Between getting everything packed up (finally) and the SO's bout with some bug (vibrio, salmonella, rotovirus--hey, it's anyone's guess. I vote vibrio, but only because it sounds cool), I'm only up to a short one today: what to feed nauseous sickies.
I personally am in the camp that if the nauseous sickie does not want to eat, there is no reason to try and shove things down their throats. I am also not perched over the sickie with IV fluids in hand, waiting for the first signs of dehydration. I'm more of the leading the horse to water type. I provide low calorie Gatorade because that's what my sickie requested, and I left it by his beside. When he wanted it, he drank. I know that when someone you love is sick, the instinct is to DO something, anything. And that's a hard instinct to fight.
But I think it causes you and the sickie more stress than necessary if you get into a battle of wills. Just a thought.
If any of you have ever had food poisoning, you know how miserable it can be. Also, how quickly you bounce back. Now, I don't buy the BRAT diet (bananas, rice, applesauce, toast) for obvious reasons. I do think that bland is best, so my sickie, when he was up to it late last night, had some lean ground turkey mixed with black beans, topped with mild salsa and chopped avocado. When your body has been through a trial, why give it nutritionally devoid carbs when you can give it nutrient packed goodies? I'm happy to say the SO is up and about today (if FAR more suspicious of the meat at the taco joint down the street.)
When I'm sick, I personally love soup (shocker, I know) which is also bland and soothing, but nutritive. I'll bet I recover faster than the saltine eater.
Thursday, 29 January 2009
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
It's all in our heads...
The adjective convenient, unlike say, horrible or wonderful, generally has a neutral connotation. When I think of things that are convenient, I think of things that are easy to do, that require little stress or effort or energetic output on my part.
Much of our society seems to be structured around making things easier and more convenient. Electricity, cars, indoor plumbing, grocery stores: all designed so it is easier and more convenient to live our lives. True, some things that are designed to make life more convenient have the opposite effect (cell phone customer representatives spring to mind).
Now, I'm certainly not going to bash hot running water or functioning refrigerators. I may believe in Paleo eating, but I'm not going to throw on a loincloth, grab a spear, and take up residence in a field--I don't even like camping with a tent and sleeping bags. And I am certainly not against making food convenient, especially given my love of prechopped frozen spinach :)
What I do have a problem with is the way this mentality of convenience is applied to food, particularly in this country. Convenience seems to mean 'as quickly as possible with no regard to the healthfulness of what is being provided.' I hate the association of food with convenience with a complete disregard for taste beyond an assault of salt, sugar, or both.
I also don't like that convenient means getting your money's worth in giant portions so that manufacturers have to spin their nutrition labels and break down a massive packaged chocolate chip cookie into two servings (because most people stop at half the cookie, right?) to obscure the fact that there are 600 calories in that beast. I hate that convenience food must be food so crammed full of preservatives that cockroaches will be able to munch on the leftovers after a nuclear holocaust. And it's this mentality of food merely being a commodity to be valued at the lowest common denominators of healthfulness and taste that is spreading (check out Living Healthy in the Real World, where there is a fabulous review of a book on this very topic) throughout the globe.
When I was living in France, it was gauche to walk and eat at the same time (I know because I was the recipient of a lot of staring). One did not snack. One took time to prepare proper meals, sit down, and eat them, even if preparing the proper meal was taking the frozen cassoulet you had purchased at Monoprix and heating it in the oven. Taste was important. Portion size was moderated as much by cultural norms as a sense of satiation. It was simply not 'comme il faut' to eat until you groan. I'm not going to pretend the French don't like convenience foods too--but their convenience foods tend to be yogurts and frozen versions of classic dishes and individual portions of grated carrot salad, rather than bags of potato chips. And their portion sizes are still considerably smaller.
Convenience food doesn't have to be the way many American food manufacturers make it now. What if I told you of this fabulous new low calorie product that was individually packaged with organic materials, came chock full of vitamins and nutrients and fiber, and was available NOW in your grocery store?
Interested yet? I'm talking about oranges (and many other fruits). It's all about the spin, baby. In other words, the issue is not that healthy, convenient food is not available to us--it's that we don't view healthy food as convenient. And when someone is tired and stressed and feeling economically stretched, even the perception that healthy=extra effort may be enough to turn people towards sub optimal choices. American food manufacturers help create and sustain that perception because it is good for their bottom line, at the expense of our waistlines.
I feel like we have made great strides in the recent past--how else can we explain the popularity of "The Omnivore's Dilemma." I worry that the economic downturn will lead, however, to a backward slide (note the fact the Spam and McDonalds are resurgent). I don't know how we decouple convenience and nutritional bankruptcy on a large scale, but there must be a way. I think it will have to be a combination of top down (getting our government to be more proactive) and bottom up (actually getting that frozen spinach in peoples' grocery carts). But like I said, I believe the issue is not that we don't have the resources, it's that we lack the mindset.
Much of our society seems to be structured around making things easier and more convenient. Electricity, cars, indoor plumbing, grocery stores: all designed so it is easier and more convenient to live our lives. True, some things that are designed to make life more convenient have the opposite effect (cell phone customer representatives spring to mind).
Now, I'm certainly not going to bash hot running water or functioning refrigerators. I may believe in Paleo eating, but I'm not going to throw on a loincloth, grab a spear, and take up residence in a field--I don't even like camping with a tent and sleeping bags. And I am certainly not against making food convenient, especially given my love of prechopped frozen spinach :)
What I do have a problem with is the way this mentality of convenience is applied to food, particularly in this country. Convenience seems to mean 'as quickly as possible with no regard to the healthfulness of what is being provided.' I hate the association of food with convenience with a complete disregard for taste beyond an assault of salt, sugar, or both.
I also don't like that convenient means getting your money's worth in giant portions so that manufacturers have to spin their nutrition labels and break down a massive packaged chocolate chip cookie into two servings (because most people stop at half the cookie, right?) to obscure the fact that there are 600 calories in that beast. I hate that convenience food must be food so crammed full of preservatives that cockroaches will be able to munch on the leftovers after a nuclear holocaust. And it's this mentality of food merely being a commodity to be valued at the lowest common denominators of healthfulness and taste that is spreading (check out Living Healthy in the Real World, where there is a fabulous review of a book on this very topic) throughout the globe.
When I was living in France, it was gauche to walk and eat at the same time (I know because I was the recipient of a lot of staring). One did not snack. One took time to prepare proper meals, sit down, and eat them, even if preparing the proper meal was taking the frozen cassoulet you had purchased at Monoprix and heating it in the oven. Taste was important. Portion size was moderated as much by cultural norms as a sense of satiation. It was simply not 'comme il faut' to eat until you groan. I'm not going to pretend the French don't like convenience foods too--but their convenience foods tend to be yogurts and frozen versions of classic dishes and individual portions of grated carrot salad, rather than bags of potato chips. And their portion sizes are still considerably smaller.
Convenience food doesn't have to be the way many American food manufacturers make it now. What if I told you of this fabulous new low calorie product that was individually packaged with organic materials, came chock full of vitamins and nutrients and fiber, and was available NOW in your grocery store?
Interested yet? I'm talking about oranges (and many other fruits). It's all about the spin, baby. In other words, the issue is not that healthy, convenient food is not available to us--it's that we don't view healthy food as convenient. And when someone is tired and stressed and feeling economically stretched, even the perception that healthy=extra effort may be enough to turn people towards sub optimal choices. American food manufacturers help create and sustain that perception because it is good for their bottom line, at the expense of our waistlines.
I feel like we have made great strides in the recent past--how else can we explain the popularity of "The Omnivore's Dilemma." I worry that the economic downturn will lead, however, to a backward slide (note the fact the Spam and McDonalds are resurgent). I don't know how we decouple convenience and nutritional bankruptcy on a large scale, but there must be a way. I think it will have to be a combination of top down (getting our government to be more proactive) and bottom up (actually getting that frozen spinach in peoples' grocery carts). But like I said, I believe the issue is not that we don't have the resources, it's that we lack the mindset.
Monday, 26 January 2009
Diet and Anger
So I'm sure at least some of the people who stop by my blog read the article in the New York Times that referenced the Paleo diet, among other things
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/health/views/20essa.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
The article implied that following the Paleo diet was part of a 'paleofantasy' us modern humans cling to that doesn't reflect the modern society we live in today and further, is built on a shakey and fragmented understanding of how our ancestors lived. I think the author makes a valid scientific point that correlation is not causality, and there may be more than our modern diets to blame for our modern illnesses. The author also agrees that eating a less processed food based diet would probably be better for us.
The author does make many at least seemingly counter Paleo points. For example, the article argues that evolution does not stop, and cites lactose tolerance among modern humans of European dissent, a genetic mutation borne of the evolutionary environment. If I follow correctly, the implication is that we are also now, thanks to evolution, grain tolerant and legume tolerant and generally well adapted now to survive on carbohydrates. Other bloggers have taken up the points made in the NYT piece with vociferous enthusiasm and somewhat expanded and distorted the author's argument to generally attack the Paleo philosophy. Interestingly, at least to my mind, there is genuine nastiness in the dialogue between some of the Paleo camp and some of Paleofantasy camp, mostly arising from the Paleofantasy end.
I'm pretty much a live and let live type. I don't tell other people how and what they should eat, and I don't bash other people's food choices. I'm actually surprised people care enough to really get into it. But now that I've seen some of the points made, I do feel the urge to respond to some of them, if only for my own edification.
1) We don't know what our ancesters ate: True. We can only make educated guesses. And we can back up these guesses with scientific studies that show the efficacy of different ways of eating. And pretty much all the studies I have read that are halfway decently done tend to support the hypothesis that moderating carbohydrates, upping protein, getting good amounts of healthy fats,and eating whole natural minimally processed foods (not whole grains, which are by definition highly processed) is good for us.
2) It is a fallacious assumption that the point to which we evolved 50K years ago is the ideal: Maybe. But isn't it equally fallacious to assume either that we have evolved significantly from that point and that it WASN'T the ideal? I'll take my chances, as you will take yours, with our different approaches. But I don't see how my view can be categorically knocked out.
3) Sugar, high fructose syrup, heck, grains generally aren't bad for us since we make them/grow them ourselves: I respectfully disagree. They are very dense sources of calories with few or no nutrients, especially compared on a calorie for calorie basis with other foods. Just because we have created them doesn't mean they're good for us. Please note I'm evaluating these foods on their NUTRITIVE value. Animals are adapted to consume that which is optimally nutritive for them. On this basis, grains simply cannot match meat, vegetables, fruits, and naturally occuring fats.
4) Different groups of humans have evolved to eat different things, so what works for an African will not necessarily work for an Inuit: again, respectful and qualified disagreement. Masai eat cows and cow blood, Inuits eat whale meat and blubber. But it's all animal protein and fat. And I believe I just named two of the healthiest ethnic groups on the planet when they stick to their customary diets, which are heavily weighted in favour of animal protein and fat. Of course, you can cite the Chinese or the Japanese with higher carbohydrate intake, and I will concede that it is possible that some ethnic groups are more carb tolerant. But even in those groups the carbohydrates are not heavily processed and/or treated in such a way as to minimize their negative effects (e.g. fermenting soy products).
These are only a few points of rebuttal, and they likely won't change anyone's mind. I know that I eat the way I eat for the simple reason that it makes me feel good. I just don't get the anger associated with what people choose to eat and why. In the end, so long as everyone is happy, does it matter? And when did we all become so intolerant of dietary dissent? I generally find that those who react negatively to my food choices tend to take my choices as a repudiation of their own, which is an inaccurate personalization of my diet. Perhaps those who are unhappy with the way I eat are perhaps instead really expressing an unhappiness with themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/health/views/20essa.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
The article implied that following the Paleo diet was part of a 'paleofantasy' us modern humans cling to that doesn't reflect the modern society we live in today and further, is built on a shakey and fragmented understanding of how our ancestors lived. I think the author makes a valid scientific point that correlation is not causality, and there may be more than our modern diets to blame for our modern illnesses. The author also agrees that eating a less processed food based diet would probably be better for us.
The author does make many at least seemingly counter Paleo points. For example, the article argues that evolution does not stop, and cites lactose tolerance among modern humans of European dissent, a genetic mutation borne of the evolutionary environment. If I follow correctly, the implication is that we are also now, thanks to evolution, grain tolerant and legume tolerant and generally well adapted now to survive on carbohydrates. Other bloggers have taken up the points made in the NYT piece with vociferous enthusiasm and somewhat expanded and distorted the author's argument to generally attack the Paleo philosophy. Interestingly, at least to my mind, there is genuine nastiness in the dialogue between some of the Paleo camp and some of Paleofantasy camp, mostly arising from the Paleofantasy end.
I'm pretty much a live and let live type. I don't tell other people how and what they should eat, and I don't bash other people's food choices. I'm actually surprised people care enough to really get into it. But now that I've seen some of the points made, I do feel the urge to respond to some of them, if only for my own edification.
1) We don't know what our ancesters ate: True. We can only make educated guesses. And we can back up these guesses with scientific studies that show the efficacy of different ways of eating. And pretty much all the studies I have read that are halfway decently done tend to support the hypothesis that moderating carbohydrates, upping protein, getting good amounts of healthy fats,and eating whole natural minimally processed foods (not whole grains, which are by definition highly processed) is good for us.
2) It is a fallacious assumption that the point to which we evolved 50K years ago is the ideal: Maybe. But isn't it equally fallacious to assume either that we have evolved significantly from that point and that it WASN'T the ideal? I'll take my chances, as you will take yours, with our different approaches. But I don't see how my view can be categorically knocked out.
3) Sugar, high fructose syrup, heck, grains generally aren't bad for us since we make them/grow them ourselves: I respectfully disagree. They are very dense sources of calories with few or no nutrients, especially compared on a calorie for calorie basis with other foods. Just because we have created them doesn't mean they're good for us. Please note I'm evaluating these foods on their NUTRITIVE value. Animals are adapted to consume that which is optimally nutritive for them. On this basis, grains simply cannot match meat, vegetables, fruits, and naturally occuring fats.
4) Different groups of humans have evolved to eat different things, so what works for an African will not necessarily work for an Inuit: again, respectful and qualified disagreement. Masai eat cows and cow blood, Inuits eat whale meat and blubber. But it's all animal protein and fat. And I believe I just named two of the healthiest ethnic groups on the planet when they stick to their customary diets, which are heavily weighted in favour of animal protein and fat. Of course, you can cite the Chinese or the Japanese with higher carbohydrate intake, and I will concede that it is possible that some ethnic groups are more carb tolerant. But even in those groups the carbohydrates are not heavily processed and/or treated in such a way as to minimize their negative effects (e.g. fermenting soy products).
These are only a few points of rebuttal, and they likely won't change anyone's mind. I know that I eat the way I eat for the simple reason that it makes me feel good. I just don't get the anger associated with what people choose to eat and why. In the end, so long as everyone is happy, does it matter? And when did we all become so intolerant of dietary dissent? I generally find that those who react negatively to my food choices tend to take my choices as a repudiation of their own, which is an inaccurate personalization of my diet. Perhaps those who are unhappy with the way I eat are perhaps instead really expressing an unhappiness with themselves.
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Fit as a fiddle
As I'm getting ready to move I'm saying goodbye to people I know in the Northeast. This includes my paternal grandparents. My grandmother is 81 and my grandfather will be 90 in a few months. As I was visiting with them yesterday I was struck by how mobile they are, and how lucid, in spite of their advanced ages.
Both my grandfather and my grandmother were quite phyiscally active into their 70s. My grandfather was a tennis champ in his youth, and in his retirement he was a tennis coach for a small college. My grandmother began figure skating in her thirties, a sport she continued into her late 60s, as well as an avid swimmer.
While neither eschewed grains or ate particularly healthfully, they both maintained normal body weights through the course of their adult lives. My grandfather, a former smoker who quit cold turkey in his 50s, has had quadruple bypass surgery. But he's still kicking around now. And my grandmother actually fell down the stairs in her late 70s and didn't break a bone!
My maternal grandparents were farmers. Both died in their 90s. Again, both had perhaps less than the ideal diet (a fair bit of grain) but both also ate a good amount of protein and veggies, and it was often lean, grassfed beef because they were cattle and wheat farmers. They also didn't have access to most processed foods. And they were both very physically active for most of their adult lives. In fact, had my maternal grandfather not been a smoker himself, and developed bad emphysema, he would have had an excellent quality of life even in his 90s.
I feel like I was and am blessed to get to have my grandparents around. And I feel like there are lessons I can learn from their lives. They didn't go to the gym and run on a treadmill for an hour. They did sports that they enjoyed and found relaxing, and they did them not out of a sense of obligation, but a sense of play. And they were all what we would call today intuitive eaters, eating when they were hungry and stopping when full.
But it also strikes me that they have the benefit of good genes. Both of my grandfathers smoked, and they didn't get lung cancer. My paternal grandfather basically has no heart function left, most of his coronary arteries have been blocked for years, and by all rights he should not be running around the way he does. For the love of Pete, people, DON'T SMOKE. Bad, bad stuff those ciggies.
Also, it seems that those genetic conditions that might predispose someone towards obesity aren't present in my genetic code (not that I am incapable of gaining weight, but I seem to top out in a normal range, even eating totally ad lib). So I may not need to eat as carefully as I do, but I would anyway because of how it makes me feel.
So the conclusion I draw from watching my family is both that I'm lucky and that it pays enormous dividends at the end of life to be attentive to your body earlier on (oh yeah, and that my kids will never be tall-the tallest we got on either side is 5'9"; I'm lucky I'm not a dwarf). And that it's much easier to be attentive when you're doing activities you like. We all have to work with what we have, but we are also all capable of maximizing what we have.
Both my grandfather and my grandmother were quite phyiscally active into their 70s. My grandfather was a tennis champ in his youth, and in his retirement he was a tennis coach for a small college. My grandmother began figure skating in her thirties, a sport she continued into her late 60s, as well as an avid swimmer.
While neither eschewed grains or ate particularly healthfully, they both maintained normal body weights through the course of their adult lives. My grandfather, a former smoker who quit cold turkey in his 50s, has had quadruple bypass surgery. But he's still kicking around now. And my grandmother actually fell down the stairs in her late 70s and didn't break a bone!
My maternal grandparents were farmers. Both died in their 90s. Again, both had perhaps less than the ideal diet (a fair bit of grain) but both also ate a good amount of protein and veggies, and it was often lean, grassfed beef because they were cattle and wheat farmers. They also didn't have access to most processed foods. And they were both very physically active for most of their adult lives. In fact, had my maternal grandfather not been a smoker himself, and developed bad emphysema, he would have had an excellent quality of life even in his 90s.
I feel like I was and am blessed to get to have my grandparents around. And I feel like there are lessons I can learn from their lives. They didn't go to the gym and run on a treadmill for an hour. They did sports that they enjoyed and found relaxing, and they did them not out of a sense of obligation, but a sense of play. And they were all what we would call today intuitive eaters, eating when they were hungry and stopping when full.
But it also strikes me that they have the benefit of good genes. Both of my grandfathers smoked, and they didn't get lung cancer. My paternal grandfather basically has no heart function left, most of his coronary arteries have been blocked for years, and by all rights he should not be running around the way he does. For the love of Pete, people, DON'T SMOKE. Bad, bad stuff those ciggies.
Also, it seems that those genetic conditions that might predispose someone towards obesity aren't present in my genetic code (not that I am incapable of gaining weight, but I seem to top out in a normal range, even eating totally ad lib). So I may not need to eat as carefully as I do, but I would anyway because of how it makes me feel.
So the conclusion I draw from watching my family is both that I'm lucky and that it pays enormous dividends at the end of life to be attentive to your body earlier on (oh yeah, and that my kids will never be tall-the tallest we got on either side is 5'9"; I'm lucky I'm not a dwarf). And that it's much easier to be attentive when you're doing activities you like. We all have to work with what we have, but we are also all capable of maximizing what we have.
Friday, 23 January 2009
Restaurants
We love restaurants. We tend to eat out at least once a week, it mixes things up and we enjoy trying new places. We a have a few favorites that we visit over and over again. Sometimes it is a certain dish, a favorite drink or the combination.
Sometimes I can eat a starter, main and followed by a delish dessert. Other-times I am happy with a hearty main. Before ordering, we have a bit of debate on what we should have, because I tend to go conventional, while she has more elaborate tastes that I end up becoming very interested in, as they usually taste very, very good.
The trick as someone who is often interested in someone's elses food, is to make sure they order something you will like too. But it is pretty easy with her . . .
Sometimes I can eat a starter, main and followed by a delish dessert. Other-times I am happy with a hearty main. Before ordering, we have a bit of debate on what we should have, because I tend to go conventional, while she has more elaborate tastes that I end up becoming very interested in, as they usually taste very, very good.
The trick as someone who is often interested in someone's elses food, is to make sure they order something you will like too. But it is pretty easy with her . . .
Thursday, 22 January 2009
Yes, I write down everything I eat
One of the details of my diet I am most paranoid about discussing is the fact that I record everything I eat in a database. Because I am paranoid about it, I figured the ultimate anti-paranoia thing to do would be to blog about it. So, here goes.
I use a freeware program called the CRON-O-Meter. I know some people use SparkPeople or other programs, and some simply write down what they eat. I use the the CRON-O-Meter because I find it to be particularly convenient and user friendly. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
I first got into journaling food when I began with CRON. Both elements of CRON, restriction and optimal nutrition, are aided significantly by tracking what you eat. First, most people have no idea what or how much they really eat during the day. I've watched people forget not just nibbles here and there, but whole slabs of lasagna they've had for lunch. Also, people generally have no idea how many calories are in things. Especially when it comes to processed food, things usually have far more calories than people expect. Beyond that, I seriously doubt most people know or care whether or not they're getting their RDAs, even if they are relatively educated and careful about food.
The CRON-O-Meter was an absolute revelation for me. One facet in particular which is very effective as a visual aid is the fact that it shows, in pie chart form, the macronutrient distribution of different foods. Imagine my surprise the day I saw that ~75% of the calories in almonds are from fat, not protein. Or that skim milk has more carbs than protein. Beyond that, I was amazed to see what I was consuming, in what proportions. I can tell you that when I first began paying attention to what I ate, the picture was not pretty. I was eating more than I thought calorie wise, a 60% carb diet when I thought I was getting loads of protein, far too little fat, and my RDAs? Totally hit or miss.
Journaling is helpful to me in many respects. 1) It allows me to track my calories, which is comforting for me because I have the hard visual data to counteract water weight swings on the scale (I know for a fact there is NO way I had put on three pounds over night). 2) It allows me to see that I am getting enough protein and fat, and controlling my carbs-I was fat phobic, as I think a lot of women are, for a long time, and seeing that my weight remained steady even as I upped my fat intake was psychologically important for me. 3) It allows me to ensure I am getting all my vitamins and see my deficiencies. 4) It provides me with data over the long term so I can analyze myself: for example, I was able to link food cravings I had to certain nutrient deficiencies.
Now, journaling is like a game to me. For example, if I'm low in C one meal, I figure out how to add it to the next. Unlike some people, I don't find writing down what I eat to be a huge hassle. It takes me about 10 minutes a day, and for that investment the dividends are hugely rewarding. But I know it looks disordered and anal retentive, hence the insecurity. I hid my journaling from my SO when we first started dating. Luckily, he's an engineer, so when I showed him the CRON-O-Meter, he thought it was cool--it was just a tool for analysis to him, not a symbol of anything else.
I think that if you're interested in improving your nutrition and trying to lose weight, one of the best things you can do is track your food for a week and see what happens. I'll bet you'd be surprised how your diet compares to what your perception of your diet is. I'm not saying journaling like I do is necessary or desirable for everyone, but from personal experience, it is a very useful tool in my toolkit.
I use a freeware program called the CRON-O-Meter. I know some people use SparkPeople or other programs, and some simply write down what they eat. I use the the CRON-O-Meter because I find it to be particularly convenient and user friendly. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
I first got into journaling food when I began with CRON. Both elements of CRON, restriction and optimal nutrition, are aided significantly by tracking what you eat. First, most people have no idea what or how much they really eat during the day. I've watched people forget not just nibbles here and there, but whole slabs of lasagna they've had for lunch. Also, people generally have no idea how many calories are in things. Especially when it comes to processed food, things usually have far more calories than people expect. Beyond that, I seriously doubt most people know or care whether or not they're getting their RDAs, even if they are relatively educated and careful about food.
The CRON-O-Meter was an absolute revelation for me. One facet in particular which is very effective as a visual aid is the fact that it shows, in pie chart form, the macronutrient distribution of different foods. Imagine my surprise the day I saw that ~75% of the calories in almonds are from fat, not protein. Or that skim milk has more carbs than protein. Beyond that, I was amazed to see what I was consuming, in what proportions. I can tell you that when I first began paying attention to what I ate, the picture was not pretty. I was eating more than I thought calorie wise, a 60% carb diet when I thought I was getting loads of protein, far too little fat, and my RDAs? Totally hit or miss.
Journaling is helpful to me in many respects. 1) It allows me to track my calories, which is comforting for me because I have the hard visual data to counteract water weight swings on the scale (I know for a fact there is NO way I had put on three pounds over night). 2) It allows me to see that I am getting enough protein and fat, and controlling my carbs-I was fat phobic, as I think a lot of women are, for a long time, and seeing that my weight remained steady even as I upped my fat intake was psychologically important for me. 3) It allows me to ensure I am getting all my vitamins and see my deficiencies. 4) It provides me with data over the long term so I can analyze myself: for example, I was able to link food cravings I had to certain nutrient deficiencies.
Now, journaling is like a game to me. For example, if I'm low in C one meal, I figure out how to add it to the next. Unlike some people, I don't find writing down what I eat to be a huge hassle. It takes me about 10 minutes a day, and for that investment the dividends are hugely rewarding. But I know it looks disordered and anal retentive, hence the insecurity. I hid my journaling from my SO when we first started dating. Luckily, he's an engineer, so when I showed him the CRON-O-Meter, he thought it was cool--it was just a tool for analysis to him, not a symbol of anything else.
I think that if you're interested in improving your nutrition and trying to lose weight, one of the best things you can do is track your food for a week and see what happens. I'll bet you'd be surprised how your diet compares to what your perception of your diet is. I'm not saying journaling like I do is necessary or desirable for everyone, but from personal experience, it is a very useful tool in my toolkit.
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
A sweet AND a savoury treat
Having had two culinary successes in the last couple of days that the SO has raved about, I feel obliged to share. First, a ridiculously simple, in no way authentic, put-it-on-everything guac:
1 ripe avocado (or more if you're trying to use, say, some of the 10 for $10 you bought in a fit of excitement because avocadoes have been $1.99 a piece lately)
1 small wedge of onion (1/2 oz or 15g), diced finely
1/2 lime (fresh is better, but if all you have is bottled, go for it)
Sriracha to taste
Salt to taste
Directions:
1. Slice avocado in half. Twist gently to separate halves. Scoop out seedless half with a spoon, gently running the spoon around the edge of the avocado skin. Do the same to the half with the seed. Gently pull the avocado flesh away from the seed. Taste a bit of the avocado now to get a sense of how much salt you want to add.
2. Mash the avocado to the desired level of smoothness with a fork on a cutting board. I like it chunky :)
3. Place the avocado in a bowl. Add the lime juice, onion, Sriracha, and salt. Stir well and arm yourself with a fork to fend off the SO as he comes barging into the kitchen with every intention of eating ALL of your freshly prepared stash.
I actually love to use this mixture, mixed with salsa, as a salad dressing. But I'm weird.
And now, the sweet. Full disclosure: this dessert requires a bit of skill and some artificial sweetener. But sometimes, a girl needs a little fix. So, without further ado, I present broiled figs with sabayon;
6-8 nice plump figs, sliced in half lengthwise
1 tbsp honey
1 tsp butter, melted
3 egg yolks
1 tbsp Marsala wine/spiced rum/another liquor of your choice
1 packet Splenda
1) Turn on oven broiler to low. Place the figs on a baking sheet, cut side up. Mix honey and butter together.
2) Set the bottom half of a double boiler on the stove, filled with water, and boil water. In a bowl, beat the egg yolks together until nice and homogenous. Place the eggs in the top half of the double boiler and with a whisk, begin beating the egg yolks vigorously. The goal of the exercise is to warm the yolks, but NOT to scramble them, so moving them constantly is important. As the yolks get thick and lighter coloured, add the liquor and Splenda. Continue beating until the mixture is pale yellow, at least doubled in volume, and when you raise the whisk, ribbons of egg foam fall from the whisk.
If you don't have a double boiler, you can achieve the same effect by placing the eggs in a glass bowl or metal bowl over a pot of boiling water.
3) Immediately remove the eggs from the heat and pour into a bowl.
4) Slide the figs into the oven and broil until the figs are starting to cook, about 2 minutes. Remove from the oven, brush with butter/honey mixture, and return to oven until honey browns lightly. Remove from oven and divide figs onto two plates. Allow the figs to cool for five minutes, spoon the sabayon over the figs and dig in :)
The sabayon recipe works well on any fruit, raw or cooked. In the summer I have it with fresh berries. It also goes very well with poached pears in the winter.
1 ripe avocado (or more if you're trying to use, say, some of the 10 for $10 you bought in a fit of excitement because avocadoes have been $1.99 a piece lately)
1 small wedge of onion (1/2 oz or 15g), diced finely
1/2 lime (fresh is better, but if all you have is bottled, go for it)
Sriracha to taste
Salt to taste
Directions:
1. Slice avocado in half. Twist gently to separate halves. Scoop out seedless half with a spoon, gently running the spoon around the edge of the avocado skin. Do the same to the half with the seed. Gently pull the avocado flesh away from the seed. Taste a bit of the avocado now to get a sense of how much salt you want to add.
2. Mash the avocado to the desired level of smoothness with a fork on a cutting board. I like it chunky :)
3. Place the avocado in a bowl. Add the lime juice, onion, Sriracha, and salt. Stir well and arm yourself with a fork to fend off the SO as he comes barging into the kitchen with every intention of eating ALL of your freshly prepared stash.
I actually love to use this mixture, mixed with salsa, as a salad dressing. But I'm weird.
And now, the sweet. Full disclosure: this dessert requires a bit of skill and some artificial sweetener. But sometimes, a girl needs a little fix. So, without further ado, I present broiled figs with sabayon;
6-8 nice plump figs, sliced in half lengthwise
1 tbsp honey
1 tsp butter, melted
3 egg yolks
1 tbsp Marsala wine/spiced rum/another liquor of your choice
1 packet Splenda
1) Turn on oven broiler to low. Place the figs on a baking sheet, cut side up. Mix honey and butter together.
2) Set the bottom half of a double boiler on the stove, filled with water, and boil water. In a bowl, beat the egg yolks together until nice and homogenous. Place the eggs in the top half of the double boiler and with a whisk, begin beating the egg yolks vigorously. The goal of the exercise is to warm the yolks, but NOT to scramble them, so moving them constantly is important. As the yolks get thick and lighter coloured, add the liquor and Splenda. Continue beating until the mixture is pale yellow, at least doubled in volume, and when you raise the whisk, ribbons of egg foam fall from the whisk.
If you don't have a double boiler, you can achieve the same effect by placing the eggs in a glass bowl or metal bowl over a pot of boiling water.
3) Immediately remove the eggs from the heat and pour into a bowl.
4) Slide the figs into the oven and broil until the figs are starting to cook, about 2 minutes. Remove from the oven, brush with butter/honey mixture, and return to oven until honey browns lightly. Remove from oven and divide figs onto two plates. Allow the figs to cool for five minutes, spoon the sabayon over the figs and dig in :)
The sabayon recipe works well on any fruit, raw or cooked. In the summer I have it with fresh berries. It also goes very well with poached pears in the winter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)