on this article from The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/eating-toward-immortality/515658/
My first reaction is that I am much closer to the
“the omnivore’s fun time at the supermarket”
than I am to the omnivore's dilemma, even though I do have certain values which guide my food choices.
My second thought is that dietary rigidity, when seen as a path to salvation and escape from disease and death, is really a form of idolatry.
I also wonder why this article, from February, just showed up in my Facebook feed today. Is it too challenging to too many of us to have made the rounds any quicker than that?
Showing posts with label diet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diet. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
Sunday, July 12, 2015
To gluten or not to gluten
This spring the EdX course on The Ethics of Eating (Cornell X) began with a couple of very funny video clips. One was the scene from an episode of Portlandia where the restaurant patrons, after asking many questions of their server, decide it would be best to visit the farm where the chicken they are contemplating eating was raised. The second was one in a series of spoofs on new age lifestyles called "How To Become Gluten Intolerant" - which sends up all those situations of the dinner guests from hell, who not only have very specific dietary requirements, but forget to tell you about some of them until you are serving the meal.
Recognizing that some people have celiac disease (1% or so of the population, 1:133 from epidemiological studies) and some people have wheat allergies (far fewer as it turns out). I have tried to be tolerant of the gluten free craze, but haven't really succeeded.
So, it was good today to find a well balanced article on the BBC News web site.
Turns out there are about 6% of folks who are gluten sensitive but don't have celiac disease. But compare that to the more than 1 in 4 folks in the US who are avoiding gluten. What!?!
Some of this is related to the paleo-diet mythology, of course. If you think this might be a good idea, read Paleofantasy first.
Two things that amused me from the BBC article. The writer cites the author of The Gluten Lie, who opines that Britons who feel better giving up gluten may attribute it to "the placebo effect, combined with the fact that they are not drinking five beers a night."
And another "Whaaat?" that made me laugh out loud is this paragraph:
And one thing that gave me pause. Elimination diets (like gluten free) are often effective for weight loss, because they limit choices which often causes one to eat less. But the author of the BBC piece points out that elimination diets may give rise to disordered eating, with serious negative consequences.
See the whole article here: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33486177
Recognizing that some people have celiac disease (1% or so of the population, 1:133 from epidemiological studies) and some people have wheat allergies (far fewer as it turns out). I have tried to be tolerant of the gluten free craze, but haven't really succeeded.
So, it was good today to find a well balanced article on the BBC News web site.
Turns out there are about 6% of folks who are gluten sensitive but don't have celiac disease. But compare that to the more than 1 in 4 folks in the US who are avoiding gluten. What!?!
Some of this is related to the paleo-diet mythology, of course. If you think this might be a good idea, read Paleofantasy first.
Two things that amused me from the BBC article. The writer cites the author of The Gluten Lie, who opines that Britons who feel better giving up gluten may attribute it to "the placebo effect, combined with the fact that they are not drinking five beers a night."
And another "Whaaat?" that made me laugh out loud is this paragraph:
The tennis star Novak Djokovic believes he owes his stellar 2011 season to giving up gluten. In his book Serve to Win, he describes the moment his nutritionist Igor Cetojevicv gave him a slice of bread and told him to hold it against his stomach while he held his other arm out straight. Then Cetojevicv pushed down on his arm. "With the bread against my stomach, my arm struggled to resist Cetojevicv's downward pressure. I was noticeably weaker," the tennis star writes. "This is a sign that your body is rejecting the wheat in the bread," Cetojevicv told him.
And one thing that gave me pause. Elimination diets (like gluten free) are often effective for weight loss, because they limit choices which often causes one to eat less. But the author of the BBC piece points out that elimination diets may give rise to disordered eating, with serious negative consequences.
See the whole article here: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33486177
Monday, June 6, 2011
Plating the American Diet
I'm exploring http://choosemyplate.gov/, the web site for the place setting graphic which replaces the food pyramid. Certainly this is an improvement visually, and it's good that "meat" is now "protein" and there's encouragement for drinking water. But the new scheme also has its critics. If you care about the environmental impact of what you eat, you will need to tack on those values to guide your food choices, like seasonal, local and sustainably harvested seafood. If you care about the glycemic index, then you will also need to modify these guidelines accordingly. (For example, choose fruit, not juice, and limit the flour in your diet.) And if you believe that humans should not eat grains (that is, that our digestive systems have not evolved in 12,000 years) or that adults should not drink milk, then you aren't going to be happy with the plate and its accompanying glass. But for a quick reminder it's, well, a graphic graphic.
Nosing around on the site, I found some items of interest.
There is a resource list for vegetarians. This seems significant to me, particularly for children and young people who decide not to eat animals without knowing much about nutrition.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/pubs/bibs/gen/vegetarian.pdf
Though why do I think it's only young people that don't have basic nutritional information?
The ten tip series http://www.choosemyplate.gov/tipsresources/tentips.html
seems pretty helpful - and perhaps refrigerator postable. I'm happy to see the increased emphasis on watching sodium in foods.
Looking at the personalized eating plan calculator, the results seem to be pretty much what they were with mypyramid. You plug in age, weight and activity level and choose whether you want to maintain your weight or lose slowly. Then you get a list of daily and weekly choices from the different groups. So while myplate is a more useful visual, the detail is there for those who want to design their own eating plan specifics.
If you follow the trails and links at choosemyplate you will also find your way to the background information, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. The appendices may be the best part of this document. I just printed out two of them, one on adapting the guidelines to a vegetarian diet (Actually, the only difference is that this tells me how to distribute my protein choices among non-meat items. You'd think it would be a little heavier on the whole grains and dark, leafy greens.) - the other a list of high potassium foods. I wish the trails were a little more clearly marked, though, as having closed that window, I can't seem to figure out how I got there.
Nosing around on the site, I found some items of interest.
There is a resource list for vegetarians. This seems significant to me, particularly for children and young people who decide not to eat animals without knowing much about nutrition.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/pubs/bibs/gen/vegetarian.pdf
Though why do I think it's only young people that don't have basic nutritional information?
The ten tip series http://www.choosemyplate.gov/tipsresources/tentips.html
seems pretty helpful - and perhaps refrigerator postable. I'm happy to see the increased emphasis on watching sodium in foods.
Looking at the personalized eating plan calculator, the results seem to be pretty much what they were with mypyramid. You plug in age, weight and activity level and choose whether you want to maintain your weight or lose slowly. Then you get a list of daily and weekly choices from the different groups. So while myplate is a more useful visual, the detail is there for those who want to design their own eating plan specifics.
If you follow the trails and links at choosemyplate you will also find your way to the background information, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. The appendices may be the best part of this document. I just printed out two of them, one on adapting the guidelines to a vegetarian diet (Actually, the only difference is that this tells me how to distribute my protein choices among non-meat items. You'd think it would be a little heavier on the whole grains and dark, leafy greens.) - the other a list of high potassium foods. I wish the trails were a little more clearly marked, though, as having closed that window, I can't seem to figure out how I got there.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Book Reviews
Some time ago - the 80's perhaps? - I attended a conference in Toronto and then took in an exhibit at the science museum, called "FOOD: feed your mind about it". This summer I seem to be feasting on food books, everything I requested at the library rolling in at once.
Today I finished and returned Mark Bittman's Food Matters and Cooking Green by Kate Heyhoe. What the two books have in common is that both feel like they were rushed into print to take advantage of a Pollanated reading public.
Bittman's is breezy, sometimes flippant, sometimes given to hyperbole, with a bit of a slapdash feel about it. He recounts his story - learning that what's good for the individual human body is also good for the planet.
The big message is eat less meat, and no junck food, in whatever way works for you. But if you want to try it Bittman's way, there are menus and recipes. Some of the recipes are in his style - simple frameworks with myriad variations.
One I tried suggested we shouldn't limit our vegetable purees used as dips or spreads to hummus and baba ganoush. So I roasted lots of yellow summer squash with some whole garlic with a little olive oil, then when really done, squeezed out the garlic, added some fresh dill and black pepper and a little more oil and blended. Surprisingly good with crackers or pita chips.
(Dill, garlic, squash all home grown.)
If you have his vegetarian cook book, and have read his blog, you don't need this book. But if you know a gourmand who needs to rethink things, or someone who is interested in eating green but doesn't know where to start, this would be helpful.
If you want to think comprehensively about reducing your carbon footprint in the kitchen, then Cooking Green could be helpful. There's a lot here on energy use and choosing the right appliances, cooking methods, and pots and pans to reduce it. I learned a few things - and there are some I might shop for if I had any money. Mostly, it's about things you are already doing if you're trying not to overspend on your PG&E bill.
But beware - there is lots of sloppy or downright erroneous science in this book. Heyhoe has struggled hard to understand the physics of boiling water - but she might have done better to quote someone who really does understand it. And the biology! She doesn't know the difference between a cultivar and a species, thinks salmon are freshwater fish, etc. A good fact checker would have been handy. Again I had that feeling - that this book was rushed into print. Or maybe it's just the effect of blogging on acceptable writing (my tongue is in my cheek), so that the distinction between fact and opinion doesn't really matter anymore. Just say anything and maybe it will make it's way into Wikipedia as a fact for 15 minutes.
Heyhoe's preoccupation with energy interested me because of some of the stats she gives:
If "transportation creates 11% of an average US household's greenhouse gases generated by food consumption"
and "agricultural and industrial emissions from growing and harvesting account for 83%" of them,
well that leaves 6% - presumably caused by food preparation and disposal or composting. So - how one's food is grown, and how what it eats is grown, and how much, etc. are the most important considerations in reducing one's "foodprint" from greenhouse gases.
Cooking Green does have information on water usage, which Bittman does not. For example, a plant based diet requires 300 gallons of water every day to support it, but a meat based one needs more like 4000 gallons.
Don't buy Cooking Green, though. Borrow it from the library like I did. Or check out the two related web sites where the author has material if you like.
www.GlobalGourmet.com
and www.newgreenbasics.com
Today I finished and returned Mark Bittman's Food Matters and Cooking Green by Kate Heyhoe. What the two books have in common is that both feel like they were rushed into print to take advantage of a Pollanated reading public.
Bittman's is breezy, sometimes flippant, sometimes given to hyperbole, with a bit of a slapdash feel about it. He recounts his story - learning that what's good for the individual human body is also good for the planet.
The big message is eat less meat, and no junck food, in whatever way works for you. But if you want to try it Bittman's way, there are menus and recipes. Some of the recipes are in his style - simple frameworks with myriad variations.
One I tried suggested we shouldn't limit our vegetable purees used as dips or spreads to hummus and baba ganoush. So I roasted lots of yellow summer squash with some whole garlic with a little olive oil, then when really done, squeezed out the garlic, added some fresh dill and black pepper and a little more oil and blended. Surprisingly good with crackers or pita chips.
(Dill, garlic, squash all home grown.)
If you have his vegetarian cook book, and have read his blog, you don't need this book. But if you know a gourmand who needs to rethink things, or someone who is interested in eating green but doesn't know where to start, this would be helpful.
If you want to think comprehensively about reducing your carbon footprint in the kitchen, then Cooking Green could be helpful. There's a lot here on energy use and choosing the right appliances, cooking methods, and pots and pans to reduce it. I learned a few things - and there are some I might shop for if I had any money. Mostly, it's about things you are already doing if you're trying not to overspend on your PG&E bill.
But beware - there is lots of sloppy or downright erroneous science in this book. Heyhoe has struggled hard to understand the physics of boiling water - but she might have done better to quote someone who really does understand it. And the biology! She doesn't know the difference between a cultivar and a species, thinks salmon are freshwater fish, etc. A good fact checker would have been handy. Again I had that feeling - that this book was rushed into print. Or maybe it's just the effect of blogging on acceptable writing (my tongue is in my cheek), so that the distinction between fact and opinion doesn't really matter anymore. Just say anything and maybe it will make it's way into Wikipedia as a fact for 15 minutes.
Heyhoe's preoccupation with energy interested me because of some of the stats she gives:
If "transportation creates 11% of an average US household's greenhouse gases generated by food consumption"
and "agricultural and industrial emissions from growing and harvesting account for 83%" of them,
well that leaves 6% - presumably caused by food preparation and disposal or composting. So - how one's food is grown, and how what it eats is grown, and how much, etc. are the most important considerations in reducing one's "foodprint" from greenhouse gases.
Cooking Green does have information on water usage, which Bittman does not. For example, a plant based diet requires 300 gallons of water every day to support it, but a meat based one needs more like 4000 gallons.
Don't buy Cooking Green, though. Borrow it from the library like I did. Or check out the two related web sites where the author has material if you like.
www.GlobalGourmet.com
and www.newgreenbasics.com
Friday, April 17, 2009
Lent and the anti-Lent
Usually I don't talk about my lenten disciplines, but since this one was related to food, I thought I might say a word about it. If you hate self-indulgent blogs, skip this post.
Basically, I tried to get back to better eating habits, primarily by renouncing gluttony. Not to lose weight, although that wouldn't hurt, but because I recognize that gluttony really is a moral issue, and, indeed, a justice issue. I wanted to test the proposition that one can eat well and enjoyably without eating more than one's share. It's about time, you will say.
So I returned to watching my portions and logging my food using the food pyramid. This tool, pooh-poohed by some, I really do find helpful in eating an adequate, balanced, but not ascetic diet.
I realized of course that I'd been eating way too much in the grain category - just because they are whole doesn't mean you can go whole hog - and the cheese category, too, and the butter - but often not enough fruit. I tend to do pretty well with vegetables just naturally.
And I did do well throughout Lent. I had my annual blood work during this time, and all the numbers that doctors fuss about were much better. Plus food got cheaper - because I wasn't eating to excess and buying lots of extras - just almost daily dark chocolate and a weekly small ice cream.
But then I went on a little baking binge for Easter - cookies plus the bread below. And it's baseball season, too.
Fortunately, ball park food does not much appeal to me. I have a theory that most ball parks have one good thing I might want to eat, and there's the challenge of finding it. I would never be tempted by the all you can eat seats at the Coliseum - for which we can be thankful.
So I was more than a little grossed out when I heard about the Fifth Third Burger, at the minor league park in Grand Rapids, the Tigers' A team.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/03/whitecaps_fifth_third_burger_n.html
It's five one-third pound burger patties (Fifth Third is the bank which sponsor's the park, I think) on a one pound bun, with chili, processed cheese, salsa, lettuce, styrofoam tomatoes, sour cream and chips and nacho cheese sauce. Bring on the statins and lactaid. It costs $20 and pushes 5000 calories and 10,000 milligrams of sodium. Prizes are given for anyone who finishes one, though it's recommended for a family of four - who will each have exceeded their RDA for sodium by the time they finish it. I'd love it if someone did a "carbon footprint" for this anti-lent pro-gluttony baby.
But at least this is imaginable. I am still trying to figure out what a previous promotion at Fifth Third Park - deep fried Pepsi - is.
Anyway, the Easter treats are gone. I'm still singing Alleluias, but back to eating just enough good food.
Basically, I tried to get back to better eating habits, primarily by renouncing gluttony. Not to lose weight, although that wouldn't hurt, but because I recognize that gluttony really is a moral issue, and, indeed, a justice issue. I wanted to test the proposition that one can eat well and enjoyably without eating more than one's share. It's about time, you will say.
So I returned to watching my portions and logging my food using the food pyramid. This tool, pooh-poohed by some, I really do find helpful in eating an adequate, balanced, but not ascetic diet.
I realized of course that I'd been eating way too much in the grain category - just because they are whole doesn't mean you can go whole hog - and the cheese category, too, and the butter - but often not enough fruit. I tend to do pretty well with vegetables just naturally.
And I did do well throughout Lent. I had my annual blood work during this time, and all the numbers that doctors fuss about were much better. Plus food got cheaper - because I wasn't eating to excess and buying lots of extras - just almost daily dark chocolate and a weekly small ice cream.
But then I went on a little baking binge for Easter - cookies plus the bread below. And it's baseball season, too.
Fortunately, ball park food does not much appeal to me. I have a theory that most ball parks have one good thing I might want to eat, and there's the challenge of finding it. I would never be tempted by the all you can eat seats at the Coliseum - for which we can be thankful.
So I was more than a little grossed out when I heard about the Fifth Third Burger, at the minor league park in Grand Rapids, the Tigers' A team.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/03/whitecaps_fifth_third_burger_n.html
It's five one-third pound burger patties (Fifth Third is the bank which sponsor's the park, I think) on a one pound bun, with chili, processed cheese, salsa, lettuce, styrofoam tomatoes, sour cream and chips and nacho cheese sauce. Bring on the statins and lactaid. It costs $20 and pushes 5000 calories and 10,000 milligrams of sodium. Prizes are given for anyone who finishes one, though it's recommended for a family of four - who will each have exceeded their RDA for sodium by the time they finish it. I'd love it if someone did a "carbon footprint" for this anti-lent pro-gluttony baby.
But at least this is imaginable. I am still trying to figure out what a previous promotion at Fifth Third Park - deep fried Pepsi - is.
Anyway, the Easter treats are gone. I'm still singing Alleluias, but back to eating just enough good food.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Opposite directions?
After some pretty boring weeks, the New York Times food pages this Wednesday actually contained several articles of national interest.
Two in particular caught my attention.
One talked about the growing trend in nutraceuticals. (I'm not sure how to spell that, and I'm not sure blog spot's spell checker will either.) These are also called functional foods. Which would make ordinary, unadulterated food dysfunctional, I guess. But I digress. The trend is to add things that are unrelated to packaged foods. So it wasn't enough to add more strains of bacteria to our yogurt, a mild digression, but now we have to have secret fiber and maybe secret omega 3's. The source of omega 3's are sardines and anchovies. So you can fore go fish and maybe get them in your breakfast cereal - not from plant sources, like flax meal, but from marine bycatch.
Scientists and nutritionists are saying it's a leap from simple fortified foods to these nutraceuticals. The article reports that they are also saying we don't know enough about how the good for you elements in various foods work together with other components in those foods. Seems like vitamins in isolation don't pack the punch they do when they are an integral part of a fruit or vegetable or animal source.
I'm sure there are people who not only choose individual foods because they've heard of their benefits - blueberries, say, or tofu - but who subsist on these new synthetic foods, on medications and vitamin pills thinly veiled as food. It's the food of the future. Ah - and I remember when tang, the beverage of the astronauts, was all we needed.
But the counter trend is that more people are choosing diets of whole, seasonal foods. More people are returning to cooking. And fewer people are on diets! There are significant decreases in the number of folks on reducing diets, and some growing evidence that people who add more fruits and vegetables to their diets and do their own cooking are slimmer - without dieting. Hey - this is like the trend we experienced around Lent - don't give something up, take on a positive discipline for 40 days and 40 nights. On a more somber note, surely the number of people purchasing whole food and doing their own cooking is going to increase as incomes and wealth continue to decrease. Maybe we'll rediscover that happy meals and functional food begin at home.
Two in particular caught my attention.
One talked about the growing trend in nutraceuticals. (I'm not sure how to spell that, and I'm not sure blog spot's spell checker will either.) These are also called functional foods. Which would make ordinary, unadulterated food dysfunctional, I guess. But I digress. The trend is to add things that are unrelated to packaged foods. So it wasn't enough to add more strains of bacteria to our yogurt, a mild digression, but now we have to have secret fiber and maybe secret omega 3's. The source of omega 3's are sardines and anchovies. So you can fore go fish and maybe get them in your breakfast cereal - not from plant sources, like flax meal, but from marine bycatch.
Scientists and nutritionists are saying it's a leap from simple fortified foods to these nutraceuticals. The article reports that they are also saying we don't know enough about how the good for you elements in various foods work together with other components in those foods. Seems like vitamins in isolation don't pack the punch they do when they are an integral part of a fruit or vegetable or animal source.
I'm sure there are people who not only choose individual foods because they've heard of their benefits - blueberries, say, or tofu - but who subsist on these new synthetic foods, on medications and vitamin pills thinly veiled as food. It's the food of the future. Ah - and I remember when tang, the beverage of the astronauts, was all we needed.
But the counter trend is that more people are choosing diets of whole, seasonal foods. More people are returning to cooking. And fewer people are on diets! There are significant decreases in the number of folks on reducing diets, and some growing evidence that people who add more fruits and vegetables to their diets and do their own cooking are slimmer - without dieting. Hey - this is like the trend we experienced around Lent - don't give something up, take on a positive discipline for 40 days and 40 nights. On a more somber note, surely the number of people purchasing whole food and doing their own cooking is going to increase as incomes and wealth continue to decrease. Maybe we'll rediscover that happy meals and functional food begin at home.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Diet Discipleship?
Eric sent me the link to this article on Beliefnet
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/09/growing-numbers-say-diet-must.php
which is a good summary of some of the things going on at churches of various denominations around the country - community gardens, vegetarian options at potlucks, CSA deliveries, concern for the epidemic diabetes among poor parishioners.
Buy I balk at the phrase "diet discipleship". Dear God, please free us from purity codes. It's bad enough that we have all the food taboos in popular culture. Ethical reflection, thoughtful choices - but thou shalt not preach negative apodictic diets!
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/09/growing-numbers-say-diet-must.php
which is a good summary of some of the things going on at churches of various denominations around the country - community gardens, vegetarian options at potlucks, CSA deliveries, concern for the epidemic diabetes among poor parishioners.
Buy I balk at the phrase "diet discipleship". Dear God, please free us from purity codes. It's bad enough that we have all the food taboos in popular culture. Ethical reflection, thoughtful choices - but thou shalt not preach negative apodictic diets!
Thursday, June 12, 2008
What are you beefing about now?
The latest Episcopal Ecological Network newsletter contained a rant from one member about not eating beef. I get this, having done it for ten years or more. (Unlike stopping smoking, I did not note the actual date, since, as far as I know, beef is not physically addictive.)
What I also get is that rants are not the way to change hearts and minds.
If you've been reading this blog, I hope you've been reading the Minimalist in the Wednesday NY Times and the blog Bitten. If not follow this link for some sensible advice on how to move the meat off the center of your plate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/dining/11mini.html?ex=1370923200&en=8ffda17d995d2228&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Meanwhile I've been thinking - if it's methane we're concerned about, surely we need to cut down the amount of dairy products we eat, too. And some food alarmist did opine that cheese is addictive. Oh my. I can substitute some soy products for dairy, but others are really unappealing. There's also the fact that we have good local dairies here, but no local commercial soy growers. How does one weigh food miles vs. bovine flatulence when deciding how to eat green?
What I also get is that rants are not the way to change hearts and minds.
If you've been reading this blog, I hope you've been reading the Minimalist in the Wednesday NY Times and the blog Bitten. If not follow this link for some sensible advice on how to move the meat off the center of your plate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/dining/11mini.html?ex=1370923200&en=8ffda17d995d2228&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Meanwhile I've been thinking - if it's methane we're concerned about, surely we need to cut down the amount of dairy products we eat, too. And some food alarmist did opine that cheese is addictive. Oh my. I can substitute some soy products for dairy, but others are really unappealing. There's also the fact that we have good local dairies here, but no local commercial soy growers. How does one weigh food miles vs. bovine flatulence when deciding how to eat green?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The Real Deal in Food
You may have noticed that I don't spend a whole lot of time on my blog on nutrition and diet. This is partly due to my stronger interest in justice issues, and partly because there are days I'd rather just eat than try to be disciplined about it. I rationalize this sometimes by saying I use environmental criteria to make food choices, but it's more likely on some days that I just relish being a little gluttonous.
Today John sent an article from the Seattle Times about following Michael Pollan's simple maxim as a post-diet strategy for health. (I mean post-diet in the sense of what we do after the age of reducing diets, not how we maintain weight loss after taking drastic measures.) Doesn't it seem logical that enjoying real food must be a way to promote health?
I find that garden season is a natural time for me to embrace such a strategy, and last year with increased physical activity and fresh produce - both the result of doing more gardening - it worked for weight loss and a general sense of wholesomeness. But about mid-January I fell off the wagon - still trying to eat seasonally and locally, but with a bit too much of the extra added attractions. Now is a good time in the year to get back on track. Surely there is enjoyment without gluttony; and gluttony, no matter how organic and local the food, is not green.
Check out Rebecca Morris's blog Real Food, listed to the right with the other blogs at the end of the list.
Today John sent an article from the Seattle Times about following Michael Pollan's simple maxim as a post-diet strategy for health. (I mean post-diet in the sense of what we do after the age of reducing diets, not how we maintain weight loss after taking drastic measures.) Doesn't it seem logical that enjoying real food must be a way to promote health?
I find that garden season is a natural time for me to embrace such a strategy, and last year with increased physical activity and fresh produce - both the result of doing more gardening - it worked for weight loss and a general sense of wholesomeness. But about mid-January I fell off the wagon - still trying to eat seasonally and locally, but with a bit too much of the extra added attractions. Now is a good time in the year to get back on track. Surely there is enjoyment without gluttony; and gluttony, no matter how organic and local the food, is not green.
Check out Rebecca Morris's blog Real Food, listed to the right with the other blogs at the end of the list.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Wear clothes. Not too many. Mostly plant fiber, animal hair, or pounded bark.
Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto (Penguin, 2008) urges us, with humor and good sense, to "eat food, not too much, mostly plants."
Put that together with headlines like
Nalgene to nix BPA bottles due to consumer concern
(Houston Chronicle, April 18, 2008, 10:38AM)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5712126.html
and you have to wonder what's next....
Containers your great-grandmother would've recognized as containers.
Clothing your grandmother would've recognized as clothing.
Music your parents would've recognized as music....
What Michael Pollan writes about is hard to dislike - and encourages a simpler way of consuming food, simpler in the 'common sense' way, but not simpler in terms of obtaining foodstuffs. It requires intentionality, care and attention. And may pay off in better health, for you and the planet.
One enjoyable suggestion is to purchase food at local farmers markets and 'shake the hand that feeds you'. In Sonoma County, California, you can, for example, buy at farmers markets (in places like Healdsburg) organic potatoes from the farmer - the same potatoes you would be served at the French Laundry or John Ash restaurants.
Buying containers from the potter, purchasing coffee from the growers' collective, buying cheese at the dairy, etc., -- both a pleasure and good sense. Could living good also mean living well?
Put that together with headlines like
Nalgene to nix BPA bottles due to consumer concern
(Houston Chronicle, April 18, 2008, 10:38AM)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5712126.html
and you have to wonder what's next....
Containers your great-grandmother would've recognized as containers.
Clothing your grandmother would've recognized as clothing.
Music your parents would've recognized as music....
What Michael Pollan writes about is hard to dislike - and encourages a simpler way of consuming food, simpler in the 'common sense' way, but not simpler in terms of obtaining foodstuffs. It requires intentionality, care and attention. And may pay off in better health, for you and the planet.
One enjoyable suggestion is to purchase food at local farmers markets and 'shake the hand that feeds you'. In Sonoma County, California, you can, for example, buy at farmers markets (in places like Healdsburg) organic potatoes from the farmer - the same potatoes you would be served at the French Laundry or John Ash restaurants.
Buying containers from the potter, purchasing coffee from the growers' collective, buying cheese at the dairy, etc., -- both a pleasure and good sense. Could living good also mean living well?
Friday, February 15, 2008
I think we already knew this
but it's nice to have it confirmed by careful research -
the best diet - feeding the most people with the most effective land use - is one that includes a little meat/dairy and the rest low fat plant foods.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html
When I saw the deer in the snowy suburban backyard where I am visiting here in Iowa, I commented that if I lived where game were that readily available, I might still eat meat.
Of course, if you have to plant a vegetable garden to feed the deer, then you might think twice, but these deer seemed to be browsing on shrubbery that would not be useable human food.
And don't you love the term "foodprint"?
the best diet - feeding the most people with the most effective land use - is one that includes a little meat/dairy and the rest low fat plant foods.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html
When I saw the deer in the snowy suburban backyard where I am visiting here in Iowa, I commented that if I lived where game were that readily available, I might still eat meat.
Of course, if you have to plant a vegetable garden to feed the deer, then you might think twice, but these deer seemed to be browsing on shrubbery that would not be useable human food.
And don't you love the term "foodprint"?
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Happy Year of the Potato
Who knew? I didn't, until I got the feed from the Food Museum Blog:
http://foodmuseum.typepad.com/food_museum_blog/2008/01/spuds-on-npr.html
One of the things I've learned as I've tried to become more versed in global food issues, and in the impact of environmental issues on the rest of the world, is to appreciate the work of the United Nations.
Now I learn that they have declared 2008 the year of the potato. Only the year of the winter squash or the year of the asparagus could have made me happier.
I've been feeling for some time that potatoes are getting a bad rap. Used to be that people thought they were fattening. Then we realized that it was the butter, sour cream, oil, cheese, etc. that we cooked and adorned our potatoes with were the big culprits. When I was working in Winnemucca two decades ago, convinced of the value of vegetables and grains in the diet (as opposed to the Atkins greasy meats) I threatened to write a potato diet, complete with lower fat recipes.
Then a few years ago the glycemic index hit the news, and potatoes fell from grace again. Now moderation seems to be creeping back in to dietary recommendations for the affluent - go ahead and eat that potato - just balance it with other foods higher in fiber and protein to slow digestion. Makes sense, doesn't it? I can't imagine anyone eating just potatoes.
Or maybe I can.
The authors of "Plenty" seem to have gotten into the potatoes pretty heavily, starting their 100 mile diet in late winter in Vancouver, B.C. (I am finally reading the book, having waited long for it from the library.)
And potatoes can be a major source of calories and vitamin C for folks who have fewer food resources than those of us living with more than plenty. Plus, if you grow them vertically, you can produce a lot in a small space.
http://foodmuseum.typepad.com/food_museum_blog/2008/01/spuds-on-npr.html
One of the things I've learned as I've tried to become more versed in global food issues, and in the impact of environmental issues on the rest of the world, is to appreciate the work of the United Nations.
Now I learn that they have declared 2008 the year of the potato. Only the year of the winter squash or the year of the asparagus could have made me happier.
