Addicted to “Food Addiction”

I recently wrote a short article on “food addiction” for the Risk Innovation Lab’s CrisBits blog (collaboratively published by Arizona State and Michigan University!). This piece mainly focuses on the scientific side of the issue- I really wanted to broadly cover research on the topic, since so many popular articles on food addiction focus on singular studies (and end up being extremely misleading). Yet I also really wanted to address the topic from an anthropological perspective.

… the notion of addictive foods attracts us on a much deeper level as well

So why are we.. almost addicted to the belief that “food addiction” is a thing? If you read my CrisBits article, you’ll see that there is (as of now) no actual evidence for any food ingredients causing addictive-like responses in humans. The field is highly debated, though: there’s plenty of scholars arguing pro and against. On top of that, the media often does a horrible job sensationalizing food addiction research (well, I suppose it does a great job sensationalizing, but a horrible job communicating the results correctly). All of that can surely create the illusion that science actually supports the food addiction theory. However, the notion of addictive foods attracts us on a much deeper level as well…

Image result for food addiction

The allure of addictive foods

There is a strong cultural appeal in the idea that certain “bad” foods or their components can cause dependence and are thus dangerous (e.g. MSG, casein, gluten). This view of overeating as addiction includes the need to “detox” and instead eat a “clean” diet (e.g. this: The Diary of a Sugar Addict in Detox).

These are not just modern health trends, but a manifestation of a need to understand our world by imposing structure and thus meaning on the untidy experience that is reality. Structure is created by categorizing things into clean/unclean, healthy/unhealthy, pure/dirty- and things that don’t clearly fit into such categories are considered unclean and dangerous. Anthropologist Mary Douglas makes this point in her seminal book, Purity and Danger, as she examines food taboos (cultural rules about what not to eat). Douglas points that prohibited foods are considered “polluting” because they defy easy classification into culturally important categories. The current unease with genetically engineered foods is a fantastic modern example: as a technology that blurs the lines between natural and unnatural domains, it is indeed often termed by opponents as “genetic pollution” or “contamination”.

…prohibited foods are considered “polluting” because they defy easy classification into culturally important categories.

The categories we create to make sense of the world have strong moral overtones, as they allow us to essentially define right and wrong. Indeed, the word “addiction” itself is connected to the moral disapproval of socially undesirable behaviors (e.g. drug abuse). Psychologist Paul Rozin points out how the fear of sugars in American diets, for example, reflects the Puritan belief that things that are very pleasurable must also be bad.

Religious Scholar Alan Levinovitz also emphasizes that people frame eating in terms of morality and religion. He discusses how concepts of healthiness reflect the “myth of paradise past”- the idealistic belief that things were better, healthier, and even morally superior before. From such perspective, novel changes to foods represent our fall from grace- whether via agriculture (e.g. as in paleo diet ideology) or industrialization and technology (as with processed and genetically modified foods).

So, that’s my little anthropological view of food addiction beliefs as a cultural phenomenon. Hope you enjoyed it!

P.S. You might see news reports on studies about food addiction.. but keep in mind that no clinical diagnosis for “food addiction” exists, and most such research uses a self-report questionnaire: the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS). This tool uses DSM-IV’s generic criteria for substance abuse to measure addictive-like eating.

Most importantly, it does not validate the existence of “food addiction” as a true disorder (DSM diagnostic criteria is intended for trained clinicians, not a checklist for self-diagnosis via a simple questionnaire). This is a critical issue to consider, as most food addiction research with humans is based on diagnosing food addiction this way.


Time of Eating & Health: Video

I made my first science communication video! It took me only ~ 15 hours, no big deal 🙂

It won’t be as time consuming from now on..but there is a lot of work involved nevertheless: writing a good concise script, sketching all the images that could go along with it, setting up the recording (can be so tricky!), recording yourself draw (and redraw.. and redraw) every frame.. Then editing all those videos, recording the audio (and re-recording..and re-recording again), and finally matching video to audio (as well as finding some free background tunes to go along!). Check it out: 


I chose this topic because i’ve been craving to cover it for some time now. Since my dissertation work focused on lay models of healthy eating across cultures (so: people’s beliefs about what it means to eat well), I did not address the scientific accuracy of any perceptions. But oh I wanted to! And that is because one of the most fascinating findings from my interviews was that eastern European (EE) participants considered “how you eat” (i call these “eating styles”) to be more important for health than American respondents.

