My wife is Malaysian, but I am not. Here is my outsider's perspective:
* Street food is very tasty, but often laden with gular (palm sugar) or rock sugar (case in point: Sambal). You don't notice because it's spicy!
* Sweet drinks (milo, teh tarik) often accompany the spicy food.
* The street food is so cheap, and available pretty much everywhere. People avoid cooking at home[1]. Fresh fruit and vegetables are not that cheap.
* Because the weather is so hot and humid, people avoid walking.
* People like to eat white rice, as opposed to brown rice (high GI)
* Society has transitioned to office work rather than manual work
* People can afford larger portions because they are wealthier
* The weather is hot and humid, so people avoid walking outside during the day! AC office to AC car to AC shopping mall, etc, etc.
[1] One fascinating thing I have noticed is the concept of a "wet" and "dry" kitchen. The dry kitchen is inside the house, and is almost a show-piece. The wet kitchen is where the real action happens (albeit by the maid), but is typically a lean-to adjoining the back of the house.
I'm no social justice warrior, but would you kindly edit your comment not to be so gauche.
EDIT: Not sure how I can get downvoted to -4 within a couple of minutes of my post. Parent poster literally says
* Society has transitioned to office work rather than manual work
* People can afford larger portions because they are wealthier
while mentioning
* the dry kitchen is inside the house, and is almost a show-piece. The wet kitchen is where the real action happens (albeit by the maid), but is typically a lean-to adjoining the back of the house.
I'm sure the maid doesn't avoid manual work, and a lean-to
literally outside the house is the opposite of an office.
In the United States you have to be extremely wealthy to have a maid, because maids are expensive, since they make a living wage. A normal office job by no means allows for it. Parent's attitude shows vast wealth inequality they seem completely blind to. Clearly maids make peanuts, apparently while working in a lean-to outside the home they work for, and without even being considered in the set of "people".
Again I'm not a social justice warrior, not trying to drum up outrage. Parent should have figured this out for themselves and edited their comment, I shouldn't be at -4 for requesting a light edit.
To make sure I was rooted in facts, after this edit I googled "malaysia wealth inequality" - which I didn't know anything about, the only thing I knew is what I read from parent post's attitude - and got a Wikipedia page that says "Malaysia has the highest income disparity between the rich and poor in Southeast Asia, greater than that of Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia."
I'm not "outraged" at the parent poster or anything like that, I'd just request a tiny amount of sensitivity.
I think it's a bit silly to request someone to edit their comment. If you have a good point, then your comment will stand alone without the demand.
But I've reread both comments and I still can't spot the outrage.
It seems to me that you think "society has transitioned to office work" somehow means that all people not working in an office are not part of society. Not quite sure yet though because you seem to want everyone else to draw the final conclusion for you as if it were self-evident after linking to google image search for a lean-to.
You are absolutely right about the wealth inequality. There are also deep inequalities within Malaysian society not just along socio-economic lines, but also racial lines. It's a complex, multi-faceted issue.
My comment was intended to be a simple set of observations about diet and the broader society of Malaysia, relating to the one of the article's points: Rising obesity.
I hope you are trolling, because this comment sounds like it was written by someone with some sort of mental issue. OP isn’t “required to edit” anything just because you say so.
Malaysian here. FYI in most households the "wet kitchen" is indoors -- in fact it's THE kitchen. The "dry kitchen" is little more than a countertop with a microwave and maybe a sink.
I suppose it's attainable for office workers. A house like this could cost around RM300k (74k USD), although for the specific property I linked prices would be much higher due to the location (it's an affluent district located very near the heart of the capital city). Median monthly income in Malaysia is around RM5.5k (~1.3k USD) [1].
Unfortunately property prices have been rising 5-10% year on year while income has stayed mostly stagnant.
I am not sure how the parent comment is not sensitive enough? I am a Malaysian. Please do enlighten me on how the parent comment insulted me in any way.
As a European who lived in Malaysia for a few years I do agree. Malaysia is terrible trap.
First the amounts of sugar and carbohydrates like white rice is completly devastating. There is very little alternative like fresh fruits or protein in diet.
Milk is pretty bad and not tasty - usually low lactosis milk. There is no real cheese or real, good yoghurt etc. Food is of poor quality mostly - think junk food rather then freshly made and freshly cooked. It is tasty due to spice and sugar but not something you would like eating daily.
