Tempest in a Very Large Teapot

The huge story of the past year has been the explosion in the use of a whole new genre of weight-loss drugs. Like any such gigantic, all-encompassing development, this one has brought innumerable minor stories in its wake. One such side-piece is the voluntary demotion of superstar Oprah Winfrey from her almost decade-long seat as a Weight Watchers board member. Rather than replace her, the board will reduce its membership to nine seats.

The talk-show star was elected to office in 2015 but will not be running again this May. She has owned a massive amount of WeightWatchers stock, the value of which has fluctuated over the years. Variety says, “Her initial investment for 6.4 million shares of the company totaled $43.2 million.” A few years later, all the new weight-loss drugs showed up on the market, and many investors took their dollars elsewhere. And then, last week, the announcement of her departure from the board caused the stock price to decrease by more than 20%.

According to Variety,

Winfrey owns about 1.1 million shares of WW International, representing a 1.43% stake in the company, according to data provider FactSet. At the current stock price, that’s worth less than $3.5 million.

These remaining shares and all future income from them are being donated to the National Museum of African American History and Culture. It is said that Winfrey will continue to work hand-in-hand with WeightWatchers in “elevating the conversation around recognizing obesity as a chronic condition, working to reduce stigma, and advocating for health equity.” The announcement was made in December via People magazine, “after coming to the realization that weight management does not hinge solely on a person’s self-control.”

Contradiction

In every report of this story, statements are made that do not clarify but confuse the issue. On one hand, it seems as if Winfrey’s personal decision, some months ago, to start taking a weight-loss drug is looked upon as treachery. It is said that in seeking and accepting a leadership position, she had undertaken to “not engage in any other weight loss or weight management business, program, products or services.”

So, were people angry because she started injecting herself with one of the new drugs? That would be understandable. But there is more information to assimilate:

Last year, Weight Watchers acquired Sequence, a subscription telehealth platform that offers, among other benefits, access to healthcare providers who can prescribe weight-loss drugs including Ozempic, for $106 million. (Users pay $99 a month, not including prescription costs.)

For NPR, Vanessa Romo wrote,

The move to embrace the drugs as part of its weight management program is a massive shift for the company’s behavior-based program. For 60 years, WeightWatchers coaches have told members that the path to a thinner, healthier version of themselves consisted of exercise, counting calories, points — and, perhaps most of all, willpower.

How can this seeming contradiction be reconciled? Romo says, “That reversal has left many current and former members struggling with their own weight feeling betrayed.” It would seem that, if such were the case, having a prominent authority like Winfrey tell them that drugs are okay would eliminate the conflict.

WeightWatchers announced that Winfrey’s decision not to run for the position “was not the result of any disagreement with the company on any matter relating to the company’s operations, policies or practices.” That seems clear enough, because the company is now in the business of hooking up customers with doctors who will prescribe, and sources that will supply the GLP-1 medications.

Yet somehow, there was perceived to be a conflict of interest if a WeightWatchers board member, and owner of a large amount of stock, happened to personally use a weight-loss drug. According to The New York Times,

Kelsey Merkel, a spokeswoman for Weight Watchers, said that Ms. Winfrey wanted to “advocate authentically” for the weight-loss measures she believed to be most effective, without anyone questioning her profit motive.

Meanwhile, it appears that what faithful members regret most is not the former drugless approach, but the fellowship and sense of community provided by live gatherings in real time. The entire huge Weight Watchers International organization started as a meeting of seven people in a housewife’s basement.

Says The New York Times, “Before the pandemic there were 3,300 in-person workshops throughout the United States.” The COVID crisis spurred “premium members” to pay close to $50 per month for “unlimited access to virtual meetings and other digital tools.”

Really feeling slighted are the so-called lifetime members, “who are rewarded with free access to premium-tier benefits if they stay within two pounds of their goal weight — but who must weigh in at an official workshop at least once a month.” Now, there are fewer than 1,000 local workshops, and even some of those are online.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Oprah Winfrey to Exit WeightWatchers Board After She Announced Use of Weight-Loss Drug,” Variety.com, 02/29/24
Source: “Oprah to Leave Weight Watchers Board,” NYTimes.com, 02/29/24
Source: “After nearly a decade, Oprah Winfrey is set to depart the board of WeightWatchers,” NPR.org, 03/01/24
Source: “When WeightWatchers Ended In-Person Meetings, They Held Their Own,” NYTimes.com, 02/02/24
Image by Mike Mozart/CC BY 2.0 DEED

Relating to the Classics

Our recent post referred to the tendency of some things to “go together,” almost as if their pairing was a law of Nature. One of those seemingly inevitable conjunctions links spectator sports and junk food. In 1908, the team of Jack Norworth and Albert Von Tilzer wrote the profoundly American song whose chorus goes like this:

Take me out to the ball game,
Take me out with the crowd;
Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack,
I don’t care if I ever get back.

One might think the synergy between sporting events and recreational eating could not go back much further, but one would be mistaken. For Popular Mechanics, Tim Newcomb described the landscape beneath a venerable landmark, and some of the ancient garbage found there:

A recent study of the drainage system at the Roman Colosseum shows that stadium-goers snacked on fruit, meat, veggies, and even pizza.

If the stadium had not already been officially one of the Seven Wonders of the World, the vast, intricate subterranean infrastructure would cinch the deal. A year-long study has identified (among other fascinating items) the detritus of sports fans answering the call of the munchies. Archaeological officer Federica Rinaldi told the reporter, “We have recovered traces of the remains of the meals that were eaten in the stands during the shows.” He also said,

[S]pectators snacked on a variety of meats, vegetables, and fruits… Archeologists found remnants of olives, figs, grapes, peaches, plums, walnuts, cherries, hazelnuts, and blackberries. They also believe that the meat was “cooked at the moment on improvised braziers…”

The only difference is, the Romans did not have “junk food” per se. In those days, no scientists devoted entire careers to making food more palatable but less nutritious. They worked with what the fields and orchards provided, and every item mentioned in that paragraph can be justified as making a positive nutritional contribution.

An eternal truth?

“Drug experts who now study food have learned that cravings destroy willpower,” writes investigative journalist and author Michael Moss in the Los Angeles Times. But is that inevitably true? After all, when Odysseus, who lived more than 1,000 years B.C.E., had himself tied to the ship’s mast in order to resist the deadly allure of the Sirens, he certainly acted on the principle that cravings destroy willpower.

Now, as the author relates, a substance is sold in pill form “that works a little like methadone for heroin addicts.” Gymnema sylvestreis is a woody vine from which compounds can be extracted that “keep the brain from getting overly excited for sugar by disabling the sweet receptors on the tongue… For an hour or so, brownies and doughnuts and Oreo cookies all taste like putty…”

Moss explains that we are helpless against our evolutionary drive to consume maximum calories to fuel our bodies:

We have sensors in the gut and possibly in the mouth that tell us how many calories we’re eating, and the more calories there are, the more excited the brain gets, which makes us vulnerable to the processed-food industry’s snacks…

Sugars and fats are individually quite compelling, but in combination, they grab hold of a part of the brain called the striatum, which is known to be connected with compulsive behavior. Moss writes,

In my research, I found that hyperprocessed, convenient food products can be as addictive as cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, if not more so, using the industry’s own definition.

So, the important thing is to figure out how to get ahead of the cravings, to forestall and neutralize and cancel them out, which is exactly what Odysseus did by ordering his crew to restrain him with ropes.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Take Me Out to the Ball Game,” Wikipedia.org, undated
Source: “Esplorazione del sistema fognario antico del Colosseo,” YouTube.com, undated
Source: “Here’s What Ancient Romans Ate While Watching Shows at the Colosseum,” PopularMechanics.com, 11/30/22
Source: “Op-Ed: Big Food wants us addicted to junk food. New brain science may break its grip,” LATimes.com, 06/06/21
Image by r.passman/CC BY-ND 2.0 DEED

Like a Horse and Carriage

The methodology involved in persuading children to pester their parents for certain brands of cereal and other food products has been described as aggressive, pervasive, ubiquitous, tiresome, underhanded, and plenty of other adjectives. Julia Olech, whose work we have quoted before, is the author who confronts the American public with such concepts as, “70% of three-year-olds recognize the McDonald’s symbol, but only half of them know their last name.”

Before that can even sink in, the author piles on additional interesting facts. Based on them, she makes several cogent, related points that suggest a certain line of deduction, loosely summarized here:

• Children who are not thinking about food are less likely to eat.
• Children who are consciously thinking about food are more likely to eat.
• The probability is high that they will choose food unwisely.
• Children who eat unwisely are more likely to become obese.
• If we want children not to be obese, we should aim to have them eat less.
• In the media that children consume and interact with the overwhelming majority of ads sell junk food.
• And in the unlikely event that a particular ad is for a healthful food, advertising co-opts the person’s attention, and sets their mind on food, increasing the likelihood that they will eat unwisely and become obese.

Startling discrepancies

If we had a nickel for every nugget of misinformation presented in a food ad, they would reach from here to the moon. Though not technically a food, Coke has been notorious for telling fibs. The soft drink empire has set a record to which others can only hope to aspire, as explored in at least four Childhood Obesity News posts.

Dangerous liaisons

Advertising, especially when performed by popular athletes and entertainment figures, reinforces the idea that some things go together like “love and marriage, horse and carriage.” Americans have always known that part of a movie night is eating a bunch of junk food. If you are watching a spectator sport, you are expected to be feeding your face. Whether in the stadium or the living room, particular kinds of nutritionally deficient foods are just part of the deal.

It is in the best interest of Big Junk Food to normalize the consumption of crap on every possible occasion. The industry’s publicity machine is excellent at this, Olech notes, to the point where “many US junk food ads have been banned in countries like New Zealand, the UK, or Australia.” She goes on to say,

This continuous exposure to junk food ads is shaping children’s norms and expectations about what foods are acceptable to eat regularly.

Like, doughnuts for every breakfast, fries for every lunch — why not? All the manufacturer needs to do is find one recognizable celebrity, and voilà! Everybody gets a bonus!

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Junk Food Marketing Study: What Are Kids Being Fed?,” CyberGhostVPN.com, 02/13/24
Image by Holger/CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED