In the Globe's food section this morning, there's a small article about the phenomenon of "100-calorie snack packs." A nutritionist interviewed for the article sniffs that, while they are okay for a special treat, they shouldn't be part of one's regular diet. This brings up a number of thoughts, the first two of which are Shut and Up.
Is there a profession any more repressed and joyless, prim and sanctimonious, than that of nutritionist? I've never understood why the cultural stereotype is of prudish, uptight librarians. Books are hot. Reading is hot. Libraries are sensual places and "sexy librarian glasses" are neither an oxymoron nor a surprise. I don't think you need to rip the pins out of the bun of your average librarian to have her on one of those lovely, long wooden tables. Nutritionists, on the other hand...
You know what porn I'd like to see? I'd like to see a nutritionist tied down and forced to eat chocolate ganache. Forced to admit she likes it. Forced to beg for it. Or, for a real wallow in filth, the same thing, but with Yodels.
But before I get too distracted with my rich and full fantasy life, on to point number two:
I recently read a discussion of gender and advertising in which someone sarcastically commented that apparently, if you're a woman, you're supposed to subsist entirely on yogurt, Special K, low-cal cranberry juice, and the occasional Lean Cuisine. Because to be feminine means to be perpetually on a diet and to never eat anything that actually tastes good or satisfies you. (Well, actually, the commercials try to brainwash you into thinking that if you're a real woman, all that Special K and fat free yogurt will taste good and satisfy you. But not even the average American sucker, er, consumer is gonna fall for that one.) Despite whatever issues I had with food in high school, it was still a rude awakening to go to college and find that suddenly drinking a non-Diet Coke was a moral failing and a dinner of air-popped popcorn or some of that yogurt with all the fat magically removed was supposed to suffice as dinner. If you weren't a disgusting pig.
Sorry, but no. Nutritionists and American advertising wonks be damned. Food is not supposed to be joyless and non-pleasurable. I will live to eat, not eat to live, and when too many cookies or sandwiches make my pants get tight, I'll cut the hell out of my carbs for a couple months and walk a whole lot of miles till my pants fit again.
Then I'm right back on the ganache.
xoxo
3 comments:
lol, The guys get whoppers and beer and we get...yogurt. yuck!
funny post. Made me laugh :)
There *IS* an imbalance here. My kid was a swimmer right through college, and while that meant she got the privilege of an enormous food intake, she still noticed that "before a meet, I live on Gatorade and pasta with no sauce. The GUYS eat cheeseburgers and pizza."
It does seem wrong, doesn't it?
Yeah, nutritionists suck. If you actually like your food, you shouldn't be eating it. They're the ultimate puritans, and will only be happy if our entire diet is reduced to a single, tasteless wafer, good only for fuel but never for enjoyment.
Oh, and I'll lump in with them anyone who's ever even walked into the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
However, there is one profession who's even more prim and sanctimonious: medical ethicists. It seems all those defenders of medical retrenchment ever do, at least for public consumption, is come out against new medicines, new procedures, and new techniques and tell everyone, over and over again, how we have to ration medicine and medical procedures and how we should stop working so hard to save people. Fuck'em. Maybe they don't say the same things in professional publications, but whenever a reporter calls them, the only thing they are is against: no matter how much it might benefit people, they're against it.
Post a Comment