Science desk
< April 26	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 27[edit]

Portion control, food rationing, and economics[edit]

When it comes to portion control, so many sources suggest "using a smaller plate" or "using portion control containers" or "sharing the food with someone else" or "communal eating". However, I have found no one who suggests just buying expensive food intentionally while keeping the budget the same. What I mean is, the original food budget may be $50 a week per person. In order to make smaller portion sizes, that person may (1) reduce the food budget to $25 a week per person OR (2) buy expensive food (especially organic-brand food). Either way, the quantity of food is supposed to be reduced, because less money is used to buy food OR the same amount of money is used to buy expensive food; and certain low-nutrient foods (such as potato chips, soda, candy) are banned from the shopping list. So anyway, does economics-based food rationing work? Is there any research examining the effects of intentional food budget reduction OR the effects of swapping to expensive food? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For most people, staying on a budget is difficult enough, but when pitted against the desire for food, it doesn't stand a chance. Not having enough food at home might lead to hitting the local burger joint, and blowing both the diet and budget at once. Also, many low cost foods, like potatoes, aren't a particularly good choice for losing weight. A variation on your idea I have heard of is the blackmail diet. Here you give a neutral party some of your money, with the idea that they will only give it back if you reach some goal, like a certain weight. If you fail, the money instead goes to some cause you hate. If you hate dogs, for example, it all goes to them.

You might also look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which shows that if a physiology need (in this case hunger) is not met, we would not think of any of the higher needs, like saving money for the future, until we satisfy the more basic need. StuRat (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things to note is that, counterintuitively, in developed countries, obesity is generally correlated with lower income, see here "In contrast to international trends, people in America who live in the most poverty-dense counties are those most prone to obesity" This is different than in lesser developed countries, where poor people are more likely to be underfed. That's because of the way that food economics works in the U.S. Convenience foods tend to be more economical because they have a longer shelf life and are easier to prepare (less time intensive), so in terms of long-term economics, poorer people in countries like the U.S. find it actually cheaper to subsist on energy-dense, nutrient-scarce foods because those are available, keep a long time, and are easier to prepare. For many of the same reasons, fresh foods may not even be readily available in poor regions of the U.S. (see Food desert); there's low demand, stores don't stock them as much, etc. In more affluent areas, people have time to shop more frequently, can afford higher wastage, and can spend more time preparing healthier meals. This fits well with Stu's reference to Maslow; hungry people don't have much time to worry about their figure or long term health prospects. --Jayron 32 17:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, obesity-shaming in the United States is really a disguised version of poverty-shaming, and any discussion about poverty in the USA is bound to include class and race. And I've read in the recent news that Donald Trump has made huge tax cuts... for the rich. Awesome. Now, the rich is just going to get richer, and the poor is going to get poorer. Well, let's just hope that the people have some goodness and donate more money to charity and low-income gardens. With a weaker government and more powerful rich people, the only way to help the poor is to get the middle class to side with them.

I think if you're hungry, then you are very likely to think of the short-term costs. $1.00 for a pack of Ramen noodles may seem economical at the Dollar Tree, but just a few steps away, there are frozen vegetables and fruits. Though, you would have to account for cooking. So, you can look at foods that don't require cooking - like canned produce, even though they may be very soggy and bland. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got really expensive ramen. I can generally find them for anywhere from 15 cents per pack to 33 cents depending on sales and the like... --Jayron 32 10:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he meant a multi-pack, probably with 6 or 12 individual packages. StuRat (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump proposed massive tax cuts for the rich, but that doesn't mean they will pass Congress. Many mainstream Republicans will oppose it because the deficit would skyrocket, and pretty much all Democrats will oppose it. As for Dollar Tree, I get 4 ounce frozen salmon fillets there, and 12 grain bread, so you can find healthy food even there. StuRat (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer, but: the tradition of Lent seems of some relevance to this question. We have a notion of medieval times as being harsh, yet how did religious people of the era come up with a tradition of intentionally doing without food then? I would love to see something on the functional aspects of Lent traditions - do they combat obesity, and if so how? Was meat much more expensive relative to other foods in former times (as reflected by subsequent positions in the U.S. Catholic churches)? Did it make sense to avoid slaughtering animals at that time of the year, etc.? Wnt (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People say that the Mediterranean diet is "healthy". Coincidentally, the Mediterranean countries are Catholic or Orthodox. Both religions do intermittent fasting. This video says that the rich did not eat fruits and vegetables, because they thought food from the ground was for the poor. Apparently, spices were not "from the ground". 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask variants of these questions on the Humanities Desk, but briefly, assuming you are referring to European Christian societies:

1. The Christian season of Lent long pre-dates "medieval times".

2. Meat is in most circumstances more expensive than grains, beans, legumes, vegetables, etc. whether you measure per kilo or per calorie.

3. Very few animals were slaughtered during Lent (except for perhaps the royal court). The economics of animal husbandry, and the dictates of reproductive biology, meant that the spring-born young (lambs, calves, piglets) were raised to slaughter weight by the autumn, with the meat preserved (dried, smoked, frozen) to last through the winter. (Our article on Pig slaughter has a section entitled Traditional autumn activity.) It pays to minimise the number of livestock that need to be fed on preserved food (e.g. hay) overwinter. By early spring, many communities would be hungry; one function of Lent is to restrain the rich and encourage compassion for the poor. See Lent#Fasting and abstinence and Fasting and abstinence in the Catholic Church. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are hard jelly sweets made?[edit]