But more devastating then the diet is the lifestyle - due to climate mostly. There is very lityle outdoor activity in cities like KL - in this climate jogging, cycling or even walks in the park are out of question for most people.
Malaysia also has sub-par 3rd World city infrastructure - cars rule the cities and the pavements are terrible and dangerous to walk.
On the streets one can see a lot of Malayi people who due to lack of activity and carbohydrates intake are overweight and with symptoms of type II diabetes.
It is quite suprising that not that far North in Thailand - addmitedly better climate - cycling is as popular as in Italy and people exercise much more outdoors and look healthier.
I love Malaysia and they are sweet people there. Just it is a difficult place for me regarding sugar intake and lack of outdoor activity.
I'm not sure where you went to eat, but I found the food in KL to be of lower standard as compared to Melaka (which is famed for its hawker food) and Penang. In KL, I had to be shown to the good places[1], but in Melaka you'd be pretty set where ever you rock up!
But the fruits are amazing! There is so much variety of tropical fruits! But my comments about the pricing were based on my observations at the supermarkets -- it felt like the costs were quite high for fresh fruit & veg compared to simply eating out.
[1] Shout out to Klang Bah Kuh Teh. It's been my first stop many times once I've arrived in M'sia!
I would love to go get some good roti and kopi susu but I have left Asia SE a month ago for good.
I have pretty much enjoyed the food but it just isn't the kind of diet that you would recommend to anyone for health and and loosing weight.
Penang is a little better then KL because of more food diversity there and some really nice Indian, vegetarian restaurants. And the climate is also better then KL so there is more people jogging along the waterfront. But still it isn't a good city for biking.
Over-obsession with carbohydrates/sugar intake is a health fad. One simply can't expect health fads to be uniformly distributed across the planet.
People like to eat white rice, because they've been doing so for thousands of years with no ill-effects. The question is how can we improve nutrition education in the west so that people don't think that they are going to get diabetes from eating rice.
> People like to eat white rice, because they've been doing so for thousands of years with no ill-effects
As pointed out, human society is wealthier and we're eating more white rice than ever. Since its considered 'superior' to other cereals, we eat it to the exclusion of other cereals. In Japan, for instance, eating too much white rice almost sank the Japanese navy [1]
This. It's fascinating people in the West patbologize disease like diabetes to sugar, when it is actually fat toxicity. Sugar isn't even a causal factor, but you can bet that hamburger patty is!
Single cup of milo and milk: 100+ calories for milo, 100+ calories for milk.
So they're about the same in energy, however that is not the whole story. Firstly, the glycemic index[0] or how fast sugars are released - rice is good (low and sustained energy release) whereas Milo is bad (fast). Secondly, the overall eating habits encouraged... Milo is encouraging time-poor, less considered, more commercial/productised single-serving consumption and provides little additional nutrition, whereas rice typically accompanies and encourages more natural foods with a more complete nutritional profile (not just "massive energy hit plus incidental protein"). Obviously the environmental overheads with respect to packaging and transport are also far worse for Milo than rice.
According to the link you provided, most white rices are in the high-glycemic category. According to the "International table of glycemic index and glycemic load"[1], Jasmine Rice has a Glycemic Index of 109, which is actually higher than even pure glucose, which has an index of 100. Milo, on the other hand, depending on where you buy it and what you mix it with, has a GI of between 36 and 55.
Exactly, people in the US have taken this to the extreme.
Just because everybody's been stuffing themselves with over processed bread, donuts and fries and have gotten obese doesn't imply that carbs are evil point blank and you must never eat them. That's just insane.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the atlantic and in the rest of the world, people in France eat their baguette everyday, Italians eat pizza and pasta all the time, most of the Asian continent lives on white rice every meal, etc..., and these are among the thinnest populations you will find.
How this argument is never considered is beyond me.
Wet kitchens are a very sensible idea, for the kind of cooking that is done in them. Just hang around a hawker stir fry cart, and imagine 20 years of that smoke and oil mist raining down in your living room.
Among the published articles was one that concluded that children who drank malted breakfast beverages — a category dominated in Malaysia by Milo, a sugary powder drink made by Nestlé — were more likely to be physically active and spend less time in front of a computer or television.
