Why aren't we more "geared" to liking brocolli?

[Magnetic]

I've been wondering why we (as an "apex" of the primate family) don't REALLY like the foods that are good for us and tend to gravitate towards foods that are higher in fat, salts, and bad oils? Would this be an "evolutionary step in the wrong direction"? It has been on the news that more than half of Americans (not sure about other parts of the globe) are considered obese.

My question is, why AREN'T we more "geared" to liking brocolli (and similarly "good for you" foods?

[Aaron]

I like brocoli.

[Gil Hamilton]

I think because for most of life on Earth including our own for much of human history, having more food than you know what to do with is not something that generally happens. Going for food that gives us alot of energy and padding is favorable when you don't know when your next meal is coming.

Our society of fatasses where we are up to are assholes in calories is an aberration compared to much of human history, after all.

[Darth Raptor]

It's because the foods that are "good" for us aren't really good under natural circumstances. They're healthy because they supply less calories in a world where we use hardly any. It shouldn't be surprising we're predisposed to go after that mammoth t-bone and pass up a glorified weed like celery. That's because our ancestors used every last calorie.

[AK_Jedi]

From an evolutionary standpoint, fatty foods were actually good for us in the past.

extra fat gives you more fuel, and better insulation in the winter. When you don't know exactly when your next meal is going to be, it doesn't hurt to have a little extra stored away. Besides, the negative effects of unhealthy foods make themselves apparant a little later in life, when evolution doesn't care about you anyway.

Its only been in recent times that supply has become so plentiful, that we really need to worry about self control and whatnot.

[KrauserKrauser]

I like Broccoli as well.

In fact I like it so much I will eat it before I eat the Beef in my Beef with Broccoli.

[CarsonPalmer]

Well, from what I heard, the older you grew, the more disposed you are towards broccolli, as bitter taste cells die off. Thus, as children we hate brocolli, stomach it as teens, tolerate as adults, and love it in our old age.

[Pu-239]

Brocolli is bitter? ... and I'm not old, I'm 18...

[Erik von Nein]

Uncooked, maybe, but I've loved brocolli since I was a young'un. Sure, it might be more of an exception rather than the rule, but it's something.

Part of it is social conditioning. For Americans the typical farm diet of meat on meat with a side of starch (potatoes, bread, etc) is popular due to the prevalance of farms during the nation's growth.

[Broomstick]

There are a couple of factors at work here.

First of all, as pointed out, through much of human history seeking fats, sugars, oils, and meat was a survival characteristic, and those items tended to be in short supply. When you folks couldn't obtain them they'd fill up on "salad" and things less palatable to keep going. I mean, just about anyone would choose broccoli over starvation, even if they normally don't like broccoli.

Second, brocolli that tasted too good didn't reproduce - it got eaten. It's not just all about us, you know, broccoli has interest in these outcomes as well. Only with the advent of agriculture, where humans would sow, protect, nurture, and defend especially tastey plants did extreme tastiness become an evlolutionary advantage. In an environment full of hunter-gatherers being too yummy might lead to extinction.

And third - there's a genetic component at work here. Most people have average sensitivity to taste sensations - about 50%. For these folks, brocolli is always tolerable and becomes more so with age. About 1/4 of folks always like broccolli and do not consider it bitter at all. They'll also chomp down on things like parsley with no hesitation, and other "bitter" greens. And about 1/4, call 'em "supertasters", find broccoli and other bitter greens absolutely revolting at all ages and can't stand them. As might be surmised from that distribution, all this is controlled by one gene pair, the "supertaster" gene being largely recessive. Being genetically based, no amount of cultural influence is going to make a supertaster like broccoli. With sufficient additives and dilution they might learn to tolerate it.

Why the supertaster gene? Well, you speculate on things like a half dose making folks inclined to eat broccoli, but not love it so much they neglect other foods, and the non-tasters utilizing resources others might not, and the supertasters avoiding plant toxins.... but it's probably just genetic drift, random "noise" in the genome that neither helps nor harms much and thus continues to exist in the population at large.

[skotos]

<snip>explanation of supertaster trait</snip>.... but it's probably just genetic drift, random "noise" in the genome that neither helps nor harms much and thus continues to exist in the population at large.

This brings up a point I've wondered about for a long time. I've often seen the question, "Why hasn't trait X been eliminated by evolution?" brought up (occasionally in non-fiction, more often in creationist or other pseudo-science "non-fiction", and most often in sci-fi). My answer has always been, "It hasn't been eliminated yet."

So my question is, has there been any work done in predicting how long a given trait takes to be eliminated by evolution? The basic calculation seems fairly straight forward: An individual without the trait has an expected number of viable offspring X, an individual with the trait has an expected number of viable offspring Y, and so after Z generations the trait will make up a percentage P of the population. But I've never seen, or even heard of, any studies done to determine what the approximate values of X, Y, and P are for a given trait.

[Sea Skimmer]

I've been wondering why we (as an "apex" of the primate family) don't REALLY like the foods that are good for us and tend to gravitate towards foods that are higher in fat, salts, and bad oils?

Because food of that sort was until the development of human civilization, relatively rare. When stuff like that could be obtained it was a good idea to consume a whole lot of it and no natural inhibitions exist to stop it. Now we have a society in which not only is that food plentiful but little physical actively is required to live and work, but it hasn’t existed nearly long enough for evolution to do anything.

[Darth Wong]

Both of my sons like broccoli. They actually pick it out at a buffet restaurant. So I am not particularly convinced that the problem of humans intrinsically disliking broccoli is real, as opposed to a problem of bad parenting.

Little kids will not like anything other than sugary junk food if you don't make them eat real food and restrict their junk food intake, but once you do, their tastes diversify fairly easily and they can learn to appreciate broccoli at a young age. Even for an adult, ice cream tastes better than broccoli, but that doesn't mean broccoli tastes bad; it just means that if given a choice, people will pick the ice cream. It's just the spoiled kids who become whiny bratty little shits and develop an active dislike of anything less than their absolute favourite foods.

The problem I see is other parents who are worthless, spineless, brainless fucktards and don't know how to use the word "no" in front of their kids. It makes me sick.

[Pick]

I'm with Wong here.

When I was growing up, there were two treats that my mother would prepare for me: plain oatbran and raw, peeled turnips. The oatbran I associated with maturity, since my mother ate it so often, but I didn't know of anyone else who was fond of it. If anything, I strangely considered a taste for oatbran to signify that I was becoming a more mature person (whatever.) The turnips, well, were a crisp and refresing treat. I've never liked drinking water (for whatever reason) so turnips always tasted good. Their taste isn't very potent, and they have an excellent watery crunch.

Additionally, I didn't really like television, so there were no psychedellic ads screaming at me that I should be eating sugar instead. Actually, the only food ad I can remember from my youth was the stop-motion one about veggies that used to play during Sesame Street ads ("Five a day! That's the rule! More is okay, less is uncool!") As for the influence of friends, ha ha ha, let's say that wasn't a particularly large issue... .

I still love oatbran and turnips to this day, and I hate, for instance, chocolate. I'm convinced it all comes down to early impressions about food.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I've been wondering why we (as an "apex" of the primate family) don't REALLY like the foods that are good for us and tend to gravitate towards foods that are higher in fat, salts, and bad oils? Would this be an "evolutionary step in the wrong direction"? It has been on the news that more than half of Americans (not sure about other parts of the globe) are considered obese.

My question is, why AREN'T we more "geared" to liking brocolli (and similarly "good for you" foods?

Because most "good for you foods" are only really good for you when you can stick around to grow them in quantity and correctly prepare them, wheras fatty, high-cholesterol foods tend to be foods you can kill with a sharp stick and roast on a campfire for maximum calories per unit of mass while living the nomadic lifestyle typical of the lifestyle lead by the human species for approximately 95% of its history. A diet of fatty red meat and readily gathered fruits, nuts, and vegetables wasn't bad for you the early human . . . not when you expended a lot of calories gathering them. It's only when we adapted a more sedentary lifestyle that our genetic preference for high-calorie foods became a liability, rather than an asset.

[Ford Prefect]

I never understood this 'brocoli is icky' shit as a young child. I mean, I'd see it on TV and think "What's their problem?".

[Mange]

I've eaten (and liked) broccoli, brussel sprouts etc. since I was a small child, I've never had any problems with it. I think Mike hit it on the head.

[Joe]

I like steamed broccoli quite a bit, but I simple cannot eat one than one stalk of raw broccoli. As far as raw greens go, I usually opt for lettuce and cucumbers.

[McC]

I'm with Joe. Steamed broccoli kicks much ass. Broccoli cooked in with other stuff is great too. Not so much a fan of it on its own, but I will eat steamed broccoli all day long if it's available.

And I'm 21, so I'm not "old" either.

[Magnetic]

Thanks for the replies. I didn't expect so many, but they are all well received.

The two most important ideas that I got out of this thread so far.......

Higher fat food (higher calories) were necessary when food supplies were not certain, and when activity levels were greater than today.

Lack of GOOD parental roles lead to a poor nutritional desire, because sugars and salts taste better.

I can relate to the second one. When I was growing up, I rarely remember getting any candy from my parents. My Dad WOULD, on occasion, mix up a batch of homemade icecream. Most of my foods were made in the home, and usually had a good nutritional content. I remember VERY few times where we ate at a fast food chain. Now, my parents weren't "nazis" about it. They never MADE me eat that which I would have thrown up, . . ex. Beets, hominy, yams, . . . . . but I DID enjoy a pile of spinach or greens, so overall, I think my parents did well. Today, I do get brocolli and cauliflower whenever I get a salad. . . if there's peas, I'll put them on too.

I guess our suffering health (in our society) is due to an over consumption of foods and a sedentary lifestyle. Two things which my wife and I are actively trying to "get a handle on".

[Pezzoni]

I've often wondered in the past how much of our likes / dislikes with regards to vegatables or unhelthy stuff is due to how we are bought up: Unhealthy stuff is generally seen as a 'treat', and therefore a good thing, whereas the healthy stuff gets eaten day to day, and therefore isn't so special.
On reflection though, I can imagine the kids that eat fish finger sanwdiches every night for dinner would probably still pick them out over salad... Or possibly other decent for you in health terms, but still great tasting food (tortilla wraps, with chicken, salad and salsa for example ).

[Joe]

Another thing about broccoli...it's low energy content aside, it still is loaded with lots of vitamins and minerals that are good for your body and would have been equally good for your body tens of thousands of years ago. So logically, we should be geared towards liking broccoli or some other vitamin-rich green despite its low energy content, I should think.

[Captain Cyran]

I like broccoli. Of course as a small child I would also take fruits and vegetables over cookies and pastries... so maybe I'm just fucking weird.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Another thing about broccoli...it's low energy content aside, it still is loaded with lots of vitamins and minerals that are good for your body and would have been equally good for your body tens of thousands of years ago. So logically, we should be geared towards liking broccoli or some other vitamin-rich green despite its low energy content, I should think.

Well, low-calorie, high-mineral/vitamin foods made a useful supplement to our diet, especially when cooked or prepared in some way to make them easier (or possible, even) to eat. Which is why most of us don't find the taste of the vegetable, or others like it, to be so offensive that nobody would consider eating broccoli ever.

It's just not as preferrable as higher-calorie foods, as the low-calorie high-fiber stuff wasn't worth seeking out and eating in great quantities until the species stopped being so nomadic and settled down long enough to cultivate enough of the stuff that its energy-poor nature stopped mattering so much.

[Gil Hamilton]

Steamed broccoli is great, particularly if you put some cheddar cheese and pepper on that fucker. Mmm.