Eastern Europeans (EE) judged statements about EATING STYLES (such as time of eating) as more important for health…

Specifically, EE participants rated the statement “it is important to avoid eating late in the day” significantly higher than Americans (and this was true from my past survey-based studies!).

This is what the image below shows, but let me explain the method behind it: I conducted >70 interviews in the U.S., Romania, and Ukraine where I asked people to look at 42 different statements about “healthy eating”. Among other activities, they had to indicate how much they personally agreed with each statement (from “4” agree completely to “-4” disagree completely; I used Q Methodology for this, by the way ).

Screen Shot 2017-06-13 at 11.01.58 AM
So, between Americans and eastern Europeans, 1 statement about eating styles (or “context” as I referred to it in this chart) that was more important for the latter: not eating late.

So, out of ALL 42 cards, only “avoid eating late in the day” got a statistically significantly higher agreement score from eastern Europeans. AND when prompted to explain their views, my respondents gave an explanation that was amazingly close to the actual science of circadian rhythms!!

Why did EE folks seem to know about circadian rhythms way more than Americans?

I didn’t analyze why EE folks seem to know about circadian rhythms way more than Americans, but this knowledge is something they knew from childhood.. It was part of general recommendations and “common sense” while growing up in the USSR. It fact, importance of eating styles is prominent in traditional beliefs about health (like in Japan and China).. perhaps all the focus on nutrients that’s possible with modern science is taking our attention away from this old wisdom?

perhaps all the focus on nutrients that’s possible with modern science is taking our attention away from this old wisdom

Now that nutrition science is paying increasingly more attention to eating styles as well (CHRONO-NUTRITION!), I assume American folks will begin incorporating beliefs about importance of food timing also!

Cognition paper published!

Ta-da! Finally. Mine and Dr. Hruschka’s paper is finally out in the Journal of Cognition and Culture. This survey work was done over 2 years in both Eastern Europe and Southwestern U.S. So glad to see it in print!

HERE is the PDF: CognitiveDifferences_Paper2017. Also, if you don’t feel like reading it, i just recorded a 5-minute overview of the paper (recorded between meetings.. after 2 cups of coffee.. sorry if I talk quickly!).

Meat, Plants, and Humans..

This week on ASU campus I managed to attend a fascinating talk: Reconsidering the Role of Plant Foods in Hominin Diets by Dr. Chelsea Leonard. Screen Shot 2016-02-17 at 11.41.44 AM

It was a job talk for the Evolutionary Anthropology department here at ASU and Dr. Leonard is an evolutionary ecologist interested in “human foraging decisions & diet reconstruction”(so- her work would help to clarify what humans ate in the past!) working with Twe populations in Namibia (southwest Africa).

Why does Dr. Leonard study the role of plants? Since shifting towards more meat in diets of early humans has been suggested to be crucial for the unique adaptations in our genus (e.g. large brains), animal foods appear to be very Screen Shot 2016-02-17 at 12.00.04 PMimportant. There is indeed a strong case for meat in a human diet- in comparison to chimpanzees who are mostly herbivorous (eat plants), the human gut has opposite proportions- our small intestine is much longer, while the colon is a lot shorter. The colon is where fiber fermentation occurs- something crucial if you are eating lots of plant foods (and wild plant foods are very high fiber!). What Dr. Leonard suggests, though, is that meat’s importance in human diets may be quite overstated (especially in meat-heavy “paleo” diets popular now).

The people she studies- Twe- are “forager-horticulturalists”; while the Namibian government has been providing maize for them (this started very recently, in the last 7 yrs or so), they mostly forage for wild foods and have very low intake of animal products. Apparently, historically this population hunted large game and had a higher meat intake.. but the area is very poor in large animals now (and has been this way for ~200 yrs).

While I wont’ be able to describe everything Dr. Leonard discussed, I found the following fascinating.. Based on her observations and interviews with the Twe, she constructed and analyzed a hypothetical (yet realistic) diet for this region. Since Twe seem to be doing just fine health-wise with an extremely low animal food intake (there might be some birds, insects, rodents eaten from time to time), she wanted to test if their meatless diet truly meet basic nutritional requirements. FullSizeRender 9

Based on the plants the Twe regularly eat, her analysis showed that such meatless diet can realistically provide enough protein (it can reach minimum levels of essential amino acids our body can not produce without foods that contain them), it can also provide enough fat (while most plant sources were extremely low in fat, the grass seeds often eaten are rather high in it). The main issue with this meatless diet was calories. Getting enough calories to survive would be improbable : while the hypothetical food intake reaches 1774 calories a day.. only 772 of them are metabolized. What this means is that a lot of these calories are not available to the human body- since humans can not ferment fibers very efficiently, a lot of this rough wild plant fiber is indigestible and does not provide our body with energy.

The main issue with this meatless diet was calories.

Since foraging for wild plants  is very labor intensive (and this does not really mean standing around picking berries, but e.g. digging up roots that are about 1 meter (~40 inches) into the ground, or grinding grass seeds and cooking them into porridge), there isn’t enough time in a day to get enough digestible calories from foraging. So animal products are more efficient and provide a concentrated mix of not only essential nutrients, but fat, protein, and calories. While the speaker couldn’t quite estimate the % of calories coming from small game (the birds, insects, etc.), it was very small but still was a part of this population’s diet [note: any time honey was available, it was eaten in large amounts and rather adored, apparently!]. Thus, while a  vegetarian diet can be maintained in our modern world with plentiful food supply (and supplementation), it was not possible for non-industrialized populations.

humans are highly adaptable as we span huge geographical areas, and thus no single “diet” “made us human”

We know humans are highly adaptable as we span huge geographical areas, and thus no single “diet” “made us human” (thus, there is no one Paleo Diet). Yet plants are extremely important in our history- we see that they can sustain populations in good health to a very large degree. One issue with studying the role of plants in human diets is that they do not last well archeologically (e.g. it’s much easier to find evidence of large game being consumed, because their remains last well).

while a  vegetarian diet can be maintained in our modern world with plentiful food supply (and supplementation), it was not possible for non-industrialized populations.

Overall, this was a really great talk! It also reminded me of a paper I read on the significance of plant foods in human evolution, which I talked about HERE.

[note: if you are an evolutionary anthropologist sand have any edits/clarifications to my post, please comment! I am not an evolutionary anthropologist :)]

The SciFiles #2: To Fish or Not to Fish?

Is it end of October already??

My ambitious plan to post simple summaries of cool research studies every Friday did no go as planned this Fall. Not only have I traveled internationally to collect data (dissertation, here I come!), but I also have 5 fantastic undergraduate apprenticeship students “working” in my lab this semester. So- a lot of time has been spent on training, learning how to train, and organizing/cleaning/analyzing the data they help collect for my work. 

Nevertheless, it’s time for another post.

Have you heard that fish is healthy for you? That Omega 3s, the “good” fat, is crucial for health? Or have you heard the opposite and are totally confused?

It wouldn’t be a surprise if you were.. Perhaps you’ve seen Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 4.04.07 PMnews posts like this ->

In my interviews with folks in US and eastern Europe, the conversation includes”healthy fats” quite often. Everybody “knows” fish is healthy and we should all be trying to eat more omega 3 fats that are abundant in fish products for a healthy heart.

Yet in the last several years, many online sources reported on studies that refute these claims.

In this post I’ll briefly summarize a 2014 paper by Grey & Bolland. I believe you can even access it for free by clicking here.

Full reference: Grey, A., & Bolland, M. (2014). Clinical trial evidence and use of fish oil supplements. JAMA internal medicine, 174(3), 460-462.

What Grey & Bolland did was look for the best scientific work on the topic of omega 3 fats and how it affected sales of these supplements. Grey&Bollard summarized18 randomized clinical trials (between 2005 and 2012) that were published in high impact journals (=highest quality journals respected by the scientific community). Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard of research and present the highest level of evidence, so if you’re going to look at scientific support for any idea- clinical trials are the way to go!

What did those 18 studies show: well, only 2 studies reported benefits: a 2007 RCT on ~18000 people and using EPA for major coronary events, and a 2005 meta-analysis of RCTs on ~20000 people looking at effect of omega-3 oils and mortality. The other 16- no benefit… Fish oil sales? In the US between 2007 and 2012 fish oil and omega 3 supplements increased from $425 to $1043 million (!). Similar sales pattern were seen in England and Australia+asia. Technically, that’s not logical- if randomized clinical trials are the best and most robust type of scientific evidence, shouldn’t it influence current practices? The authors write:

“Since 10% of adults in the US take an Omega-3 or fish oil supplement, most commonly for heart health or to lower cholesterol, the null results of 9 of the 10 RCTs and 5 of the 6 meta-analyses studying cardiovascular disease  might have been expected to influence use”

I have pulled up the 2005 meta analysis- one of 2 studies from the review that showed benefit to supplementation- to get a bit more detail on the results. Studer et al (2005)* analyzed 97 studies to examine the safety & efficacy of various lipid-lowering interventions using mortality data (= they looked at lipid-lowering supplement/drug use and how often people who took them and didn’t take them die. The separated deaths into 1)either from all causes, 2)cardiac events, and 3) noncardiovascular causes). Such large-scale analysis of these randomized controlled trials is a very important tool- it allows to look at the overall benefit of interventions. This meta-analysis found that two supplements/drugs had reduce risk of overall and cardiac mortality (deaths from all causes and deaths from cardiac events specifically): statins and Omega-3 fatty acids.

Sounds wonderful, but again: it was only 1 of the 2 studies that showed statistically significant benefit of Omega-3s, while the other 16 did not. (statistically significant= meaning something happened Not by chance alone)

* Full reference:Studer, M., Briel, M., Leimenstoll, B., Glass, T. R., & Bucher, H. C. (2005). Effect of different antilipidemic agents and diets on mortality: a systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165(7), 725-730.

So why do more people continue taking the supplements? Well, first of all, we can assume the public doesn’t read original studies and can be victim to “industry spin”. The “spin” used by industry is a strategy to hype findings and distort the results of clinical studies. Wang et al. (2014) in fact looked this: they analyzed 47 supplements industry press releases & 91 non-industry press releases in response to 46 clinical studies of supplements (published between 2005 & 2013). Result? 100% industry press releases contained “spin” while only 55% of non-industry media pieces did. Industry press releases also reported less on study details – outcome, sample size, effect size- specifically for studies that found no benefit of supplements.

Full citation: Wang, M. T., Gamble, G., Bolland, M. J., & Grey, A. (2014). Press Releases Issued by Supplements Industry Organisations and Non-Industry Organisations in Response to Publication of Clinical Research Findings: A Case-Control Study.

So why else? Well, omega 3 supplements aren’t terribly expensive and people don’t associate them with any RISK, so it makes sense that folks would rather be “on the safe side” and take them. Also, the belief that these fats are “good” can be rather long-term and hard to change- I remember my childhood friends in Ukraine suffering through spoonfuls of fish oil given by their parents. So having a strong long-term belief that fish oils/omega 3s are beneficial can create confirmation bias: looking for evidence that you already agree with and dismissing new research that doesn’t fit your view.

Lastly.. how can fish fat not be beneficial? While I, of course, can not answer that question, here is an interesting piece of theScreen Shot 2015-10-22 at 12.20.39 PM puzzle- genetic adaptation. While I was preparing for a lecture on evolution and human diet, I saw a fascinating research piece at the National Institutes for Health website. Originally, the focus on fish oils came from studies with the Inuit and they seemed very healthy on their traditional fat-rich diets (fat coming from marine sources). So it was thought that fish oil would have a protective effect against cardiovascular disease.. But Dr. Nielsen states:

“We’ve now found that they have unique genetic adaptations to this diet, so you cannot extrapolate from them to other populations”; “A diet that is healthy for the Inuit may not necessarily be good for the rest of us.”

Access full article here.

To supplement or not to supplement, then?
Looks like it is not clear whether dietary supplements with omega 3 fats really influence deaths from cardiovascular causes (strokes, heart attacks) or other causes (cancers) in the population. Yet there is also no evidence that we need to advise people to stop taking these supplements. I suppose it doesn’t hurt..unless it hurts your wallet too much.. Your wallet deserves some good support coming from a good number of randomized controlled trials. 😉

Healthy Eating- Real or Imaginable??

The lobby of one of the conference hotels during non-busy time. The hallways were overflowing with anthropologists all over the world just hours later 😀

This December I presented on my research at the American Anthropological Association in D.C. (woohoo!) What a blast! The conference was bursting with anthropologists all over the globe; the 5-day event was so packed with presentations that the program which included just names of talks & authors ran about 500 pages.

Anyway, one of the interesting moments from the trip was a scholar (I believe she did some work in Latin America but I don’t know what kind of anthropologist she was), who was seemingly bothered by our session on food and nutrition. Our talks focused on “healthy eating” as a social construct [a social phenomenon created and developed by society; a perception or idea that is ‘constructed’ through cultural or social practice]. My talk was on how perceptions of what healthy eating means differs among and within cultures (Ukrainians & Americans in my study), while other presenters talked about how food is discussed in the Canadian Arctic and among those following a traditional “paleo” diet plan. 

Presenting on my Ukrainian study!

The question this lady asked was why we spoke of healthy eating as something created and perceived by humans as if there is no objective healthy diet supported by science.

It’s a bit funny to hear someone being surprised that concepts are discussed as a social creation vs. an objective reality at an anthropology meeting.. but that shows how food and healthy eating can be quite emotional when one is health conscious! I would bet this scholar was someone who personally cares about eating well for her own health. Understandable. Food is a very emotional topic- it is not only good/bad for health and looks, it also represents our identity, our culture, our experiences, etc.

Part of my answer to her was that science might not be able to give her what she is looking for- the objective healthy diet. Not because science sucks, but because nutrition studies are lengthy, complicated, and costly (see my post on why nutrition science doesn’t suck HERE). My favorite example of why nutrition science is hard to rely on is SUGAR. Look at this World Health Organization 2003 report (see full report).

The common sense might tell you that added sugar can’t be good- it adds calories, maybe it makes you hungrier or disrupts bodily processes, maybe it’s just unnatural. People I interview often mention that sugar is one of the main causes of weight gain. Common sense, right? Well, look at the WHO report and check out Free Sugars (= all monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, plus sugars naturally present in honey, syrups and fruit juices). The only convincing evidence from scientific studies is that free sugars increase the risk of dental caries. Not weight gain, not diabetes, not heart disease. Does this mean sugar is only bad for teeth? No, it means there isn’t evidence that it causes other disease with the studies that we have. So if you want to state with complete confidence that added sugars lead to chronic disease and obesity, you might have a hard time backing it up.

 who1 who3

Thinking that there is no such thing as a healthy diet is unsettling. We want clarity. :S Saying that “healthy eating” is an idea constructed socially, however, doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as healthy eating. It does mean that there are multiple ways one can eat well to avoid disease- it can be vegetarian, vegan, paleo, regular calorie restricted diet, Mediterranean diet, etc. etc. etc.

Historical perspective on what good/healthy eating is.

The official stance on a healthy diet is not purely unbiased either- the political and historical context shapes what is officially recognized.  I heard a very interesting talk on the differences in nutrition perceptions between Denmark and Germany during 1940-1945 by Dr. Jensen (University of Copenhagen). She talked how in the early 20th century macronutrients, salts, water and ash were believed to be the sole constituents of food.  Then vitamins were discovered resulting in growing scientific interest in identifying new “micronutrients”, a development that altered (diminished) the perceived importance of the macronutrients (protein, fat, carbs).  So as in Denmark micronutrients became the focus, good nutrition became about vegetables- the source of many micronutrients. In Germany, however, a country experiencing hunger during WWII, macronutrients remained as most important considerations in nutrition textbooks (with protein considered the primary element of food- for the satiety and strength it provides, especially for a country at war!). The point is- the scientific (and thus public) perceptions of what good eating means is shaped by societal circumstances.

It all just depends…

Baklava- a middle-eastern dessert I am absolutely insane about. My friends sometimes wonder how I can study health yet eat something so “unhealthy” as a high sugared dessert. IS it unhealthy? Turkish people love their sweets, yet traveling around Turkey will show you that the population is not plagued by obesity and chronic disease.

Back to whether an objective healthy diet exists or not. If we ignore for a second that people disagree on the details of what one should eat to stay healthy (is carb or fat evil? is animal protein toxic? should you go vegan? avoid gluten like the plague?), most folks at the minimum agree that eating “real” or whole foods is important (or in other words- avoiding or limiting modern processed foods and focusing on the less modified foods). I suppose we could say that this definition of a healthy diet is generally accepted. If we move on from processed vs. whole, though, here are a couple of examples of when something generally healthy might not be good for you or vice versa:

Cabbage! A wonderful plant full of micronutrients (vitamin K! Vitamin C!) that protect one from various diseases; the plant is often stated to have anti-inflammatory and anti-cancerous properties. Awesome. Unless you have hypothyroidism since cabbage is one of the foods that interfere with the thyroid function.

Dairy! Gets a lot of bad rep from the paleo community and others. While recently thought as very important for bone health and what not, there is a lot of talk that we have not evolved to tolerate it quite well and it is thus an unhealthy substance to consume. Our genes are still adapted to the pre-agricultural diet (before ~10,000 yrs ago), as many paleo proponents will argue. Yet there is evidence to challenge the assumption that humans are essentially unchanged since the Paleolithic era. E.g. “recent” evolution of lactase persistence and variation in the number of genes that code for amylase production tied to starch consumption. In other words, mutations have occured that allow many folks to digest and thrive on dairy and grains just fine.

– Phytates. Plants have a lot of great ingredients that generally affect us positively (e.g. vitamins protecting from disease), but it depends.. For example, phytates in grains and nuts are usually viewed as bad for us because they can bind to certain dietary minerals leading to deficiencies (iron, zinc, etc.).. In West Africa, many Hausa plants contain substantial amounts of these phytates (especially in cereals and legumes) but these botanical chelators have a potential malaria-suppressive effect (awesome!!). However, this anti-malarial effect may be antagonized by antioxidants in other foods (e.g. such free radical traps as Vitamins C, E, beta carotene, selenium). Antioxidants is something many of us try to increase in the diet..yet if you are living in malaria-prone regions of the African continent, you might want to concentrate on the opposite dietary strategy- phytate-rich and antioxidant-poor foods.

989898So is there an objectively healthy diet? Generally- all eating is healthy since it is required for survival.. undereating and overeating is not good.. lacking a variety nutrients is not good.. and that’s mostly it. Of course, different things work for people- someone might not tolerate dairy, others might feel miserable on a vegan diet; some thrive on salads others can’t digest raw plants well. If only we could all grasp the wonderful concept of moderation and apply it in our lives without struggle. In fact, it is because self-control is so hard to maintain that we want simplified solutions- a diet plan, a list of “bad” foods to simply avoid, etc.

Happy Holidays– don’t overeat on most days, yet don’t let yourself stress so much about what you’re eating that you are unable to enjoy life! 😉 *grabs a big fat piece of dark chocolate and kicks back*.

Freshman “-5”

I never heard of “Freshman 15” until my first year in graduate school studying public health… since I never had been a freshman in the United States. It seemed like a rather obvious fact- I knew very well the food environment on campus and how one can gain weight quite easily in it. Yet when I told my friends and family back in Ukraine, they were quite amused and surprised- how can you gain weight in college!?

When I moved to Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, for my freshman year in 2003, I heard references to the “poor student” from all directions. Apparently, a new university student was poor, hungry, and rather slim. This idea is mostly based on the student image of the previous generation, however. The students in 2003 were not as pale and hungry as my parents remembered it- but they were definitely poor and slowly losing weight due to not having home-cooked meals made by moms as before. In 2003 students had more choices to eat out, but the prices prevented us from doing it often- you ended up cooking at home, snacking, or eating at the cafeteria. Indeed, many ended up losing weight, thus the freshman “-5” (about 2.5 kilograms; my term, arbitrarily chosen just like the “15”).

The following picture is of a cafeteria “full/wholesome lunch” at one of the biggest universities in Kiev taken several days ago. It costs $2.50 and includes: fresh broth-based warm soup, small cabbage salad, main course of a meat patty and mashed potatoes, piece of dark rye bread, and “kompot” (freshly boiled fruit drink) as well as a small pastry (dessert, I suppose). Approximately, a meal like this is roughly 700 calories. It would probably be the main meal for a student, who grabbed a quick breakfast and will attempt to make some food at home at the end of the day.


The main feature of this wholesome/full lunch is- while one might not necessarily consider the addition of pastry, potatoes and a piece of fried meat healthy- the portions are very conservative. The opportunities to overeat are indeed limited.

It would be unfair to compare this to an “American” lunch since a standard American lunch does not exist- the dining halls are using the buffet style so a student is free to choose as healthy or unhealthy as they want. Of course, based on the numerous freshmen focus groups last semester, the common sentiment is that choosing “healthy” is quite hard and annoying: the salads are tasteless, the fried and burgers are omnipresent and a dessert lurks around each food station corner. Plus there’s constant social snacking and eating out- taco bell at 2am, burger king for a cheap dinner… Gaining a freshmen 15 is no problem at all.

On the other side, a Ukrainian student increases his/her physical activity by simply going to and from the university (often a trip of about an hour each way), lack of pocket money for fast food, and rather appropriate (and I would argue “healthy”) home meals at the cafeteria.

It is simply the difference in environments– Ukrainian students do not possess a superior understanding of healthy eating necessarily or boast superhuman will-power capabilities.. they are constrained by resources and are exposed to the environment where overindulging opportunities are lower than, for example, at an American university.

P.S. I also believe more eating norms exist in Ukrainian culture that might prevent overeating and junk food consumption in general..but that’s hard to argue at this point.