April 2004

Point/Counterpoint: The Food Section of the Washington Post

Point: The Washington Post Food Section is Becoming Tedious

Warning, diatribe to commence in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1:

If the Washington Post's food section doesn't stop running articles that either extol, compare, or deride low-carb diets, I'm gonna find me a spudzooka and blast the place all over with starchy, potato-y goodness.

Sure, the press keeps harping on the rising numbers of obese Americans, but I just gots to say that I'm sick of the stories (this isn't due to guilt on my part, I assure you)! I just don't care enough about the Atkin's diet, South Beach diet, Zone diet, Eat Less/Exercise More diet (which now has some fancy name that escapes me, although it's really the "doi" of the diet world), the grapefruit diet, the cabbage soup diet, or the Paleolithic diet. I'm sure I'm missing some, but those listed are the ones that jump out at me. Excluding the "doi" diet, these are all appalling combinations of science, pseudoscience, and nonsense.

When I read the food section of a newspaper, I expect to read about food, not fad diets and certainly not lists of foods I shouldn't or most certainly should eat. I want recipes; I want information about local restaurants; I want to learn about booze. Give me the information I require to maintain my gluttonous ways! Food and drink are about enjoying yourself and having fun with friends and family. Diets are about weight loss and abstinence (note: this word can apply to food, not just sex). What enjoyment and fun do I get out of that? None. Nada. Ziparoony.

My one wish is to go through a day without a single reference to one of the aforementioned fad diets. (This has nothing to do with my being a sedentary, boozeful chowhound. Seriously. No ill will or jealousy here, because I obviously have the "heroin chic" going on.)

Folks do get results using some of these methods, and I'm impressed by the people I know who've been able to lose weight. I'm just sick of having the media so focused on the subject (and lead in the drinking water, but that's a whole other story), that I could cry, eat a whole baguette, and drink five bottles of wine.

And then I'll bitch slap Dr. Phil and maybe Oprah for good measure.

Here endeth the diatribe. Thank you for pretending to read.

Counterpoint: No Shit

I totally agree with you.. Or I would if I bothered to read the food section. I often find the Washington Post to be incredibly tedious. And this is sad considering it's one of the better papers in the country.

The Post usually has a few subjects they just can't stop writing about. A great example is traffic. They must have a story about traffic in there once a week. And it's usually the "we are so brave for putting up with our terrible traffic". The most recent one was about how every Friday going out of town has bad traffic, not just holiday weekends.

The answer to this is the same as the diet question: use your head. You can leave earlier or take a train much as you can just not eat that entire pie after a 36 oz steak.

Having been on one of those gay diets, I have some insight into them. It's basically about the "doi" factor. For instance, the low carb diets, if you actually bother to learn what they are, basically just encourage you to eat a bit better and to eliminate certain foods and so forth. If you really pay attention, it's just the obvious- "eat in moderation and get some exercise". That's how you lose weight. Plain and simple. The people who do the Adkins diet by eating 6 eggs and a pound of sausage, but no toast for breakfast, are missing the point. Even if they do lose a bit of weight, the heart attack will surely kill them.

I can understand the food section writing about some of those diets. But I would expect fair critiques of them along with recipe suggestions. I'm sure, from what you're saying, is that it's writing is more fitting a dumb-ass magazine or the NY Post.

Any fair analysis of all of these diets would say the same thing- eat less, exercise more, don't eat so many processed foods. Basically, eat like you lived 100 years ago. Back when the only fat people were presidents, supreme court justices, and in the case of Taft, both. That guy was a total fatass.

Basically, Woofer, the reason these things get written about is because people are looking for easy answers, not hard work. Nobody is going to read about how they actually have to put some effort into their health. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, surely. And, of course, the Media always takes the easy way out. That's why election coverage now consists of dudes sitting around on TV talking about strategy instead of actually studying the issues and doing some research. Do you know how easy it is to sit around and talk about election strategy? There is no easier job. You watch TV, then go on TV and talk about what you saw.

Lazy fuckers.

I wish newspapers would get out of the business of making people feel better about themselves, or that their very existences is a profile in courage (going on diets, sitting in traffic). Because that's not their job. Papers are supposed to scare the hell out of us (see Upton Sinclair).

Here ends my co-ranting.