How do Rowntree's Fruit Pastilles achieve their hard jelly consistency? Do they just use more gelatin than others or is there some other ingredient that gives the jelly a hard chewy consistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocontrolgorge (talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure specifically on that brand, but generally candy hardness is determined by how long the candy is cooked. Candy making#Sugar stages covers the various stages of sugar hardness which is mostly based on the temperature you remove the cooked mixture from the heat at and the sugar concentration in the final mix. Making candy of any kind is basically sugar + water + flavors; to get a specific consistency you heat the mixture to a certain temperature, then cool it. The specific temperature it reaches is based on a colligative property called boiling point elevation. --Jayron 32 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And note that cooking it longer makes it harder by reducing the water content. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can people still lose weight eating junk food?[edit]

Just a quick question; if someones basal metabolic rate is 1,600 calories a day can they still lose weight if they eat junk food like pizza and chocolate as long as it totals less than 1,600 calories a day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocontrolgorge (talk • contribs) 14:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. However:

1) It's quite unlikely they will feel full after that small amount of junk food, so actually do so is extremely difficult. It's quite easy to get 1600 calories from junk food in one meal, so that means no eating the rest of the day. See satiety.

2) They will still damage their health with unhealthy things (excessive trans fats, saturated fat, LDL cholesterol, sugar and sodium) and a lack of healthy nutrients (dietary fiber, HDL cholesterol, protein, vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, antioxidants, etc.).

3) Their body may enter starvation mode due to a lack of healthy nutrients, and the basal metabolic rate may subsequently drop. Reducing the amount of junk food further may then only push them deeper into starvation mode, in a vicious cycle, leading to serious malnutrition.

4) Your 2 examples, pizza and chocolate, are two things that can be part of a healthy diet, provided it's a veggie pizza (with big chunks of veggies, not token diced bits), and dark chocolate, like 85%, and you don't have too much of either. Some other junk food, like soda, is unredeemable, as even using artificial sweeteners doesn't make it healthy. StuRat (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weight loss has a rather checkered reputation, but "starvation mode" isn't entirely a bad thing. Bear in mind that for many obese people, "starvation mode" doesn't literally mean an emergency breakdown of vital proteins, but simply a decrease in insulin resistance! If a diet fails at a weight loss goal but improves blood sugar levels, that is still a useful thing. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only they can, but they will; the first law of thermodynamics is hard to beat, and energy can come only from "burning" the solid body mass with atmospheric oxygen and releasing it as CO2, losing one carbon atom in the process and its associated weight. (Unless that "someone" is capable of photosynthesis or other means of energy storage that do not involve the enthalpy of the food they eat, or you cheat with a technicality.)

Obviously, this does not imply anything about whether such a diet can be kept to from a mental point of view, and anyways human health is not summarized by one variable of weight, as hinted to by the above answer. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of junk food is generally food that is low in nutrient density. Nutrient density is simply the ratio of micronutrients to food energy. This has nothing to do with whether or not you lose weight; weight loss is mostly a matter of using more energy than you get from your food. If you use more energy than your food provides, you lose weight. Junk food causes other health problems noted above due to the lack of necessary dietary nutrients, but strictly speaking if your manage your caloric intake, you can lose weight on a junk-food only diet. The documentary Fat Head, the film maker lost weight on an all-McDonalds diet for example. --Jayron 32 14:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The asteriod impact that wiped out the dinosaurs[edit]

This has been bothering me about the aftermath of the impact. Given the global-scale devastation and blackout conditions that persisted for years afterward, how was it possible for absolutely any living thing at all to actually survive the disaster? Just exactly how dark and how cold did the earth actually become, and how long did it last? If it really literally was as bad as is often shown on tv, there is simply no way that anything dependent on photosynthesis could have survived at all - and consequently also nothing higher up the food chain. It simply could logically not have been really as bad as the "popular" media portray it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen any popular media portrayal of the years following the impact, so it would help if you pointed us to some of the ones you're thinking of. Henry ^Flower 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] It depends (mostly) on how long (and cold and dark) the popular media are portraying it – I don't know myself because I avoid portrayals that are likely to be grossly inaccurate. Given that some life did survive, by definition the actual conditions must have permitted it, so we need to assess the conditions against that known fact. Bear in mind that plant seeds can survive for years before germinating when the right conditions return, and larger woody plants can also survive, alive but not growing, for lengthy periods. The terrestrial animals such as mammals and avian dinosaurs (aka "birds") that did survive were all small (I've read "cat-sized or smaller"), and may have subsisted mainly on carrion and plant seeds. ("Roast chestnuts. anyone?" "No, pass me some of the T. rex jerky.") Even most members of most surviving species would have died, but it only takes a few surviving pairs (or individual plants), to make it through and start repopulating (and evolving into all those suddenly vacated niches). Its harder to know what was going on in the oceans, but obviously something was. I presume you've already read Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event and any relevant links and references. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article [1] says: "Omnivores, insectivores and carrion-eaters survived the extinction event, perhaps because of the increased availability of their food sources. No purely herbivorous or carnivorous mammals seem to have survived. Rather, the surviving mammals and birds fed on insects, worms, and snails, which in turn fed on dead plant and animal matter. Scientists hypothesize that these organisms survived the collapse of plant-based food chains because they fed on detritus (non-living organic material)" --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor is torpor (hibernation, estivation etc.) I looked for confirmation and found things like this. A fun thing I have in mind is that a human ship emerging from suspended animation is perhaps likely to really freak the natives of some other planet, where life didn't pass through this bottleneck and the emerging humans seem like mythical undead... Wnt (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Chicxulub crater mentions the Earth is estimated to have been shrouded in darkness for "several years, possibly a decade". Since many seeds can persist for decades, and some even over a century, while staying viable, it's totally plausible that some species survived the event. Now, it would certainly be devastating, and our article on the extinction event mentions that the majority of terrestrial plant species went extinct around this time. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]