I've been feeling for some time that potatoes are getting a bad rap. Used to be that people thought they were fattening. Then we realized that it was the butter, sour cream, oil, cheese, etc. that we cooked and adorned our potatoes with were the big culprits. When I was working in Winnemucca two decades ago, convinced of the value of vegetables and grains in the diet (as opposed to the Atkins greasy meats) I threatened to write a potato diet, complete with lower fat recipes.
Then a few years ago the glycemic index hit the news, and potatoes fell from grace again. Now moderation seems to be creeping back in to dietary recommendations for the affluent - go ahead and eat that potato - just balance it with other foods higher in fiber and protein to slow digestion. Makes sense, doesn't it? I can't imagine anyone eating just potatoes.
Or maybe I can.
The authors of "Plenty" seem to have gotten into the potatoes pretty heavily, starting their 100 mile diet in late winter in Vancouver, B.C. (I am finally reading the book, having waited long for it from the library.)
And potatoes can be a major source of calories and vitamin C for folks who have fewer food resources than those of us living with more than plenty. Plus, if you grow them vertically, you can produce a lot in a small space.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Our conflicted way of food
I've been wanting for some time to write about attitudes toward food in our American culture, but have been mulling over just where to begin and what to say.
Then this weekend I noticed that our seasonal confusion now extends to confusing times of feasting and times of fasting. Used to be we had lots of advertising and editorial copy in the various media about feasting until the New Year, when the ads and features about exercise and dieting began. Gradually this moved backward until one could see the diet and exercise pitches beginning on Boxing Day. This, more than anything, signalled that the Christmas season was dead except liturgically. Now it seems that the diet data comes right along with the recipes for butter cookies. The Saturday after Thanksgiving I turned on the tv a few minutes in advance of something I wanted to watch and stumbled upon a segment - on one of those shows that fills the gossip column niche - on how to take off the pounds gained on Thursday.
So I want to know - who gains multiple pounds in one day? Surely that is only possible for chronic dieters and the dehydrated? And who weighs themselves the day after a major feast? And I want to know why we must jettison the leftovers and get all puritanical right away?
Are we afraid of food? afraid of pleasure? afraid of losing control? Or we are just determined to make ourselves miserable and never enjoy anything?
Actually, I have been wondering if our life circumstances are so out of control, or seem to be, that one of the few places we feel we can exercise control is over our food choices. Is this a motivation for both the addiction to diets and the interest in fresh, seasonal and local food?
I want to think that the latter is somehow more positive than the former because it allows for seasonal celebration and choosing foods for taste, not just for caloric, carb or fat content.
But I'm still mulling.
Then this weekend I noticed that our seasonal confusion now extends to confusing times of feasting and times of fasting. Used to be we had lots of advertising and editorial copy in the various media about feasting until the New Year, when the ads and features about exercise and dieting began. Gradually this moved backward until one could see the diet and exercise pitches beginning on Boxing Day. This, more than anything, signalled that the Christmas season was dead except liturgically. Now it seems that the diet data comes right along with the recipes for butter cookies. The Saturday after Thanksgiving I turned on the tv a few minutes in advance of something I wanted to watch and stumbled upon a segment - on one of those shows that fills the gossip column niche - on how to take off the pounds gained on Thursday.
So I want to know - who gains multiple pounds in one day? Surely that is only possible for chronic dieters and the dehydrated? And who weighs themselves the day after a major feast? And I want to know why we must jettison the leftovers and get all puritanical right away?
Are we afraid of food? afraid of pleasure? afraid of losing control? Or we are just determined to make ourselves miserable and never enjoy anything?
Actually, I have been wondering if our life circumstances are so out of control, or seem to be, that one of the few places we feel we can exercise control is over our food choices. Is this a motivation for both the addiction to diets and the interest in fresh, seasonal and local food?
I want to think that the latter is somehow more positive than the former because it allows for seasonal celebration and choosing foods for taste, not just for caloric, carb or fat content.
But I'm still mulling.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Potlucks
An article from last week's LA Times food section on potlucks
http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo-potluck3oct03,1,3971443.story?coll=la-headlines-food
got me thinking about how we might do better at eating together.
There is a certain bias against potlucks, probably because of the jello salad - tuna casserole connection. I've been to plenty of them (occupational hazard) and usually tried to eat a little of everything, praising all the cooks. Now I don't eat meat and have a range of other things I'd rather not, which makes navigating such potlucks difficult. And they are a challenge for those on restricted diets, too (whether for medical or vanity reasons).
I've also been to planned potlucks, at least in my Reno days, where a main dish was chosen and folks negotiated things to go with it and committed to prepare them, or a menu was developed and assigned.
Not so much anymore, though.
Church potlucks seem to have more and more stuff from Costco, or a centerpiece of Kentucky Fried Colonel surrounded by homemade and deli salads - or they just aren't done at all.
And I don't know anyone anymore (maybe I know the wrong people) who is part of a circle of friends who regularly cook and eat together.
It occurs to me, though, that the potluck may be a solution to the frustrating problem of who to invite to dinner and what to serve.
I know some people go into high anxiety wondering what to serve me when they invite me - even though I always say "Just don't put bacon in all the vegetable dishes and I'll be fine." I've figured out some ways to do vegetarian or piscatarian menus when type II diabetics are on the guest list, but I am stymied by the absolutely no sugar ever crowd of whom I know too many.
The worst thing is the people who say, "Invite me over and I'll bring the food." Well, I hate - that's HATE - to clean and I love to cook, so it's no fun for me to prepare the setting and have someone else bring the food.
If we had more potlucks and each person brought plenty of something we like that is on our sugar free/gluten free/soy free/low sodium/low carb/low fat/meatless/vegan diet, then we each would be sure to have at least one good thing, and the omnivores would be in heaven.
It's worth thinking about...
http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo-potluck3oct03,1,3971443.story?coll=la-headlines-food
got me thinking about how we might do better at eating together.
There is a certain bias against potlucks, probably because of the jello salad - tuna casserole connection. I've been to plenty of them (occupational hazard) and usually tried to eat a little of everything, praising all the cooks. Now I don't eat meat and have a range of other things I'd rather not, which makes navigating such potlucks difficult. And they are a challenge for those on restricted diets, too (whether for medical or vanity reasons).
I've also been to planned potlucks, at least in my Reno days, where a main dish was chosen and folks negotiated things to go with it and committed to prepare them, or a menu was developed and assigned.
Not so much anymore, though.
Church potlucks seem to have more and more stuff from Costco, or a centerpiece of Kentucky Fried Colonel surrounded by homemade and deli salads - or they just aren't done at all.
And I don't know anyone anymore (maybe I know the wrong people) who is part of a circle of friends who regularly cook and eat together.
It occurs to me, though, that the potluck may be a solution to the frustrating problem of who to invite to dinner and what to serve.
I know some people go into high anxiety wondering what to serve me when they invite me - even though I always say "Just don't put bacon in all the vegetable dishes and I'll be fine." I've figured out some ways to do vegetarian or piscatarian menus when type II diabetics are on the guest list, but I am stymied by the absolutely no sugar ever crowd of whom I know too many.
The worst thing is the people who say, "Invite me over and I'll bring the food." Well, I hate - that's HATE - to clean and I love to cook, so it's no fun for me to prepare the setting and have someone else bring the food.
If we had more potlucks and each person brought plenty of something we like that is on our sugar free/gluten free/soy free/low sodium/low carb/low fat/meatless/vegan diet, then we each would be sure to have at least one good thing, and the omnivores would be in heaven.
It's worth thinking about...
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
vacation reading
I'm just back from a vacation which was probably too short to be called a vacation, but a day too long for a long weekend. As a treat, I saved the copy of Animal, Vegetable, Miracle which I'd purchased to read while knitting and seeing friends and sights in Seattle.
I can't recommend it highly enough.
