rings.

Second, the teachers should be examples to students, and not live their lives through them. That means they should encourage healthier eating by eating healthier themselves. If the teachers can have donuts and flavored coffee during their meetings and are telling their kids they can't bring in cupcakes for the bake sale, then the teacher's a hypocrite AND a liar. Maybe after a few meetings with the things they're forcing their students to do, they will modify their hasty decision.

Third, and most importantly, it is most important to know that social engineering through food control is a bad idea. Making kids perfect at the expense of letting them be kids is a Sysiphian task. Trying to control children through food also brings up nastier, elitist overtones, as in "Johnny won't be much if he's 300 pounds vs. Jenny's a good girl for being within 99% of her weight and height profile." In the future, Johnny could lose all that weight, or even maintain the weight and be fit (normal blood pressure, good cholesterol scores, etc.), while Jenny is in the hospital yet again because she can't gain control of her anorexia or buliemia, and she's one or two binge-purge sessions away from choking on her own vomit and dying - and she's the same 72 pounds she was in 5th grade, at the age of 21.

I don't talk about these things lightly because I am overweight myself. I am over 300 pounds, although I am 6-4. I have high blood pressure at times, and I am prone to lose weight one doctor's visit, only to put it back on another. I sit in front of a computer all day, and exercise is hit-or-miss. Ice cream is my Kryptonite. So what business would I have telling the school boards that their plans to ban sugar and junk food stinks?

Plenty.

I'm a lot like Johnny: my blood sugar and cholestrol is still good. I don't eat eggs all the time, I don't drink or smoke, or do drugs. I do walk, but not enough to get benefits. My doctor tells me I won't live past 60 if I keep on doing what I do, but losing weight and keeping it off isn't an easy process. There is no magic pill, no exercise program or diet program that will make me 100+ pounds lighter tomorrow. I've tried Weight Watchers and I've found it too heavy on meetings and group therapy (and massive amounts of accounting) and not enough on proper eating.

If these school boards think that sugar and junk food are the obstacles from keeping kids healthy, maybe they should consult reputable dietiticians and physicians who aren't paid to spout out the directives these school boards want to hear, as kids will also overeat the healthy, organic stuff equally simply because they think it's OK to gorge on soy shakes and organic tofu dogs.

Maybe they can bring Richard Simmons to their schools and tell them how to do it right.