Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, April 17, 1990 TAG: 9004170429
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MALCOLM GLADWELL THE WASHINGTON POST
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
That is the question raised about the national diet by the advent of so-called fake fats, according to health experts and nutritionists.
It is possible, for example, that when fake fats are approved for cooking, a move expected in the next few years, Americans will go on a collective binge, less inclined than ever to heed the call of nutritionists to switch to something truly healthful for dessert.
On the other hand, it is possible people will eat no more fake-fat cake than they did real cake. Then fat substitutes could be a blessing, bringing a sizable reduction in dietary fat without the need for a painful change in eating habits and giving nutritionists a new opportunity to influence what people eat.
No one disputes that in one way or another fat substitutes are about to change the American diet. Already there is fake-fat ice cream - Nutrasweet's Simple Pleasures - in the supermarket and the next generation of fake fats for cooking low-calorie french fries and diet potato chips is expected to follow.
But in recent months health experts have engaged in a sharp debate about whether the latest of the food industry's high-tech concoctions is going to help or hurt the struggle to improve the country's diet.
Health experts have recommended a reduction both in overall fat consumption and consumption of saturated fats by most Americans.
"This is going to further erode our ablity to teach people about what they should be eating," said Joan Gussow, a nutritionist at Columbia Teacher's College. "Instead of retraining your taste buds, instead of learning to like the foods that are good for you, people are now being told by the food industry that they can go ahead and have their favorite foods."
"The approach we've been using regarding fat is the `just say no' approach," countered Adam Drewnowski, a nutritionist at the University of Michigan. "Just say no and eat broccoli. I'm sorry. It's just not working. We need a more sophisticated approach and that's what these substitutes provide."
The ingredient in fake ice cream, called Simplesse, breaks down when heated and cannot be used in cooking. But compounds are being developed by food firms and chemical companies to replace some of the natural fats used in baking and frying. Chemically, this second generation of fake fats is as close as possible to real fat, giving the fakes similar taste and cooking characteristics. But a small alteration is made in the structure of the fat molecule so it cannot be digested.
The result is a dramatic decrease in the fat and calorie content of some food: french fries cooked in 75 percent olestra - the fake fat under development by Procter & Gamble - have 4.1 grams of fat and 215 calories compared to the 16.3 grams of fat and 325 calories in french fries cooked in oil.
With these decreases, however, comes a concern: Will people compensate for the lower nutrient level of fake-fat foods by eating more? If, for example, french-fry eaters have a biological craving for 16 grams of fat, will they eat another plate of fries to get their fix?
Something like this appears to have happened with artificial sweeteners. Although diet soft drinks have been widely used by consumers looking to cut their sugar and calorie consumption, the best available evidence suggests that consumers have tended to make up the sugar they miss in their drinks from other sources. The introduction of artificial sweeteners has not cut sugar consumption. In the last 10 years, for example, per capita consumption of fake sugar has tripled while per capita consumption of sugar climbed from 126 pounds to 132.
Only a few studies have been done on fake fat but they show a different pattern. When people are given a meal that contains a lower-than-normal amount of fat - and therefore calories - they do tend to compensate by eating more at the next meal. But they make up only for lost calories.
In other words, a french-fry eater might well eat more than he otherwise would to make up the 110 fewer calories in fake fries. But he wouldn't crave the lost 12 grams of fat the way diet-cola drinkers seem to keep craving sugar. That suggests fake fat might be successful in lowering overall fat consumption.
"We know from a lot of animal data that if you start to decrease carbohydrates in the diet, animals just get more hungry and increase the amount of food they eat," said David Levitsky, a nutritionist at Cornell University. "You can't fool an animal. ... But with fat it's a different story. We don't seem to regulate the amount of dietary fat in the same way and so there is no reason to believe that we will have to compensate for artificial fats in the same way."
But even if fake fat does not cause french-fry eaters to go on a binge, the issue isn't settled. What if low-fat fries lure some people who had been scared into eating healthy food back into fast-food restaurants?
Some nutritionists think the real danger of fake fat is that it will make it more difficult to persuade people to switch to the food they should be eating.
"People like the quick fix," said Marion Nestle, a nutritionist at New York University. "They think they will be able to eat this kind of (fake fat) food and get away scot-free. But I think a more major change in the way people live is required. What people really need to do is eat more fruits, grains and vegetables and less processed food."
"It's an important point," said Howard Schutz, a professor of consumer sciences at the University of California-Davis. "Obviously if you can pig out on all the forbidden foods you are going to have less room for the foods that are good for you. It's hard to believe that this is going to help the move toward fruits and vegetables."
But Schutz added, "We weren't about to evolve into a country of vegetarians," and other proponents of fat substitutes say that improving what people eat may be a more realistic approach to better nutrition than the difficult task of changing how they eat.
"We've been talking about the need to eat fresh fruits and vegetables for over 20 years, and the truth is that the consumption of fruits and veggies has actually declined, particularly among lower-income women," said Drewnowski. "We tell them what to eat and they just don't do it. The standard strategy of education is clearly not working. ... It is time to look at alternative options."
by CNB