I'm not sure that I'm learning anything major from it, but it seems more than worth the read for the turns of phrase Barbara Kingsolver uses. The boxed notes by Steven Hopp sum up some good science and always point to a web site where one can find more information, and Camille Kingsolver's recipes and menu ideas are fun and sensible.
What I like most, though, is the humor and affirmative tone in this book. The apocalyptic, tsking and blaming, purity seeking tone of so many books on eco-gastronomy take all the joy out. Not so here. As someone who uses appreciative approaches in consulting, I appreciate the joy in eating well, seasonally and sufficiently in this book. Kingsolver is right - the problem with diets is the negative apodictic framing. (Did she use that phrase? I don't think so... Call it "thou shalt nots" or taboos or unclean, that's the usual approach.)
Why shouldn't we start with where we are, what is good and wholesome, and figure out how to build on that, rather than creating lists of what to take away?
I can't recommend it highly enough.
I'm not sure that I'm learning anything major from it, but it seems more than worth the read for the turns of phrase Barbara Kingsolver uses. The boxed notes by Steven Hopp sum up some good science and always point to a web site where one can find more information, and Camille Kingsolver's recipes and menu ideas are fun and sensible.
What I like most, though, is the humor and affirmative tone in this book. The apocalyptic, tsking and blaming, purity seeking tone of so many books on eco-gastronomy take all the joy out. Not so here. As someone who uses appreciative approaches in consulting, I appreciate the joy in eating well, seasonally and sufficiently in this book. Kingsolver is right - the problem with diets is the negative apodictic framing. (Did she use that phrase? I don't think so... Call it "thou shalt nots" or taboos or unclean, that's the usual approach.)
Why shouldn't we start with where we are, what is good and wholesome, and figure out how to build on that, rather than creating lists of what to take away?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Goals not shoulds
Some years back I was trying to sort out my alcoholic family legacy, and doing some bibliotherapy around codependency. Turned out I am not very co-dependent. But I recall one very important learning from Codependent No More. It was "Goals, not shoulds." Get away from blaming and shaming yourself, and work on positive goals, not the negative apodictic. ("Thou shalt not...")
I think this is why I was taken aback when a friend told me she was never going to read The Omnivore's Dilemma because everyone who does becomes a fanatic, and if she wants a banana she's going to have a banana.
Now there were several things going on here, as it turns out. One was a criticism of me, I think, though a pretty gentle one. Another was that kind of stubbornness we can all identify with - your standards will not rule my life, thank you very much. It is not nice to feel judged. The third, though, was pretty troubling to me, a tale of guests asking their host where the food came from - is this fresh, seasonal, local, sustainably harvested, etc. This last was pretty appalling. I guess I have just assumed that while reading Pollan's book might well change someone's perspective, it would be in terms of choices they made themselves, or organizing so that others could have better choices, but not in guilting others.
There is a world of difference between striking up a conversation about food sources and practices in a public place - at the market, for example - and criticizing someone who has invited you into their home, or is treating you to a meal out. But there is no end to rudeness, apparently, especially among those who are affluent enough to exercise the most choices.
And there does seem to be a blurring of lines between the goals we set for ourselves and our attitude toward others. The 'not shoulds' part means as well that we must not shame or blame or others.
How about the line we heard on Sunday from the letter to the Colossians:
"Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink"
And don't try doing it to them, either.
Purity codes had no place then, and have none now. Though I must say I have noted that we do have informal dietary codes in our popular culture, which shape shift as fats go out of style, and then carbs, and who knows what next. I have actually preached on the text "It's not what goes into his mouth that defiles a man."
We need to cut one another some slack on all this. We need to help one another find goals that build up, not rules that tear down. We need to be ready to explain our own disciplines, but not impose them on others. We need to be more flexible as guests. And frankly just polite. (There are few people I invite to dinner any more because of all the rules people set for themselves. Some tell me they will bring their own food - but then why am I, a good cook, bothering? Let them clean their house. Or maybe we could go on a brown bag byo picnic. )
I think this is why I was taken aback when a friend told me she was never going to read The Omnivore's Dilemma because everyone who does becomes a fanatic, and if she wants a banana she's going to have a banana.
Now there were several things going on here, as it turns out. One was a criticism of me, I think, though a pretty gentle one. Another was that kind of stubbornness we can all identify with - your standards will not rule my life, thank you very much. It is not nice to feel judged. The third, though, was pretty troubling to me, a tale of guests asking their host where the food came from - is this fresh, seasonal, local, sustainably harvested, etc. This last was pretty appalling. I guess I have just assumed that while reading Pollan's book might well change someone's perspective, it would be in terms of choices they made themselves, or organizing so that others could have better choices, but not in guilting others.
There is a world of difference between striking up a conversation about food sources and practices in a public place - at the market, for example - and criticizing someone who has invited you into their home, or is treating you to a meal out. But there is no end to rudeness, apparently, especially among those who are affluent enough to exercise the most choices.
And there does seem to be a blurring of lines between the goals we set for ourselves and our attitude toward others. The 'not shoulds' part means as well that we must not shame or blame or others.
How about the line we heard on Sunday from the letter to the Colossians:
"Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink"
And don't try doing it to them, either.
Purity codes had no place then, and have none now. Though I must say I have noted that we do have informal dietary codes in our popular culture, which shape shift as fats go out of style, and then carbs, and who knows what next. I have actually preached on the text "It's not what goes into his mouth that defiles a man."
We need to cut one another some slack on all this. We need to help one another find goals that build up, not rules that tear down. We need to be ready to explain our own disciplines, but not impose them on others. We need to be more flexible as guests. And frankly just polite. (There are few people I invite to dinner any more because of all the rules people set for themselves. Some tell me they will bring their own food - but then why am I, a good cook, bothering? Let them clean their house. Or maybe we could go on a brown bag byo picnic. )
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Of mission and diets
I'm in a ruminative mood today, processing learnings of the last ten days or so.
On Sunday I preached on the gospel, trying to look at Jesus' instructions to the seventy in context so that I could extract some meanings for mission today. All who preach know that is not easy. Since then I have been wondering if there are lessons to be pulled from that passage in Luke and applied to our ministries around food and environment. Not anxiously hoarding, receiving what is at hand with thanks, not chasing after privilege or novelty, and remembering that it's not about us - all seem applicable. So much of the teaching is really about hospitality. What if we had an attitude of receiving hospitality toward our local foodshed and toward the planet? Being gracious guests might give somewhat the wrong angle - since it seems to imply that our real home is elsewhere (in heaven) and that's pretty tired theology. But the behavior of a good guest works in many situations, and could be a model for traveling light on the planet.
I wonder about the two by two message also. I prefer to do ministry in community, with others, at least cooperatively, but better collaboratively - but so much of my life is lived alone. My footprint would be much less if I shared living quarters, ate more with others, drove more with others. It was great during my at home vacation to have someone to eat meals with. While I'm proud of the fact that I don't resort to junk or heat-n-eat options when I dine alone, I ought to find more occasions to share meals.
If I ate more with others, I would probably eat less. Table conversation satisfies in a way that second helpings can't. Certainly I have a need for some strategies to help me lose the extra fat I have added since moving to Sonoma County. I don't feel that I can ever face another diet.
Last week in San Francisco I noticed how many fewer obese people there were. Maybe you can never be too rich or too thin to live in the City. You certainly can't be too rich if you want to own your housing. But I suspect that it has more to do with how much people take public transportation and walk there: another un-diet strategy good for you/me and the planet .
This morning on NPR I heard of web merchants who sell products for the obese - like 800 lb. test lawn chairs, and seat belt extensions. While I think fat people deserve more respect than they get, I don't want to go there - to that fat.
I started reading The Sex Life of Food by Penny Crumpacker. If it's any good I'll write more about it later. I offer her comment on a demonstration by fat people in D.C. in 2004:
" 'Fat is not a four letter word,' one of their signs read. But what fat is a four letter word that has been on a diet."
On Sunday I preached on the gospel, trying to look at Jesus' instructions to the seventy in context so that I could extract some meanings for mission today. All who preach know that is not easy. Since then I have been wondering if there are lessons to be pulled from that passage in Luke and applied to our ministries around food and environment. Not anxiously hoarding, receiving what is at hand with thanks, not chasing after privilege or novelty, and remembering that it's not about us - all seem applicable. So much of the teaching is really about hospitality. What if we had an attitude of receiving hospitality toward our local foodshed and toward the planet? Being gracious guests might give somewhat the wrong angle - since it seems to imply that our real home is elsewhere (in heaven) and that's pretty tired theology. But the behavior of a good guest works in many situations, and could be a model for traveling light on the planet.
I wonder about the two by two message also. I prefer to do ministry in community, with others, at least cooperatively, but better collaboratively - but so much of my life is lived alone. My footprint would be much less if I shared living quarters, ate more with others, drove more with others. It was great during my at home vacation to have someone to eat meals with. While I'm proud of the fact that I don't resort to junk or heat-n-eat options when I dine alone, I ought to find more occasions to share meals.
If I ate more with others, I would probably eat less. Table conversation satisfies in a way that second helpings can't. Certainly I have a need for some strategies to help me lose the extra fat I have added since moving to Sonoma County. I don't feel that I can ever face another diet.
Last week in San Francisco I noticed how many fewer obese people there were. Maybe you can never be too rich or too thin to live in the City. You certainly can't be too rich if you want to own your housing. But I suspect that it has more to do with how much people take public transportation and walk there: another un-diet strategy good for you/me and the planet .
This morning on NPR I heard of web merchants who sell products for the obese - like 800 lb. test lawn chairs, and seat belt extensions. While I think fat people deserve more respect than they get, I don't want to go there - to that fat.
I started reading The Sex Life of Food by Penny Crumpacker. If it's any good I'll write more about it later. I offer her comment on a demonstration by fat people in D.C. in 2004:
" 'Fat is not a four letter word,' one of their signs read. But what fat is a four letter word that has been on a diet."
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Dairy in the news
The New York Times food news feed is filled with dairy related articles this weekend.
The dairy industry will no longer be able to make weight loss claims for a diet containing low fat dairy products. Frankly, the claims did seem really silly to me, but what do I know.
All of this plays into the ongoing difference of opinion between dairy promoters and dairy detractors.
There are lots of things to object to in the American way of dairy. The cramped cows, the subsidized feed, the methane, the hormones. The Meatrix II - the mootrix? Is it really necessary to suggest three servings of dairy per day for everybody as the new food pyramid (which is so much better in other ways than its predecessors) does?
At the same time, adolescents and women of a certain age have been told just how great their calcium need is to grow/maintain healthy bones.
There seems to be a bit of a sea change, though. This year when I saw the nurse practitioner who provides my women's health care, she didn't harp on calcium in my diet, but vitamin D. Sunscreen and aging both reduce the amount of it one makes from sunshine - and that's assuming one gets away from the computer and climate-controlled auto and house interiors and gets some sunshine. Doctors and nutritionist are advocating a lowering of the calcium recommendations (to 600 or 700 mg per day), but vitamin D supplements for older folks. And it is possible, with care, to get the calcium from non-dairy, even non-soy, non-fortified sources.
I probably eat too many dairy products, even though I do not drink milk. No football fan, I'm still a cheese head. Cheese, bread and wine - those three great combos of natural processes and human ingenuity. Why do we bless God for bread and wine and not cheese? My challenge is to limit myself to 1 ounce of good cheese worth eating (not low fat) per day. I've always loved ice cream, but can convince myself that low (not non) fat yogurt and fruit "sundaes" are just as good, maybe better. And sometimes I want a breakfast egg cooked in a little butter. So, not eating meat, dairy is the major source of saturated fat in my diet.
In other dairy news, Stonyfield Farms will be bringing an organic yogurt product to Europe. I have to say that I've been finding good prices on local organic yogurt here lately and really enjoying it. It doesn't have that extra stuff added to make it stiff, and it tastes good.
But I have a reuse problem - the one quart yogurt containers. I follow the rule of thumb of using plastics five times before putting them in the recycling. I reuse pint containers all the time to freeze portions of soups, stews and chilis. When there's no more room left to write the contents on the lid, in the recycling they go. They are usually a little weird by then anyway. But I don't freeze large portions, so the quart containers just accumulate. I've been scratching my head to find a creative use for them, but no luck. Suddenly it dawned on me: it is time to buy another yogurt maker. I've had two in the past - the big simple one burnt out, and the little jars one I gave away - too fussy. So I need to get a new one - a simple one that will make a quart or more at a time, from the good local milk that is available to me.
And then I might make yogurt cheese for my fresh cheese needs. Another article talks of a return to plain foods, and identifies ricotta as one of the best of the lot. I love ricotta - but need to search out a local one that might be fresher or tastier - or make my own, or a reasonable substitute. I've linked the plain food/ricotta article, because I wanted to try every recipe in it. Especially the coeur a la creme with rhubarb sauce.
The dairy industry will no longer be able to make weight loss claims for a diet containing low fat dairy products. Frankly, the claims did seem really silly to me, but what do I know.
All of this plays into the ongoing difference of opinion between dairy promoters and dairy detractors.
There are lots of things to object to in the American way of dairy. The cramped cows, the subsidized feed, the methane, the hormones. The Meatrix II - the mootrix? Is it really necessary to suggest three servings of dairy per day for everybody as the new food pyramid (which is so much better in other ways than its predecessors) does?
At the same time, adolescents and women of a certain age have been told just how great their calcium need is to grow/maintain healthy bones.
There seems to be a bit of a sea change, though. This year when I saw the nurse practitioner who provides my women's health care, she didn't harp on calcium in my diet, but vitamin D. Sunscreen and aging both reduce the amount of it one makes from sunshine - and that's assuming one gets away from the computer and climate-controlled auto and house interiors and gets some sunshine. Doctors and nutritionist are advocating a lowering of the calcium recommendations (to 600 or 700 mg per day), but vitamin D supplements for older folks. And it is possible, with care, to get the calcium from non-dairy, even non-soy, non-fortified sources.
I probably eat too many dairy products, even though I do not drink milk. No football fan, I'm still a cheese head. Cheese, bread and wine - those three great combos of natural processes and human ingenuity. Why do we bless God for bread and wine and not cheese? My challenge is to limit myself to 1 ounce of good cheese worth eating (not low fat) per day. I've always loved ice cream, but can convince myself that low (not non) fat yogurt and fruit "sundaes" are just as good, maybe better. And sometimes I want a breakfast egg cooked in a little butter. So, not eating meat, dairy is the major source of saturated fat in my diet.
In other dairy news, Stonyfield Farms will be bringing an organic yogurt product to Europe. I have to say that I've been finding good prices on local organic yogurt here lately and really enjoying it. It doesn't have that extra stuff added to make it stiff, and it tastes good.
But I have a reuse problem - the one quart yogurt containers. I follow the rule of thumb of using plastics five times before putting them in the recycling. I reuse pint containers all the time to freeze portions of soups, stews and chilis. When there's no more room left to write the contents on the lid, in the recycling they go. They are usually a little weird by then anyway. But I don't freeze large portions, so the quart containers just accumulate. I've been scratching my head to find a creative use for them, but no luck. Suddenly it dawned on me: it is time to buy another yogurt maker. I've had two in the past - the big simple one burnt out, and the little jars one I gave away - too fussy. So I need to get a new one - a simple one that will make a quart or more at a time, from the good local milk that is available to me.
And then I might make yogurt cheese for my fresh cheese needs. Another article talks of a return to plain foods, and identifies ricotta as one of the best of the lot. I love ricotta - but need to search out a local one that might be fresher or tastier - or make my own, or a reasonable substitute. I've linked the plain food/ricotta article, because I wanted to try every recipe in it. Especially the coeur a la creme with rhubarb sauce.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Food Police
Last week I was reading an article about trans fats (trans fatty acids) which suggested there may be problems with eliminating all trans fats from our diets. The ones we are going after are synthetic trans fats, produced by partially hydrogenating vegetable oils so that they are solid or semi-solid at room temperature. Trans fats also occur naturally in butter, other fatty dairy products, beef and lamb - and there is some suggestion that these natural trans fats may not have the negative effect on "good" cholesterol that the manufactured ones do.
All of this started me thinking about when I first became aware of the food police. Of course, I had been on and off diets since puberty - that's not what I mean. The food police are people who focus on single foods or nutrients or chemical components and condemn them.
In the late eighties I was underemployed, and earning some extra money by temping for the Reno-Sparks convention and visitors' bureau. One of the events we worked was the California Grocers' Association - so, of course our conversation during slow times at the registration booth turned to food. I remember one of my co-workers saying, "I love custard, but it is so BAD." I tried to imagine being condemned to a world where custard did not exist. I tried to imagine childhood without custard, and particularly my childhood without my mother's cup custards with a little maple syrup in the bottom. I tried to imagine life without the other homey desserts based on custard, like squash pie and bread pudding, or without custards for breakfast like french toast and leftover bread pudding. I made up my mind not to listen to the food police.
But they seem to be always with us, at least in our land of plenty, whether to condemn some foods or food components to oblivion, or to promote the nutrient du jour. And rarely if ever do they consider the big picture, taking into account the impact of what we eat on our planet, not just on our own bodies.
Let's consider the fat dilemma.
I know to eat less saturated fat, but I also know you just can't make that occasional pie crust without it. My favorite pie crust combines vegetable shortening (where synthetic trans fats got their start) and butter.
I suppose I could do what a neighbor does and use vegetable oil, but I really don't like the results. And besides, I can't imagine olive oil in a fruit pie crust, and many of the others are made from genetically modified crops.
So I'll hang on to the butter (using the kind without bovine growth hormone from a local dairy) and figure out what to do for the shortening. Actually when shortening prices got higher and higher I just used hard margarine, but that is now the ultimate no-no.
So I began looking for a shortening made from a plant oil that was solid at room temperature naturally, and there are a couple: coconut oil and palm oil. They, of course, are also the plant oils highest in saturated fats. (Lard is actually lower in saturated fats than butter, but even if I did eat meat where's the sustainably grown pork around here from which I could render it? I'm not going near the factory-farmed stuff, laced with preservatives, which you can buy ready made.) But I thought, well, I'll look for some palm oil shortening - after all I am just using it for the occasional pie crust.
But then I learned that most palm oil comes from plantations which are destroying the habitat of orangutans. This is something the food police who want to get rid of trans fats won't tell you - that many commercial establishments and processed food manufacturers are substituting palm shortening from half way around the world. And in the process our dear relatives are being driven close to extinction. Wouldn't it be a shame if the species that so inspired Charles Darwin were wiped out because Americans couldn't live without cheap solid fat?
The only solution I did come up with was some organic shortening from Whole Foods, Spectrum brand, from plantations in Columbia being established as an alternative crop to coca and costing about as much. Actually, I'm kidding here, as I have no idea of the price of cocaine. Better to say this shortening was priced a little higher than a comparable weight of butter.
That's quite a saga for arriving at a politically correct pie.
It seems that rather than focusing on the thou-shalt-not's, we need to spend more time looking at the big picture and the basic goals of a diet that is good for us and good for life which shares our planet. As far as possible eat fresh, local and seasonal. Make sure things that aren't are conscious choices. Choose sustainably grown when you can. Eat as low on the food chain as possible. And follow some manageable guidelines for eating, like the food pyramid. (Yes, I know - it's probably not p.c. - and it doesn't consider planetary health - but it's a whole lot better than it used to be. Check it out if you haven't.)
And once in a while have a little custard or a piece of pie.
All of this started me thinking about when I first became aware of the food police. Of course, I had been on and off diets since puberty - that's not what I mean. The food police are people who focus on single foods or nutrients or chemical components and condemn them.
In the late eighties I was underemployed, and earning some extra money by temping for the Reno-Sparks convention and visitors' bureau. One of the events we worked was the California Grocers' Association - so, of course our conversation during slow times at the registration booth turned to food. I remember one of my co-workers saying, "I love custard, but it is so BAD." I tried to imagine being condemned to a world where custard did not exist. I tried to imagine childhood without custard, and particularly my childhood without my mother's cup custards with a little maple syrup in the bottom. I tried to imagine life without the other homey desserts based on custard, like squash pie and bread pudding, or without custards for breakfast like french toast and leftover bread pudding. I made up my mind not to listen to the food police.
But they seem to be always with us, at least in our land of plenty, whether to condemn some foods or food components to oblivion, or to promote the nutrient du jour. And rarely if ever do they consider the big picture, taking into account the impact of what we eat on our planet, not just on our own bodies.
Let's consider the fat dilemma.
I know to eat less saturated fat, but I also know you just can't make that occasional pie crust without it. My favorite pie crust combines vegetable shortening (where synthetic trans fats got their start) and butter.
I suppose I could do what a neighbor does and use vegetable oil, but I really don't like the results. And besides, I can't imagine olive oil in a fruit pie crust, and many of the others are made from genetically modified crops.
So I'll hang on to the butter (using the kind without bovine growth hormone from a local dairy) and figure out what to do for the shortening. Actually when shortening prices got higher and higher I just used hard margarine, but that is now the ultimate no-no.
So I began looking for a shortening made from a plant oil that was solid at room temperature naturally, and there are a couple: coconut oil and palm oil. They, of course, are also the plant oils highest in saturated fats. (Lard is actually lower in saturated fats than butter, but even if I did eat meat where's the sustainably grown pork around here from which I could render it? I'm not going near the factory-farmed stuff, laced with preservatives, which you can buy ready made.) But I thought, well, I'll look for some palm oil shortening - after all I am just using it for the occasional pie crust.
But then I learned that most palm oil comes from plantations which are destroying the habitat of orangutans. This is something the food police who want to get rid of trans fats won't tell you - that many commercial establishments and processed food manufacturers are substituting palm shortening from half way around the world. And in the process our dear relatives are being driven close to extinction. Wouldn't it be a shame if the species that so inspired Charles Darwin were wiped out because Americans couldn't live without cheap solid fat?
The only solution I did come up with was some organic shortening from Whole Foods, Spectrum brand, from plantations in Columbia being established as an alternative crop to coca and costing about as much. Actually, I'm kidding here, as I have no idea of the price of cocaine. Better to say this shortening was priced a little higher than a comparable weight of butter.
That's quite a saga for arriving at a politically correct pie.
It seems that rather than focusing on the thou-shalt-not's, we need to spend more time looking at the big picture and the basic goals of a diet that is good for us and good for life which shares our planet. As far as possible eat fresh, local and seasonal. Make sure things that aren't are conscious choices. Choose sustainably grown when you can. Eat as low on the food chain as possible. And follow some manageable guidelines for eating, like the food pyramid. (Yes, I know - it's probably not p.c. - and it doesn't consider planetary health - but it's a whole lot better than it used to be. Check it out if you haven't.)
And once in a while have a little custard or a piece of pie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)