Well, malted drinks are a staple in South Asia. In India the brand called Cadbury Bournvita is the go to food for most mothers. As if the added sugar is not enough, quite a lot of parents tend to add 1-2 additional spoons of sugar. Then there is Horlicks by GSK. Milo is way behind.
The company said its review of the article on the breakfast study and other research was intended “to ensure that the methodology was scientifically correct.”
What kind of standards, practices and internal controls do these guys have to ensure scientific correctness of a paper?
[Nestlé] said its review of the article on the breakfast study and other research was intended “to ensure that the methodology was scientifically correct."
If your research is funded by NSF, the articles you published are still peer-reviewed, not reviewed by the NSF.
This is disturbing, but is it any different than most doctors in the US taking money from pharma? One great thing about Obamacare is the Sunshine Act, which required public disclosure of those payments. If I recall, someone had made a site where one could search their own doctor to see if they're getting paid - https://nutritionfacts.org/video/find-out-if-your-doctor-tak...
I do not think that it is bad to take research money from BigCos but suggesting sugary drinks/breakfast as alternative? There are other better alternatives!
This article seems to be insinuating pretty hard that ignoring sugar is an active conspiracy between Nestle and Malaysian nutritionists, but it seems more likely that they're just behind the curve. Transitioning the identity of the Great Satan from fat to sugar is a relatively new phenomenon, and even here in Australia it's still much easier to find low-fat products in the supermarket than low-sugar ones.
44 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 62.7 ms ] thread* Street food is very tasty, but often laden with gular (palm sugar) or rock sugar (case in point: Sambal). You don't notice because it's spicy!
* Sweet drinks (milo, teh tarik) often accompany the spicy food.
* The street food is so cheap, and available pretty much everywhere. People avoid cooking at home[1]. Fresh fruit and vegetables are not that cheap.
* Because the weather is so hot and humid, people avoid walking.
* People like to eat white rice, as opposed to brown rice (high GI)
* Society has transitioned to office work rather than manual work
* People can afford larger portions because they are wealthier
* The weather is hot and humid, so people avoid walking outside during the day! AC office to AC car to AC shopping mall, etc, etc.
[1] One fascinating thing I have noticed is the concept of a "wet" and "dry" kitchen. The dry kitchen is inside the house, and is almost a show-piece. The wet kitchen is where the real action happens (albeit by the maid), but is typically a lean-to adjoining the back of the house.
EDIT: Not sure how I can get downvoted to -4 within a couple of minutes of my post. Parent poster literally says
* Society has transitioned to office work rather than manual work
* People can afford larger portions because they are wealthier
while mentioning
* the dry kitchen is inside the house, and is almost a show-piece. The wet kitchen is where the real action happens (albeit by the maid), but is typically a lean-to adjoining the back of the house.
I'm sure the maid doesn't avoid manual work, and a lean-to
https://www.google.com/search?q=lean-to&tbm=isch
literally outside the house is the opposite of an office.
In the United States you have to be extremely wealthy to have a maid, because maids are expensive, since they make a living wage. A normal office job by no means allows for it. Parent's attitude shows vast wealth inequality they seem completely blind to. Clearly maids make peanuts, apparently while working in a lean-to outside the home they work for, and without even being considered in the set of "people".
Again I'm not a social justice warrior, not trying to drum up outrage. Parent should have figured this out for themselves and edited their comment, I shouldn't be at -4 for requesting a light edit.
To make sure I was rooted in facts, after this edit I googled "malaysia wealth inequality" - which I didn't know anything about, the only thing I knew is what I read from parent post's attitude - and got a Wikipedia page that says "Malaysia has the highest income disparity between the rich and poor in Southeast Asia, greater than that of Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia."
I'm not "outraged" at the parent poster or anything like that, I'd just request a tiny amount of sensitivity.
But I've reread both comments and I still can't spot the outrage.
It seems to me that you think "society has transitioned to office work" somehow means that all people not working in an office are not part of society. Not quite sure yet though because you seem to want everyone else to draw the final conclusion for you as if it were self-evident after linking to google image search for a lean-to.
You are absolutely right about the wealth inequality. There are also deep inequalities within Malaysian society not just along socio-economic lines, but also racial lines. It's a complex, multi-faceted issue.
My comment was intended to be a simple set of observations about diet and the broader society of Malaysia, relating to the one of the article's points: Rising obesity.
Example pictures: https://www.propertyguru.com.my/property-listing/usj-20-reno...
Unfortunately property prices have been rising 5-10% year on year while income has stayed mostly stagnant.
[1]: https://www.imoney.my/articles/middle-class-malaysia
First the amounts of sugar and carbohydrates like white rice is completly devastating. There is very little alternative like fresh fruits or protein in diet.
Milk is pretty bad and not tasty - usually low lactosis milk. There is no real cheese or real, good yoghurt etc. Food is of poor quality mostly - think junk food rather then freshly made and freshly cooked. It is tasty due to spice and sugar but not something you would like eating daily.
But more devastating then the diet is the lifestyle - due to climate mostly. There is very lityle outdoor activity in cities like KL - in this climate jogging, cycling or even walks in the park are out of question for most people.
Malaysia also has sub-par 3rd World city infrastructure - cars rule the cities and the pavements are terrible and dangerous to walk.
On the streets one can see a lot of Malayi people who due to lack of activity and carbohydrates intake are overweight and with symptoms of type II diabetes.
It is quite suprising that not that far North in Thailand - addmitedly better climate - cycling is as popular as in Italy and people exercise much more outdoors and look healthier.
I love Malaysia and they are sweet people there. Just it is a difficult place for me regarding sugar intake and lack of outdoor activity.
But the fruits are amazing! There is so much variety of tropical fruits! But my comments about the pricing were based on my observations at the supermarkets -- it felt like the costs were quite high for fresh fruit & veg compared to simply eating out.
[1] Shout out to Klang Bah Kuh Teh. It's been my first stop many times once I've arrived in M'sia!
I have pretty much enjoyed the food but it just isn't the kind of diet that you would recommend to anyone for health and and loosing weight.
Penang is a little better then KL because of more food diversity there and some really nice Indian, vegetarian restaurants. And the climate is also better then KL so there is more people jogging along the waterfront. But still it isn't a good city for biking.
People like to eat white rice, because they've been doing so for thousands of years with no ill-effects. The question is how can we improve nutrition education in the west so that people don't think that they are going to get diabetes from eating rice.
As pointed out, human society is wealthier and we're eating more white rice than ever. Since its considered 'superior' to other cereals, we eat it to the exclusion of other cereals. In Japan, for instance, eating too much white rice almost sank the Japanese navy [1]
[1] - https://medium.com/war-is-boring/eating-too-much-rice-almost...
But as societies change, manual labour is replaced by machines and people move on to physically less demanding work, diets have to adapt.
Cup of cooked white rice: 205 calories.
Single cup of milo and milk: 100+ calories for milo, 100+ calories for milk.
So they're about the same in energy, however that is not the whole story. Firstly, the glycemic index[0] or how fast sugars are released - rice is good (low and sustained energy release) whereas Milo is bad (fast). Secondly, the overall eating habits encouraged... Milo is encouraging time-poor, less considered, more commercial/productised single-serving consumption and provides little additional nutrition, whereas rice typically accompanies and encourages more natural foods with a more complete nutritional profile (not just "massive energy hit plus incidental protein"). Obviously the environmental overheads with respect to packaging and transport are also far worse for Milo than rice.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index
[1] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/1/5.full.pdf
Just because everybody's been stuffing themselves with over processed bread, donuts and fries and have gotten obese doesn't imply that carbs are evil point blank and you must never eat them. That's just insane.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the atlantic and in the rest of the world, people in France eat their baguette everyday, Italians eat pizza and pasta all the time, most of the Asian continent lives on white rice every meal, etc..., and these are among the thinnest populations you will find.
How this argument is never considered is beyond me.
Well, malted drinks are a staple in South Asia. In India the brand called Cadbury Bournvita is the go to food for most mothers. As if the added sugar is not enough, quite a lot of parents tend to add 1-2 additional spoons of sugar. Then there is Horlicks by GSK. Milo is way behind.
The company said its review of the article on the breakfast study and other research was intended “to ensure that the methodology was scientifically correct.”
What kind of standards, practices and internal controls do these guys have to ensure scientific correctness of a paper?
Let me guess: they’re paid by the government so they need to make an extra buck.
http://www.vocativ.com/212533/big-tobacco-doctors/index.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4778168/US-doctors...
If your research is funded by NSF, the articles you published are still peer-reviewed, not reviewed by the NSF.