In more ways than one.
As a generalization, the Thai people are more outwardly sweet than most cultures. It’s evident in the way they greet others, including their own, by folding their hands while slightly bowing their heads. They are typically smiling, pleasant, and respectful. Compared to other societies, the sweetness of the Thai people stands out. The Land of Smiles, while it may be an outward appearance, is one of the many charms of Thailand.
One of the other attractions is the distinctiveness of their food. But, and it’s a big but, over the past couple of generations, Thai’s have embraced the use of sugar in most of their meals. Almost every prepared dish has sugar as an added ingredient. Even sautéed vegetables are sugared. Most savory dishes have added sugar. It’s a phenomenon.
When I see young school-age Thai folk, it’s evident that a large chunk does not appear in ideal physical condition. A bulk of them look out of shape, with more extra weight in the wrong places than young people should have, especially youthful Asians. If I didn’t know better, I’d predict that Thailand is headed for a health crisis in the next few generations.
Out of interest, I took several Thai cooking courses at different Bangkok schools. In each, the students prepare and eat their individual dishes. In each, I declared that I wanted to cook without sugar. I was the oddball out in every workshop. In one class, six students were grouped together to prepare a dish, but I was castigated on my own due to my sugarless request. The chef in that school tasted the sugar-free chili paste, peanut sauce, and Tom Yam soup I had prepared and liked them all. Of course, she could have been fibbing to be polite. But then again she admitted she had eliminated sugar from her diet the prior year to slim down. An instructor in another school disclosed that her sister, a doctor, recommended that she stop cooking with sugar because it was unhealthy. (Hmm,…yet she continues to instruct cooking with sugar).
When I ask Thai chefs/cooks why they add sugar to most dishes, the answer almost uniformly is “it makes the food tastes better.” Really? Adding sweetness to already flavorful food so it tastes even better? Couldn’t that be considered a form of crafty trickery?
As a fan of Thai food, it’s more than a little disconcerting to know that sugar is being added to most dishes. To be clear, I’m not referring to desserts and sweet treats, of which, as in most cultures these days, there are plenty. In Thai dishes, sugar is added to main meal dishes, those that typically don’t have, or need, added sugar. Popular dishes such as Pad Thai and green papaya salad, (Som Tum) — both have added sugar. Peanut sauce used for sauteés — added sugar. Stir-fried vegetables — added sugar. Savory soups — added sugar.
The Thai food on the street is damn tasty. But to order a dish with no sugar is a challenge. When I do, the smile is replaced by forehead wrinkles. If sugar is left out, the tendency is to add more msg, Maggie seasoning, and/or honey. It’s become reflexive to add processed flavoring to the food. There are so many natural spices available that adding a tablespoon or two of sugar and msg seems like overkill. And indeed it might be.
Smart people who study cognitive neuroscience know that sugar is a deceptive drug and acts on the brain the same way that cocaine, opioids, and for that matter, any other pleasure substance does. The more we have, the more we want, and the more it takes to satisfy us. Credible researchers have shown that the world’s consumption of sugar has grown almost exponentially over the last few hundred years. Concerning evolution, that means we’ve just started gorging (overdosing?) on sweetness. During that same time, we’ve seen a parallel increase in lifestyle diseases, as well as epigenetic disorders (which we now know are hereditary).
In a savory dish, it can be hard to detect the addition of a teaspoon of white sugar. Sure the dish tastes good. Everyone in the world loves a subtle touch of sweetness. We gobble down good tasting food without a second thought. But if we are to believe an extensive body of recent evidence showing that processed sugar in our diet promotes toxicity and has detrimental long-term health effects, then it may be prudent to pay attention. All foods have natural trace amounts of sugars. So if food can’t stand on its own without the added sweetness, then the results may eventually turn slightly sour.
In the ideal world, we’d see a revolution in Thailand with the elimination of sugar as a key ingredient. But given that won’t happen anytime soon, the Thai’s will stay double sweet.
It’s tricky being in the advice business, especially the “what is right to eat” one. There are thousands of diet books enthusiastically embracing a “correct way to eat.” I’ve read a few recently published, written by smart, educated, scientific minds, several with medical degrees — strongly advising us what we ‘should eat’ to be our healthiest, giving us our best chance to avoid disease. They all agree on one thing: we should be eating real whole food and avoiding highly processed (junk). That makes sense to any dummy. Eating an apple, they agree, is healthier than a Snickers bar. Duh.
Since we are all so “food group” conscious, what the books don’t agree on are the ideal proportions of those whole food groups. Some are polar opposites over saturated fats, particularly from meats and dairy, whether they are good or harmful. One camp exposes a strictly plant based diet, showing studies of how animal fats are directly related to our maladies. Others point to similar studies showing why animal fats and good dairy may help cure them. Some champion low fat in general. Others high fat. Some encourage whole grains, yet others endorse avoiding them. There are loads of conflicting beliefs and recommendations. How can smart, educated, studied, professionals be so at odds about what whole foods we should eat? They all can’t be right. Or can they?
We’ve all been somewhat dimwitted when it comes to what we’ve been sticking in our mouths over the last century as we’ve radically changed our diets away from natural whole to processed food. We gain weight and have health problems, then try to reverse years of bad habits, so we listen to what we hope is smart advice. The thing is, most well-intentioned smart, nutritional advice givers, dedicated to helping people, don’t really know what is the best formula for eating. They can only look at slices of the pie.
We know that our bodies are a collection of atoms, too numerous to put a number to. We’ve learned that atoms join together to form molecules and that these molecules are in constant communication with each other. Life at the molecular level is highly dynamic and interactive. What we eat and breath, ends up communicating with our cells, made up of those molecules. Throw in coded messages from our non-stop thoughts and the quality of sleep, and our internal systems, from brain to toes, are constantly buzzing with vibrant interactions.
In affect, the advice-business folks make blanket claims about what is good or bad with blinders on. We are learning that our molecular messaging system is so complex that effects are sometimes not known for decades, or even generations, leaving us little choice but to make assumptions by looking at slices.
As a complex species we are somewhat the same, but each with unique messaging systems. Is there a “best diet” for everyone? From a logical perspective it’s highly unlikely. At the same time, what is also logical is that food (including the food’s source) which has been manipulated (altering the original intended message) is most probably sending less-than-desirable information to our cells, whether that food is processed, whole fruits and vegetables, or animal origin.
So a hearty thanks to those doing the hard research and giving sound advice, particularly those warning that vegetable oils and sugars are highly toxic. At the same time, it might be helpful for certain advise givers to qualify their advice and offer caveats, that studies have limitations and that their advice may not be for everyone. Anything less is a half-baked slice of delicious home-made pie.
It’s natural for us to protect our hard earned cash by routinely searching for cheaper options — of anything. Two product categories in which the competition has been overwhelming us with affordable (cheap) options enticing us to fork over our dough are food and clothes.
I was asked recently why apparel purchased in outlet shops tends to fall apart after a year or so.
Clothing sold in outlet stores has become big business. Once a place to unload liability inventory, most higher-end retailers have turned outlets into profitable retail chains, using lower cost (quality) products and stitching them in low-cost countries. For all of us involved, the makers and consumers, it’s truly a race to the bottom, to the cheapest.
As in clothes, consumers have been demanding cheap food. Fortunately (or unfortunately), industry is happy to oblige, thanks to capitalism and supply-side economics.
We’ve aggressively improved processes to make corn, meat, and tee shirts dirt cheap. That means we look at each component in the production life-cycle and continually evaluate where/how more profit can be squeezed from less. In almost all cases, we bastardize the original product. You can safely bet that meat sold in a fast-food chain, whether beef, pork, chicken, or fish, is from animals who have suffered a miserable, production-controlled life. Clothing made for outlet stores were designed to be sold, not to last a lifetime. It’s a penny-pinching business. Good care and cheap don’t compliment each other in the race to the bottom.
An old girlfriend of mine, in the fashion business, had a surprisingly stark closet, yet she always looked up-to-date and sophisticatedly fashionable. Her philosophy was to purchase well-made, high-end, classic pieces in a tight color range, mostly black and white. She was able to combine all her pieces to make her wardrobe look much more expansive that it was. She spent less on clothes at the end of the year than the average discount shopper.
Cheap clothes and cheap food are not bad, as long as our expectations are in line with the purchase price. Our yen to buy lots of cheap clothes has provided jobs and contributed to raising the living standard for millions of Asians. Our desire for cheap food, on the other hand, may satisfy our immediate taste buds and budget, but we’ll pay for that later, and chalk up the expense to another category called health care.