Food Follows Fashion

Several years ago, suddenly (or so it seemed), the corn (maize, to many non-Americans) we'd buy in stores and at the farmer's market as well was bi-colored corn. That is, where we previously had yellow corn (the most common) and white corn, now there were ears of corn with both white and yellow kernels intermingled on the same cob.

And just this spring (maybe it occurred earlier and I didn't notice), the navel oranges are "Cara Cara" oranges, with attractive reddish flesh. Somewhat like blood oranges but maybe closer in color to pink grapefruit.

In both of these cases I surmise that we're getting newly developed varieties that farmers are now choosing to grow and which customers like for their attractive appearance.

For once I am not crying "Foul!" against the food industry. There is nothing wrong with giving us, the consumers, food that is attractive—as long as the new, more attractive varieties are equal or better in nutrition than what we had been using; and I don't have any facts on that.

Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein

Of Cheese and Chicken Wings

The word buffalo, in America, refers to a large bovine animal also known as the American bison, scientific name Bison bison--except when it precedes (1) mozzarella or (2) wings.

Some people, if they ever wonder, might assume that "buffalo mozzarella" is made from milk from a buffalo (or bison) cow. It is not, it's made from the milk of what Americans know as a water buffalo.

Now, as to "buffalo wings," a food very popular in America as a snack or entrée: Of course buffalo don't have wings, so that can't be what the name means. "Buffalo wings" are in fact chicken wings, seasoned (as one might say) a la Buffalo—that is, the city of Buffalo, New York.

Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein

More on Deceptive Labeling and Marketing of Food

Many people have become aware that whole grains in our food have various health benefits. But you need to read labels: some foods that may claim "whole grain" on the label are only partly whole grain, and the whole grain may not be the majority of the grain in that product. You need to read the ingredients list on the label, keeping in mind that ingredients are listed in the order of their quantity (that is, the ingredient used in the biggest amount is listed first, etc.).

Also, keep in mind that "multi-grain" is not a benefit unless those grains are whole. Five or six or eight or ten grains, if none of them are whole, would be less beneficial than just wheat, if that wheat is whole.

A bread store that I know of was making and selling a rather tasty bread. The ingredients list included "HFCS." What is that? you might wonder. High fructose corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup, possibly wrongly, has gotten a bad wrap. It looks like the bread store was deliberately attempting to conceal from customers what was in its bread, especially considering that high fructose corn syrup is not usually known as "HFCS" and thus customers might not immediately recognize that ingredient from the abbreviation.

Many health-conscious food buyers believe that sugar should be avoided. So I see, as an ingredient, "evaporated cane juice," or "evaporated cane juice crystals." Anyone who knows how ordinary cane sugar is made should understand that "evaporated cane juice" is simply cane sugar—no more and no less. Someone has just tried to call it by a name that won't raise the red flag for customers that the term "sugar" would.

Besides such attempts at less-than-honest labeling of ingredients, labels contain many misleading claims. Cheerios will lower your cholesterol—if you eat it three times a day for weeks on end. I personally don't like monotony in my food and would not be able to stand eating the same cereal even once a day, every day.

And there's a yogurt that is supposed to be beneficial to your digestive tract. Again, if you heed the fine print, you've got to eat it three times a day to reap the benefit.

And many foods, like energy bars, power bars, Vitamin Water, etc., are simply useless and will not deliver the claimed benefits. Many products fortified with vitamins don't have enough of some or all of the vitamins that are in them. If you are concerned about your vitamin intake, it's much wiser to take a multivitamin pill every day. Many of those will deliver the "daily value" of most of the vitamins that they contain. (If you take a multivitamin, you may want to avoid breakfast cereals that have added vitamins; there's such a thing as too much of some vitamins, and you may risk taking in too much.)

Just one more word of caution. Many of the products that tout their fiber content achieve the fiber numbers by adding substances like inulin, which are considered "isolated fiber." These substances are believed by many to not carry the benefits of natural fiber like that found in products like whole grains and unaltered fruits and vegetables. So-- get your fiber from grains and produce, not from yogurt. Oh, and don't fall for the term "natural" on labels. Natural is a term that's not regulated, so it's basically meaningless. And it certainly does not have to equal "beneficial" or even "harmless." Consider that snake venom and poison mushrooms are "natural."

Update, September 15, 2011
Here's an article on health claims for some food products that have been given various additives.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-and-nutrition-pictures/6-snack-foods-that-make-health-claims.aspx#/slide-1

Update, October 14, 2011
Here is another article which says that labeling (of cereals, in this case) as "natural" is meaningless. And it mentions Kashi being bought by Kellog, which I mentioned in an earlier post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/natural-cereal_n_1011113.html
There are two things in this article that I don't agree with. First, they like Frosted Flakes for having vitamins added. I, for one, don't want vitamins added to my cereal because (1) I take a multivitamin/mineral tablet and taking in vitamins added to my cereal might mean I'm getting too much of something; and (2) I prefer the supplement tablet to vitamins and minerals added to my cereal because I can better control what I'm taking in, and there are more vitamins and minerals in my supplement tablet.
Second, cereals becoming organic might be beneficial to the environment but I don't think it would make my breakfast cereal healthier. I advocate eating things like plain old oatmeal--which can be bought cheaply, is quick to cook (maybe 1.5 min), and is as simple and healthy as it gets. Note: NO added anything, unless I choose to add something (which I do, sometimes: raisins--definitely a plus from the taste standpoint and perfectly healthy--and maybe cinnamon).

Update, October 19, 2011
Here's a quote from a comment on food which is not as healthy as the consumer might be led to believe:

[W]hy do we need a website to track this kind of news [about sugar]? It goes way beyond sugar. Take blueberries, for example. Food Identity Theft inspected the labels of Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats Blueberry Muffin Cereal, Kellogg's Special K Blueberry Cereal, General Mill's [sic] Total Blueberry Pomegranate Cereal, Betty Crocker Blueberry Muffin Mix and Smucker's Snack 'n Waffles Blueberry. Despite their names, the site found that the only blueberries in the mix are "blueberry flavored crunchelets" (sugar and blue #2 lake food dye) and "blueberry bits" (red #40 lake and blue #2 lake food dye), among other pseudo-berry flavors. ["Lake" is a term in dyeing.]

Update, April 30, 2012
The latest issue of Nutrition Action HealthLetter, published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, has (1) an evaluation of cold cereals; and (2) an article that discusses the mechanisms in our brain whereby gratifying foods--for example those with considerable sugar or fat content, that is, "manufactured" foods--actually are addictive very much like illicit drugs.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

Corporations Make Healthy Eating Choices Very Difficult

It's often been pointed out—including by me—that the large purveyors of fast food serve unhealthy food—high in fat, calories, and sodium—and thus bear some of the blame for the epidemic of obesity in America and increasingly in other countries as well, as we are exporting our obesity along with our culture and our food.

However, there is a sense in which they should not get the chief blame. With their triple cheeseburgers, they are giving the public what they want. Many people are not health-conscious or do not have the knowledge to make health-conscious decisions about what they eat. Or, other considerations may trump any issues of good nutrition.

But, there are many people who try to eat healthy; and often these people are not well-served by the corporations who make and sell our food.

There is a lot of misleading marketing of food. Many products like nutritional supplements make unsubstantiated claims. (These claims are not adequately regulated by the government; the labels must merely carry a fine-print statement saying, "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.")

Many products like energy drinks, energy bars, "power bars," and so forth are worthless. Many products that boast their fiber content contain so-called isolated fiber, which may not have the health benefits of natural fiber.

Many products made to sound healthy are full of unnatural and processed ingredients. For example, not yogurt but "yogurt powder"; not fruit but some concoction that's starch, sugar and coloring, with maybe a little fruit juice.

Some examples: According to the magazine Nutrition Action Health Letter, published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (the people who have made in-the-news exposés of movie-theater popcorn and so forth), the following products, which are pitched to those seeking gluten-free foods, may not be truly healthful:

• Glutino Gluten Free Blueberry Breakfast Bars, which are "junk" because their "blueberry filling" has more sugar, apple powder, white grape juice concentrate, and water than blueberries.
• Glutino "gluten-free pretzels coated with premium yogurt" are largely made of corn starch and potato starch; the yogurt coating contains yogurt listed as last among its ingredients, meaning that, by quantity, it's the smallest of the ingredients in the yogurt coating.
• Food Should Taste Good Sweet Potato All Natural Chips contain more corn and corn oil than sweet potato. And some "veggie chips" have more salt than some of the veggie-derived ingredients.

Brands, and stores, who might try to make us think they deal in healthy food, often are doing quite the opposite. The so-called "health food supermarkets" deal in food that is high in sodium. They have bakery departments that sell us concoctions of sugar and fat (though no canny consumer truly expects these things to be healthy).

So it's very much a case of "let the buyer beware." More and more of us these days eat more and more food that we do not prepare from scratch but is served to us or it comes in a package. And even those who want to eat healthy often have an almost impossible job when making their food-buying choices.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

Two (Surprisingly) Nutritious Foods

You may not think of watermelons and mushrooms as being fruits and vegetables that are superior in nutrition or healthfulness.

Probably you think of watermelon as being mostly water (duh!), and the same for mushrooms. But it happens that both of these foods are packed with vitamins and healthful phytochemicals (plant-based substances that are very good for the human body), and I have read or heard more than one source recommend including more of them in our diets. So I have been trying to follow the recommendations and eat more of both of these. I like them, and I'm trying to remember to buy them when I go shopping. As to watermelon, there's this consideration for me: being a one-person household, I don't want to buy whole watermelons; and individual slices for sale in the supermarket seem to be a very poor buy.

As to mushrooms, I have several ways in which I like to prepare them (not into raw vegetables as a rule). It seems to me that there are two varieties of the common white button mushroom that most Americans think of first when we think of "mushroom": the ones that you ordinarily see in supermarkets, packaged in a half-pound package (don't ever buy the already-sliced ones because once they're sliced, they lose nutrition); and those sold in bulk.

The packaged ones are of a very uniform, medium size, and stay very nicely white in your refrigerator for days. I personally prefer to buy bulk mushrooms at the produce store. They are not so uniform in size and may be larger; and they begin to turn brown a day or two after you get them home. But I like their cooking quality. They genuinely brown as you are sautéeing them, whereas the smaller, whiter ones don't. And I think they might be tastier.

Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein

Worthwhile Uses for Science?

I probably don't have any business or justification for making such judgments (but hey, has that stopped the Rush Limbaughs of the world?), but I sometimes wonder whether some of the uses to which we put our science and research talent are truly worthwhile, in the grand scheme of things. That is, whether these efforts might be put to better use. A couple of examples:

To make household products work better: Well, I guess that making products work better to get the stains out of our clothes is a good thing. Probably preparations and machines that get our houses clean with less work are a good thing, too.

To remove calories from our food (and even our pets' food): I can't say this is a waste when Americans' overweight and obesity problem is serious and leads to diseases like diabetes; but it seems kind of a shame when you consider that there are millions of people in the world who are starving and desperately crave the calories we are trying hard to discard.

Cosmetic science, etc.: For example, new and better products to remove wrinkles from women's faces. Well, women would hate me if I said this is unnecessary or a waste of talent, but I think it is at best a borderline case. And that could lead to a whole other subject--why our society considers it more important for women to devote a lot of effort to looking good. Is that sexism? But men have been catching up in that regard, and there are far more men's grooming products on store shelves than there were a few years ago.

I just noticed that the dental floss I bought the other day says "Improved Flavor." Definitely important, a real contribution to improved quality of life.

Making our electronic toys continually better: Well, for me it's hard to believe that our smart phones need to get smarter every day, nor (as a non-video gamer) that we constantly need new and better games.

Update, October 5, 2011:
Here is a quote from an online article dealing with a proposed trade deal that would preserve the intellectual rights of "Big Pharma" (the big drug companies) but might have the bad effect of making drugs for AIDS more expensive and less available to poor people in the countries involved, such as Vietnam:

Much of the research pharmaceutical companies do conduct is simply not relevant to public health concerns, with money pouring into projects for hair loss, for instance, while funding for diseases that primarily afflict the poor, like tuberculosis, stays in perpetual short supply.

"The drug companies would say it generates research, but the evidence is very questionable, because much of the research is not directed at important diseases," says Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz (HuffPost Politics, Oct. 5, 2011).

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

Make It, or Buy It? Food, That Is

As a friend of mine recently said, "We're all spoiled--very spoiled." We continually expect more and more convenience from the foods we buy. I've mentioned before that everybody feels so busy these days--working mothers, etc.—so no one feels they have the time to do much cooking. (And worse, look at the lines of cars in the drive-thru of the nearest fast-food place at dinner time: Call Hubby on the cell phone: "Pick up some KFC," or McDonald's, or Pizza Hut for dinner. Not good nutrition; that's one reason why Americans are so fat.)

When bagged salads first came out, I was practically outraged. You're paying up to $10 a pound for lettuce that should cost a fraction of that much—just to be saved the trouble of washing the lettuce and cutting (or tearing) it up. But I have to admit that now I buy it myself, probably 95% of the time. (I only eat organic lettuce, and I can more easily get organic bagged salad. But when I do see organic lettuce and it seems reasonably priced, I buy it and wash it, and save some money!)

Ditto for mashed potatoes. I've never bought the stuff that comes in a little tub in the supermarket. I'd have to agree that peeling potatoes, boiling them and then mashing them takes time and effort, and I've done it very few times in my life. So for potatoes, I'll use the instant, flake kind of mashed potatoes, or—better yet—I might just boil some little red potatoes: you don't even have to peel them. Takes 15 minutes.

You can get almost anything ready made these days, it seems, even things that are very easy to make yourself. Our grandmothers would be amazed, and probably horrified. You can get little pouches of tuna salad (you could just buy tuna and stir in a little mayonnaise, you really don't need much more than that). There are little packages of pasta dishes--just heat and eat. Even ready-made sandwiches in the food store, or peanut butter and crackers. Gad, we're too lazy to spread something on a slice of bread or a cracker!

I can make a lot of things from scratch, like brownies and pancakes—yet I buy a mix instead. (I buy a relatively healthy pancake mix and then doctor it by adding oat bran--adds fiber, cuts the sodium--and cinnamon, or blueberries if they're on hand.) I've never used the pancakes you get in the refrigerator counter or freezer of the supermarket. I buy frozen waffles, but my excuse there is that I don't own a waffle iron.

So I'm guilty, too. But we should all keep in mind that, when and if we have the time, it's better—more nutritious and typically a lot cheaper—if we make something from scratch or even a mix.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

Should You Listen to Food Gurus?

There's a lot of advice on food and eating and nutrition, these days: on the Internet, on TV, in magazines and books. A lot of it is mainstream, is well-established and backed by medical research, and has been around for a while. This type of stuff is what I think we should be paying attention to.

Some other sorts of advice are a challenge to the intelligent and well-informed consumer. It's not always obvious when we really should ignore what we're being told, either because the person giving the advice is not disinterested (meaning he stands to gain financially, either by blatantly selling you something, or more subtlety, he may be advocating a product such as a supplement that's made by a company he owns); or because it's a bit extreme and not practical for most of us. Or even simply nonsensical. (Note: Just because something is recommended as "natural," that should not automatically recommend it. Remember, poisonous mushroom are "natural." Snake venom is "natural.")

So, what are some examples of what we ought to be listening to? Well, the government tells us to reduce the sodium (salt) and fat in our diets (particularly, avoid trans fat and cut saturated fat). And eat more whole grains and fruits and vegetables.

Okay, that's all very sound advice. It should guide our shopping and make us eat less fast food. (Read those nutrition labels!) Even the big food processors have begun to adjust their products to be healthier in these respects.

But one person—I think I heard this on TV—said, "Don't eat anything with a label on it." Okay, it would be nice if we ate more stuff made from scratch, so we could avoid chemical ingredients like artificial colors and flavors and so forth. But this is not going to be practical for most people. With many wives and mothers having careers outside of the home, the trend has been for more and more of what we eat to come ready-to-eat or ready-to-heat. That trend has its downside, I'm sure, but that guy is definitely spitting into the wind.

I don't know how far that guy's dictum was meant to be carried. Does he mean to include things like eggs, milk, and even produce from the supermarket, that has those little adhesive labels on it? It's probably true that we'd get more nutritious eggs if we kept our own chickens and let them wander around. And we'd get tomatoes that would taste better (and might or might not be more nourishing) if we grew our own.

But isn't that a bit extreme for the majority of Americans who are urban or suburban? Do I need to avoid buying yogurt, and make my own? Even if I said, Okay, I'll make my own yogurt (actually, no way), then where would the milk come from? If not from a bottle or carton with a label, then I'd have to keep my own cow, right? I'm pretty sure cows, or even chickens, are not allowed by my condo homeowners' association.

One or two little asides: First, some people think that sea salt is better, or less unhealthful, than regular salt. This is simply untrue. With the very minor exception that sea salt contains very small amounts of some of the minerals found in sea water, it's still just salt: it's very close to 100% sodium chloride, which is what ordinary salt is.

Second, many people try to avoid sugar, and doing so may be a good thing--but that would be another subject. Fact is, they're too easily tricked by the food makers. I recently saw, as a food ingredient, "evaporated sugar cane juice crystals." Hey, if you know how sugar is made, that translates into nothing more nor less than ordinary sugar! Add that to my comments, in other postings, on deceiving the consumer!

Third, a common sweetener--so ubiquitous as to be unavoidable in store-bought food--is high fructose corn syrup. It's gotten a bad rap, but most likely it's not bad for you. It contains two kinds of sugars which are both naturally found in food; so it's no worse than any sugar.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

Soup for People into Healthy Eating

I eat a lot of soup; can't keep myself supplied with it. But since I became concerned about the BPA that is in cans, including soup cans, I've been buying only soup in boxes (and occasionally those little one-serving cups where you add water and microwave them). Also, I won't buy any soup that's high in sodium--which excludes probably about 90% of soup, both in cans and boxes.

One brand that seems to have appeared recently is called FIG Food Company. I just had their lentil soup, which I thought was pretty good. I also had their Tuscan White Bean soup, but that one I found rather pretty bland.

These come in little boxes (two servings) for about $3. A similar one is Dr. McDougal's. Some of their soups are pretty good, and some are bland. You've got to sample them and see which ones you like.

Since low-sodium soups can be a bit bland or even cardboard-y, I often add some of my own herbs or spices, and that makes a very worthwhile improvement. For example, cumin for the lentil soup, basil for anything tomato-y, curry powder sometimes, pepper in almost anything. Maybe a little Tobasco.

Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein

Reagan (and Bush) on Energy and Consumer Protection

News has it that President Obama is installing solar energy-producing panels on the roof of the White House.

This item, and earlier ones, reminded us that President Jimmy Carter had also installed solar panels on the White House roof—and then Ronald Reagan removed them. Why would he do this, when it must have cost taxpayers money to remove them? My guess is, simply to thumb his nose at environmentalists.

Also, as is not very well known, on the day of his inauguration, Reagan froze all funding of alternative energy research by the Department of Energy. I can tell you that a lot of alternative energy research that is being called for today or has recently been started up, was going on in 1981 when Reagan halted it. On the smaller scale, Reagan's move cost many jobs (including, ultimately, mine—so yes, I have a personal axe to grind here) but it also set back the efforts to find new energy sources by 30 years.

Many of the bad things that Reagan did (okay, bad at least from my perspective, or any liberal perspective) were not publicized at the time. Reagan was very popular—remember, he was called "the Teflon President," and the Press was afraid to criticize him because of that popularity.

For example, he gutted federal regulatory agencies such as the EPA and FDA that were intended by Congress to safeguard our food, water, air, and so forth. He appointed as heads of these agencies industry-sympathetic people or even industry insiders who had no intention of allowing these agencies to function effectively.

Similarly, Congress passed laws to beef up (no pun) government inspections of food-processing plants. Had these measures taken effect, they might have prevented some of the recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses such as Salmonella and E. coli from eggs, peanut butter, and so forth (there have been many in the last few years). But the stiffer inspection schedules were never implemented, because of eight years of foot-dragging by the Bush administration.

Update, August 26, 2011
I recently learned that Rodger Mudd, of CBS TV news, did at the time report on Reagan removing the solar panels from the White House. It was a very brief news item and didn't mention any possible explanation.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

How to Shop for Healthier Food

Nowadays we're all concerned about eating healthier. And of course food manufacturers keep their finger on our pulse and try to tailor their products to what people are looking for.

But, as always, the buyer needs to be wary and as well-informed as possible.

For example, many products are claiming to be "multigrain." But that can be pretty meaningless. Having or being made with more than one grain is of no particular advantage if those grains are not whole. So look for "whole grain." "100% whole wheat" is the best claim to find. Not as good is "made with whole wheat," because you don't know what the percentage of whole wheat is, and it could be a trivial amount. (You can get a little information from the ingredients label if you keep in mind that ingredients are listed in order of their amount, by weight. So if "whole wheat flour" is the first ingredient, that's good.)

Another word used by makers and advertisers is natural. Again, meaningless. Natural does not mean that it's good for you, let alone that it won't harm you. Snake venom is natural. Poison mushrooms are natural.

Lastly, sugar has become a dirty word with some consumers. So food manufacturers are using ingredients like "evaporated cane juice." Now, what is that? No more nor less than sugar. Other sweeteners in that ingredient list, like a concentrate of one or more fruit juices (apple, pear, etc.) or "brown rice syrup" are still sugar.

The only sweeteners that are not sugar by some other name are artificial sweeteners. Some of those have not been satisfactorily tested for safety. Therefore, I often feel I'd rather have sugar. On the other hand, when it comes to soft drinks, which have large amounts of sweeteners (usually high fructose corn syrup) that may be contributing to our rising rates of diabetes and obesity, the "diet" version is the better choice. If you are concerned about the safety of the artificial sweeteners, just limit your consumption of soft drinks.

Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein

We Just Keep Getting Fatter

A news item about a week ago said that furniture manufacturers are bringing out wider chairs. Why? Because Americans are getting so fat, they can't sit on normal chairs anymore.

And airlines have official policies, now, for passengers who are very heavy and need two seats to accommodate them: the passenger now must pay for two seats.

These facts should be sobering to all of us, to put it mildly. Not to mention that we keep hearing the dismal statistics: two-thirds or Americans are overweight, and 38% are obese.

There is no mystery behind these phenomena. With the exception of a few individuals who have a glandular condition (e.g., hypothyroidism) or a genetic defect, the reason is very simple: we eat too much. Okay, to be a little more precise: we eat too many calories relative to the calories we burn. This means that we need to eat less (or eat less calorie-dense food), move around more (exercise), or both. And stop believing in any magic pills, either literal pills or magical diets.

Our food portions have gotten larger (think "supersize") and we are eating more food that is simply bad for us. I've blogged about America's overweight kids before. If you let them, kids will subsist on pizza, hamburgers, hot dogs, and junk food. And then sit and play video games or tweet on their computers.

I don't know if parents give their kids 5 bucks and say "go to McDonald's." I do know that too many moms take their kids to McDonald's, for lunch and even for dinner, or bring McDonald's or KFC home for dinner. Who wants (or has the time) to cook? So goes the argument. If you care to look into it, a food item like a double cheeseburger has an astonishing number of calories. Bad enough two meat patties, instead of one; but we want to make it quite a bit worse with a slice—no, two slices--of cheese.

Start reading the nutrition information labels on the food you bring home. Request (if necessary) calorie information at McDonald's, KFC, Starbucks. Know what you're putting into your body. Besides calories, we are taking in way too much fat, sugar, and salt. These food components are in a sense addictive, and fast-food vendors and junk-food makers have made us into unhealthy-food addicts. On the addictiveness of junk food, see this link:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/study-says-junk-food-is-as-addictive-as-heroin-or-cigarettes/19417741/

or this British article about a book by David Kessler, former U.S. Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/dietandfitness/7541646/Old-fashioned-hunger-doesnt-come-into-it.html?msource=MAG10

The nutritional advice, which (if we've been listening at all) we've heard over and over, is to eat more vegetables. And it's true. I guarantee (or any diet/nutrition professional can guarantee) that if you eat plenty of celery, carrots, and other fruits and veggies, you can't possibly be fat. Note, salad is not okay if you're going to pile on the dressing, nor veggies if you're going to drown them in butter.

Yogurt, a few decades ago, was usually eaten only by "health-food nuts." Today it is very popular. But will it help us to slim down? Those flavored yogurts are sweetened and have twice the calories that plain yogurt has. Eat plain, fat-free yogurt. Personally, I like the taste of plain yogurt. I never eat those flavored ones because I don't think that the sweeteners go well with the natural tart taste of yogurt.

People tend to think that anything healthy has to taste bad, or that healthy eating habits are too austere and their food just won't taste good. It's not true. There are plenty of books, magazines, web sites and so forth that can show you how to have tasty but healthy food.

And don't forget that eating less calorie-dense food is only half the story. The other is more exercise. I notice how many people take the elevator instead of climbing the stairs in, say, the public library. Even to go just one floor. There's the amusing but all-too-true story of the thirty-something who takes the elevator to his/her health club and then uses the stair-stepper machine. And he or she never even thinks about the contradiction there.

And don't drive around and around trying to find the closest parking space at the mall or supermarket. Make a point to park a little further away. You need the exercise. Believe me. Or believe your mirror.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

Is Our Food Bad for Us?

Today, unless your head is in the sand, you hear that a lot of our dietary habits are bad for us. We eat too much salt, sugar, fat, red meat, processed meat—the list goes on, and it seems like it's added to every day.

When I was a kid you never heard of anyone worrying about what they ate. We ate lots of sugar and fat and salt. All the cake we wanted, and ice cream, and cookies. Ah, the good old days! My mother, who cooked with chicken fat (I hear you going, "Yuck!" but that was normal Jewish cooking, which would not use lard), was concerned that I did not eat enough fat, as a kid, and, to seduce me into taking in more butter, she added it to tomato soup!

You have to wonder what's changed, and, logically, you'd think the answer would be "nothing."

However, that might not be correct. That farm hand or cowboy of 100 years ago who ate steak and eggs and ham for breakfast didn't develop clogged arteries and coronary disease because his work was heavily physical. Today we are all couch potatoes who don't even get up off the couch to change the channel on our TV.

And, although you hear more about heart disease and cancer, and the incidence of diabetes is going through the roof, some rates of cancer have actually gone down. But I would not disregard or downplay all the advice to be concerned about what we are eating and drinking.

As I say above, one thing which has changed is lifestyle. We are too sedentary. Also, food vendors (think fast-food chains) and food manufacturers are providing us with unhealthy food. And we are eating in those fast-food places more, and eating more processed food. How much of our food is made from scratch? I for one, can cook and do, at least sometimes; but if you look at my garbage (or what I recycle, to be more correct), it seems as though an awful lot of my food comes in boxes. Not good. Too much sodium, too much artificial ingredients. Have you heard of the dietary advice to never eat anything that has more than five ingredients? There's probably nothing that comes in a box that's got only five ingredients.

All of what I say above is well-established science; but I'm going to plunge ahead into some ideas that are more speculative. Our dietary intake these days has lots of toxins (poisons), in the form of pesticides and chemical additives in our food. It's been at least tentatively suggested by scientific studies that some of these substances, like bis-phenyl A (BPA), found in food cans, for example, are harmful.

The verdict is still out, largely, on what harm some of the man-made chemicals in our food are doing to us. It may be that they make our bodies less able to handle the more natural—and now thought to be "bad"—food ingredients like fat, sugar, and salt. Not to mention causing diseases like cancer, autoimmune diseases, and so on by themselves.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

Television makes us fat

You've probably heard over and over—it's even discussed elsewhere on this blog—that Americans are increasingly becoming overweight and even obese. There's been a lot of discussion among experts as to what the causes are.

I want to suggest that television is at least one possible cause. No, I don't mean the inactivity of sitting and watching TV; I mean the advertising of food on television.

Just to make a very rough and random sample, in three or four days of my own televiewing, I saw commercials for some half-dozen fast-food chains (one of them at least four times), one for yogurt, two for sausages (one of those at least twice), ice cream, a pancake house, raw chicken, baked beans—and paper plates, piled high with food to show that they can hold it. This is not an exhaustive list. The Fourth of July is approaching so the sausages and paper plates are to be expected, I guess.

My theory is that watching food commercials—seeing the sponsors' food items shown, often in close-up, in their best make-up (and that's not totally facetious: food is doctored for still photography, as in magazines, and I'm sure something similar is done for TV) so as to look as appetizing as possible—doesn't this make us hungry? Some social scientist needs to do a study to show just how often seeing a TV commercial for food makes the viewer get up during a commercial break and go to the refrigerator. Meanwhile, I've got this bit of advice: the next time a food commercial comes on, showing that double cheeseburger, quickly change the channel, look away--anything but watch it and start to salivate.

And then there are the cooking shows on TV and other food programs. I know that those make me hungry, maybe more so that the food commercials. I'm pretty much immune to most of the food commercials because I almost never eat fast food and I eat almost no red meat. So because of how I have conditioned myself, that close-up shot of a big, juicy burger isn't going to do it for me. But I'm in the minority.

Update, June 28, 2012
Yesterday the TV news reported on a study done by the University of Southern California that shows that TV ads for fatty foods make the viewer crave fatty foods. I feel this shows that I was right in what I said in 2009.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein