The war on food continues with new ammo! I just found an advertisement in my Sunday paper for Whuno Cookies (http://www.whonucookies.com/) and they appear to be the latest thing since sliced bread.
These cookies, which suspiciously resemble Oreos and Chips Ahoy, are packed with fiber, calcium and vitamin C. The ad, in fact, tells us three cookies can provide "as much fiber as a bowl of oatmeal, as much calcium and vitamin D as an 8 oz glass of milk and as much vitamin C as a cup of blueberries." Isn't that fantastic?
Now, rather than eat oatmeal and blueberries and drink a glass of milk, you can scarf down three delicious cookies and be good to go, because we all know eating nutrition packed cookies is better for you than eating real food. It's so much easier to grab a couple of cookies than to sit down to a bowl of oatmeal and blueberries.
Of course, these nutritious cookies are aimed at kids, or parents of kids who want better nurtition for their children. We all know kids prefer cookies to spinach or oatmeal, in fact I know a lot of adults who prefer cookies to spinach and oatmeal, but does it really make sense to replace those foods with specially designed cookies?
The ingredients list for the cookies is suspiciously missing from the website, so I can't be sure, but I have an inkling there will be a lot of things in the cookies you won't find in the natural foods they replace.
The food industry constantly bombards us with replacements, things we can consume instead of real food that will supposedly act like real food where it counts [nutrition, taste] and not act like real food in the areas we fear [calories, fat]. I understand the concept of wanting to replace some of the junk kids like to eat with better choices - hey, if your kids are going to be eating cookies anyway, why not give them more nutirtious cookies, right? The only down side is, you're fostering a taste for cookies when learning to like real food will serve them better in the long run.
Have the milk and the oatmeal and the blueberries instead of a designer cookie. Who knows, maybe you'll be better off.
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Got milk? Oh no!
I’m of two opinions on this article by Paul John Scott at DETAILS – one, kudos for an article that highlights the controversial truth that diets don’t work and calorie and fat restriction are not the answer to long-term weight loss. A raspberry for the tired cliché that you can blame your weight on one thing – [ur doin’ it wrong] by drinking skim milk.
As someone who was taught from an early age to revile whole milk, I’ve often wondered if my relationship with dairy products has been a good one or a bad one. Years of lactose intolerance led me to avoid milk for a long time and feel guilty about it. ‘Milk does a body good’ you know. Learning about milk’s dark, dirty secrets – the hormone and antibiotic abuse – assuaged a lot of that guilt and allowed me to reduce milk to nothing more than an occasional cooking ingredient. [Ice cream doesn’t count in my book – I don’t care what it’s made of].
Regardless of the findings of any study, I don’t plan to add milk [whole or skim] back to my diet in a big way because the dairy industry is, for the most part, vile. I don’t see legions of skimmers making the switch either because our society is too terrified of fat to embrace whole milk again after decades of believing it was the root of all evil.
I wonder how long it will be before whole milk makes a comeback as a weight loss secret.
As someone who was taught from an early age to revile whole milk, I’ve often wondered if my relationship with dairy products has been a good one or a bad one. Years of lactose intolerance led me to avoid milk for a long time and feel guilty about it. ‘Milk does a body good’ you know. Learning about milk’s dark, dirty secrets – the hormone and antibiotic abuse – assuaged a lot of that guilt and allowed me to reduce milk to nothing more than an occasional cooking ingredient. [Ice cream doesn’t count in my book – I don’t care what it’s made of].
Regardless of the findings of any study, I don’t plan to add milk [whole or skim] back to my diet in a big way because the dairy industry is, for the most part, vile. I don’t see legions of skimmers making the switch either because our society is too terrified of fat to embrace whole milk again after decades of believing it was the root of all evil.
I wonder how long it will be before whole milk makes a comeback as a weight loss secret.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Less sugar, less real?
Have you seen the ads for Tropicana's new juice drink, Trop 50? My special favorite is the one where a bunch of 'real housewives' are trying to convince their friend that 'gooder' is a word – because the new drink she's serving them tastes 'gooder.'
That was my first red flag. Let's confuse people with bad grammar and they won't realize we're selling them junk.
The idea behind Trop 50 juice drink is that it has 50% less sugar than regular fruit juice. It comes in several flavors, such as orange and apple and pomegranate/blueberry. What struck me is the idea that you can have less sugar in something that is not supposed to have added sugar to begin with. Let's face it, fruit juice has sugar/carbs but pure fruit juice doesn't contain 'sugar' the same way soda or Kool-Aid contains sugar. But the ad campaign sort of plays on the idea that less sugar is added to the juice.
When you look at the nutrition information provided at the Trop 50 website you see the 'sugar' in Trop 50 comes from stevia or purevia – or Reb A – a plant based sweetener which is becoming popular because it doesn't have to be called 'artificial'.
So, essentially, Trop 50 has 50% less sugar [carbohydrates] than regular pure fruit juice because a sweetener has been added to it. It may not be an artificial sweetener but it's still an additive. This makes me wonder how they removed the 50% of sugar [carbohydrates] from the juice in the first place. It seems to me that basically they're taking half the juice used in a regular container of juice and replacing it with sweetened [no calorie] water, then fortifying that with vitamins and such.
I could drink half a glass of pure fruit juice and half a glass of water and get the same amount of 'less sugar' as I can from drinking a whole glass of a juice concentrate that's fortified with an added [but not artificial] sweetener.
My question is, do you think it's 'gooder' to get less sugar/carbohydrates by actually getting less juice?
That was my first red flag. Let's confuse people with bad grammar and they won't realize we're selling them junk.
The idea behind Trop 50 juice drink is that it has 50% less sugar than regular fruit juice. It comes in several flavors, such as orange and apple and pomegranate/blueberry. What struck me is the idea that you can have less sugar in something that is not supposed to have added sugar to begin with. Let's face it, fruit juice has sugar/carbs but pure fruit juice doesn't contain 'sugar' the same way soda or Kool-Aid contains sugar. But the ad campaign sort of plays on the idea that less sugar is added to the juice.
When you look at the nutrition information provided at the Trop 50 website you see the 'sugar' in Trop 50 comes from stevia or purevia – or Reb A – a plant based sweetener which is becoming popular because it doesn't have to be called 'artificial'.
So, essentially, Trop 50 has 50% less sugar [carbohydrates] than regular pure fruit juice because a sweetener has been added to it. It may not be an artificial sweetener but it's still an additive. This makes me wonder how they removed the 50% of sugar [carbohydrates] from the juice in the first place. It seems to me that basically they're taking half the juice used in a regular container of juice and replacing it with sweetened [no calorie] water, then fortifying that with vitamins and such.
I could drink half a glass of pure fruit juice and half a glass of water and get the same amount of 'less sugar' as I can from drinking a whole glass of a juice concentrate that's fortified with an added [but not artificial] sweetener.
My question is, do you think it's 'gooder' to get less sugar/carbohydrates by actually getting less juice?
Monday, March 15, 2010
A better lesson in eating
The Sunday newspaper had a small sidebar article about how studies have shown that kids who brown bag lunch to school have a lower incidence of obesity than those who eat school lunch.
I can't say this is really a surprise - considering the average school still offers grease soaked pizza squares and chicken nuggets with french fries as a typical meal choice. The salads are tiny, the fresh fruit is usually bruised and unappetizing and cookies and sugary juices can be purchased on the snack line which is often a lot shorter than the queue to get the day's hot meal. Is it any wonder the kids who eat cafeteria food are heavier than those toting balogna sandwiches from home?
It's another failure of a well-meaning system that can't get out of its own way. I recently read about how some school systems are banning home made treats from bake sales - partly to limit their own legal exposure in cases of allergic reactions, and partly [and more publicly] to make a stand for healthier snacks. Pop-tarts and bagged Doritos made the list of 'approved' items to be sold at bake sales while Mom's cupcakes and brownies are out.
It makes a sick kind of sense, not because kids are better off eating Pop-tarts and Doritos, but because an angry parent can sue Kelloggs or Frito-Lay if their child has a bad reaction to a pre-packaged snack, but if their child doesn't know any better than to scarf down Mrs. Johnson's walnut brownies when they have a severe nut allergy, the school coffers are at risk. I imagine this is why a lot more school food is also prepackaged. Mrs. Field's cookies and Domino's Pizza have built-in liabitility insurance, don't they?
I wonder how these studies fit into the national past time of blaming parents for their kids' obesity? If it becomes widely known that school lunch makes kids fat, will Boards of Education all over the country start making bottled water less expensive than whole milk and cutting off the endless cookie supply at the snack line or will they simply brow beat parents to go back to packing lunches so they can't be sued for contributing to Junior's weight problem?
I can't say this is really a surprise - considering the average school still offers grease soaked pizza squares and chicken nuggets with french fries as a typical meal choice. The salads are tiny, the fresh fruit is usually bruised and unappetizing and cookies and sugary juices can be purchased on the snack line which is often a lot shorter than the queue to get the day's hot meal. Is it any wonder the kids who eat cafeteria food are heavier than those toting balogna sandwiches from home?
It's another failure of a well-meaning system that can't get out of its own way. I recently read about how some school systems are banning home made treats from bake sales - partly to limit their own legal exposure in cases of allergic reactions, and partly [and more publicly] to make a stand for healthier snacks. Pop-tarts and bagged Doritos made the list of 'approved' items to be sold at bake sales while Mom's cupcakes and brownies are out.
It makes a sick kind of sense, not because kids are better off eating Pop-tarts and Doritos, but because an angry parent can sue Kelloggs or Frito-Lay if their child has a bad reaction to a pre-packaged snack, but if their child doesn't know any better than to scarf down Mrs. Johnson's walnut brownies when they have a severe nut allergy, the school coffers are at risk. I imagine this is why a lot more school food is also prepackaged. Mrs. Field's cookies and Domino's Pizza have built-in liabitility insurance, don't they?
I wonder how these studies fit into the national past time of blaming parents for their kids' obesity? If it becomes widely known that school lunch makes kids fat, will Boards of Education all over the country start making bottled water less expensive than whole milk and cutting off the endless cookie supply at the snack line or will they simply brow beat parents to go back to packing lunches so they can't be sued for contributing to Junior's weight problem?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Girl Scouts hijacked my diet
Not that I'm actually on a 'diet'. I don't use that word anymore, but I've been working hard at changing the way I eat.
Yesterday I started off with Greek yogurt, red grapes, a banana and a granola bar. Okay, lunch was a grilled cheese [lovingly prepared by my husband] and an apple followed by a walk around the block, believe it or not. Dinner was a salad, baked chicken, another apple [organic] and some fresh Italian bread. Sounds like a red letter day and it would have been except for the half a sleeve of Girl Scout Thin Mints I ate while making dinner.
They're like chocolate covered crack. All these weeks of teaching myself how to avoid eating processed snack foods went right out the window when confronted with these deadly little disks of yummy. The worst part is, there's another sleeve in the box and I'll be home all by myself this afternoon.
I may need to duct tape my mouth shut.
So tell me, what's your food vice? What's the thing you can't resist no matter hard you try? I can walk away from an Oreo but Thin Mints are my Waterloo.
Yesterday I started off with Greek yogurt, red grapes, a banana and a granola bar. Okay, lunch was a grilled cheese [lovingly prepared by my husband] and an apple followed by a walk around the block, believe it or not. Dinner was a salad, baked chicken, another apple [organic] and some fresh Italian bread. Sounds like a red letter day and it would have been except for the half a sleeve of Girl Scout Thin Mints I ate while making dinner.
They're like chocolate covered crack. All these weeks of teaching myself how to avoid eating processed snack foods went right out the window when confronted with these deadly little disks of yummy. The worst part is, there's another sleeve in the box and I'll be home all by myself this afternoon.
I may need to duct tape my mouth shut.
So tell me, what's your food vice? What's the thing you can't resist no matter hard you try? I can walk away from an Oreo but Thin Mints are my Waterloo.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Do you juice?
I've been trying to figure out if juicing is a good idea or not. I've looked at juicing machines [and they're not cheap] and read a lot about the benefits of making your own juice from fresh fruits and vegetables.
Every source I've found agrees that commercial fruit juices are BAD with a capital BAD. They have too much sugar - many are supplemented with high fructose corn syrup and actually contain very little real juice. Making your own juice seems like the answer to getting all the nutrients from these foods in an easier way, plus you get something to drink besides water or green tea [unsweetened tea is my staple drink but even that gets boring now and then].
I've been making some of my own citrus juice - grapefruit and orange and to me it tastes just as sweet as anything I can buy, but I've also read that juicing removes some of the benefit of the fruit. You need the fiber of the fruit to counteract the sugar in the juice otherwise you're just wasting your time.
I'm beginning to think maybe juicing is something to do for fun once in a while when you want a treat, but it may not be a daily staple of a good diet.
Any juicers out there? What do you think? Has juicing helped your health or your waistline or is it just a good way to increase your produce bill?
Every source I've found agrees that commercial fruit juices are BAD with a capital BAD. They have too much sugar - many are supplemented with high fructose corn syrup and actually contain very little real juice. Making your own juice seems like the answer to getting all the nutrients from these foods in an easier way, plus you get something to drink besides water or green tea [unsweetened tea is my staple drink but even that gets boring now and then].
I've been making some of my own citrus juice - grapefruit and orange and to me it tastes just as sweet as anything I can buy, but I've also read that juicing removes some of the benefit of the fruit. You need the fiber of the fruit to counteract the sugar in the juice otherwise you're just wasting your time.
I'm beginning to think maybe juicing is something to do for fun once in a while when you want a treat, but it may not be a daily staple of a good diet.
Any juicers out there? What do you think? Has juicing helped your health or your waistline or is it just a good way to increase your produce bill?
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The dreaded obesogen
Yeah, they’ve coined a new term. Now, in addition to carcinogens which can be found almost everywhere including the air we breathe, we now have to worry about obesogens – toxic chemicals present in food, food packaging and pesticides that cause weight gain.
So it may not be that burger and fries that’s making you fat – it could be the plastic in your water bottle or the essence of bug spray that lingers in the skin of the apple you just ate. Eating healthy may not be so healthy after all.
This article at msnbc.com gives the scoop on obesogens and cites them as yet another reason why diets don’t work for so many people. You can’t lose weight if your body is trying to be fat against all odds. The article advocates eating organic foods as one way to combat the abundance of obesogens in the environment.
The article makes a very scary point – especially about commercially produced meat. Inject a cow with growth hormones, make a hamburger out of it then blame the person who eats the hamburger for their weight gain.
If you need me, I’ll be at the organic food store.
So it may not be that burger and fries that’s making you fat – it could be the plastic in your water bottle or the essence of bug spray that lingers in the skin of the apple you just ate. Eating healthy may not be so healthy after all.
This article at msnbc.com gives the scoop on obesogens and cites them as yet another reason why diets don’t work for so many people. You can’t lose weight if your body is trying to be fat against all odds. The article advocates eating organic foods as one way to combat the abundance of obesogens in the environment.
The article makes a very scary point – especially about commercially produced meat. Inject a cow with growth hormones, make a hamburger out of it then blame the person who eats the hamburger for their weight gain.
If you need me, I’ll be at the organic food store.
Monday, March 8, 2010
To fish or cut bait?
Since I’ve started researching nutrition, I’ve come across tons of information about the benefits of fish oil. Book after book and website after website tout the role of fish oil in heart health as well as its efficacy in helping to treat high cholesterol, depression, anxiety, AHDH, low immunity, cancer, diabetes, inflammation, arthritis, IBD, AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, eye disorders, macular degeneration and ulcers.
It sounds like a wonder drug – well, not actually a drug. Let’s call it a wonder-substance since it can be had over the counter without a prescription.
The supermarket vitamin aisle is overflowing with fish oil – in fact this past week my local store had an entire endcap devoted to large, colorful jars of the enormous amber capsules. They were on sale so the price was right – the only thing stopping me, aside from the sheer size of the pills [I could probably find a whole fish smaller than some of the capsules] was of course that I recently read information discounting everything that’s out there about the benefit of fish oil.
Insert a big sigh here.
I'd just picked up the book Eat to Live by Joel Fuhrman, MD which for the most part enforces a lot of what I’ve been learning about the subterfuge practiced on us by the food industry. Dr. Fuhrman advocates a diet rich in fruits and vegetables which makes sense, but on pg. 127 he opines that fish oil can actually ‘decrease the activity of the immune system’ and may have a role in liver dysfunction, citing that much of the oil in those jewel-like amber capsules may in fact be rancid.
He also believes eating fish in general [another health tip promoted heavily everywhere else] isn’t as good for us as we’ve been lead to believe thanks to elevated mercury content.
Once again, information overload wins the day. I’m not saying I believe Dr. Fuhrman over everyone else, but it’s interesting and disheartening to find yet more contradictory health information. If everything we eat is bad for us – then why not just eat anything we want?
I suppose that’s exactly what the food industry is hoping we will do.
It sounds like a wonder drug – well, not actually a drug. Let’s call it a wonder-substance since it can be had over the counter without a prescription.
The supermarket vitamin aisle is overflowing with fish oil – in fact this past week my local store had an entire endcap devoted to large, colorful jars of the enormous amber capsules. They were on sale so the price was right – the only thing stopping me, aside from the sheer size of the pills [I could probably find a whole fish smaller than some of the capsules] was of course that I recently read information discounting everything that’s out there about the benefit of fish oil.
Insert a big sigh here.
I'd just picked up the book Eat to Live by Joel Fuhrman, MD which for the most part enforces a lot of what I’ve been learning about the subterfuge practiced on us by the food industry. Dr. Fuhrman advocates a diet rich in fruits and vegetables which makes sense, but on pg. 127 he opines that fish oil can actually ‘decrease the activity of the immune system’ and may have a role in liver dysfunction, citing that much of the oil in those jewel-like amber capsules may in fact be rancid.
He also believes eating fish in general [another health tip promoted heavily everywhere else] isn’t as good for us as we’ve been lead to believe thanks to elevated mercury content.
Once again, information overload wins the day. I’m not saying I believe Dr. Fuhrman over everyone else, but it’s interesting and disheartening to find yet more contradictory health information. If everything we eat is bad for us – then why not just eat anything we want?
I suppose that’s exactly what the food industry is hoping we will do.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Read the label, but don't believe it
I was thumbing through the March 18th issue of People magazine this weekend [not an authoritative source for much of anything, I know] and I came across two legal notices round about page 124.
Both notices were about class action lawsuits being brought against major food companies for essentially false advertising. Apparently Dannon is being sued for claims made about their Activia and DanActive yogurt products – the ones hawked by Jamie Lee Curtis as being good for your digestive health by helping with irregularity. Similarly Tyson is being sued for claims about their chicken products that supposedly were raised without certain types of antibiotics.
As a consumer [not of either of these products though] I have to wonder how many other foods are out there making claims that will later be questioned, or in fact proven false. It seems like every packaged food out there is making some kind of promise these days. It’s not enough just to taste good, it has to be good for you in some way...which is wonderful, if in fact the products are actually good for you. But these law suits are telling me that a lot of the hype we see on packages at the supermarket is just that. Hype.
We’re told to read food labels and study nutrition information as part of a healthier lifestyle but how healthy can we really be if we can’t trust what we read?
For more information on these settlements you can check out these websites. I’d love to hear from anyone who is going to participate in the suits.
www.DannonSettlement.com
www.ChickenSettlement.com
Both notices were about class action lawsuits being brought against major food companies for essentially false advertising. Apparently Dannon is being sued for claims made about their Activia and DanActive yogurt products – the ones hawked by Jamie Lee Curtis as being good for your digestive health by helping with irregularity. Similarly Tyson is being sued for claims about their chicken products that supposedly were raised without certain types of antibiotics.
As a consumer [not of either of these products though] I have to wonder how many other foods are out there making claims that will later be questioned, or in fact proven false. It seems like every packaged food out there is making some kind of promise these days. It’s not enough just to taste good, it has to be good for you in some way...which is wonderful, if in fact the products are actually good for you. But these law suits are telling me that a lot of the hype we see on packages at the supermarket is just that. Hype.
We’re told to read food labels and study nutrition information as part of a healthier lifestyle but how healthy can we really be if we can’t trust what we read?
For more information on these settlements you can check out these websites. I’d love to hear from anyone who is going to participate in the suits.
www.DannonSettlement.com
www.ChickenSettlement.com
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Going Organic
I’ve been reading Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You to Know About by Kevin Trudeau and it’s doing a lot to erode my confidence in the food and drug industries. One thing I’ve taken away from the book so far is the benefits of organic food.
Up until now I have to admit I looked at ‘organic’ food as something that was just more expensive than regular food. Living on a budget in one of the most expensive counties in the USA, it’s tough to fill up a shopping cart with enough food for 84 meals [3 meals x 7 days x 4 people] and not go broke. Like most hunter-gatherers I know, I’ve been trained to shop for bargains and get the most bang for my buck, so if a dozen regular eggs cost $1.88 and the organic eggs cost $2.49 – guess which ones I’m going to buy? When regular lettuce is on sale for $0.99 and organic lettuce is 2 for $5.00 the regular has to win. I never wanted to pay more for something – especially something that might not taste as good.
Then I read the book, which describes how the food industry loads everything with chemicals [even produce] in order to make it look better, taste better, grow bigger, and make people hungrier. Yeah. That last one gave me pause too. It sort of makes sense. I’ve often felt addicted to certain foods – the potato chips that promise ‘you can’t eat just one’ – maybe there’s more to that slogan than meets the eye. Candy that calls to me, cookies that disappear in a few days...I often feel like I can’t stop eating something even though I really don’t feel hungry. I used to think it was my own dismal lack of will power, but now I’m starting to wonder if it’s not an industry-engineered reaction to the food itself.
In response to this alarming information, I decided to start small and replace a couple of items in my cart with their organic counterparts. This week I bought organically grown romaine lettuce and I made a killer Greek salad from it. I also splurged on organic eggs [not the specially formulated omega-3 eggs that I sometimes buy, but regular certified organic eggs]. In each case these items were slightly more expensive than what I normally buy, but I feel if I’m reducing even by a little bit, the amount of unnecessary chemicals my family and I consume, it may be worth the price.
Do you buy organic food? Would you if it were the same price as regular food? If you do eat organic some or all of the time, do you think the changeover improved your health?
I’ll let you know if I feel any different after eating some organic food – even if it’s only peace of mind in knowing I’m cutting down on my chemical intake it may be worth the extra cost.
Up until now I have to admit I looked at ‘organic’ food as something that was just more expensive than regular food. Living on a budget in one of the most expensive counties in the USA, it’s tough to fill up a shopping cart with enough food for 84 meals [3 meals x 7 days x 4 people] and not go broke. Like most hunter-gatherers I know, I’ve been trained to shop for bargains and get the most bang for my buck, so if a dozen regular eggs cost $1.88 and the organic eggs cost $2.49 – guess which ones I’m going to buy? When regular lettuce is on sale for $0.99 and organic lettuce is 2 for $5.00 the regular has to win. I never wanted to pay more for something – especially something that might not taste as good.
Then I read the book, which describes how the food industry loads everything with chemicals [even produce] in order to make it look better, taste better, grow bigger, and make people hungrier. Yeah. That last one gave me pause too. It sort of makes sense. I’ve often felt addicted to certain foods – the potato chips that promise ‘you can’t eat just one’ – maybe there’s more to that slogan than meets the eye. Candy that calls to me, cookies that disappear in a few days...I often feel like I can’t stop eating something even though I really don’t feel hungry. I used to think it was my own dismal lack of will power, but now I’m starting to wonder if it’s not an industry-engineered reaction to the food itself.
In response to this alarming information, I decided to start small and replace a couple of items in my cart with their organic counterparts. This week I bought organically grown romaine lettuce and I made a killer Greek salad from it. I also splurged on organic eggs [not the specially formulated omega-3 eggs that I sometimes buy, but regular certified organic eggs]. In each case these items were slightly more expensive than what I normally buy, but I feel if I’m reducing even by a little bit, the amount of unnecessary chemicals my family and I consume, it may be worth the price.
Do you buy organic food? Would you if it were the same price as regular food? If you do eat organic some or all of the time, do you think the changeover improved your health?
I’ll let you know if I feel any different after eating some organic food – even if it’s only peace of mind in knowing I’m cutting down on my chemical intake it may be worth the extra cost.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Riding the Olympic vehicle
The other night I was skimming through channels and caught some of the Olympics [I know I shouldn’t admit this, but for the most part, I’m not a fan of any Olympic sport except curling. Curling rocks. No pun intended. Well, yes, actually it was.]
Anyway, the interesting thing about the Olympics was not the athletes, the costumes, the pageantry or even the dedication to excellence shown by the people from all over the world who come together to compete. What I find most interesting is the sponsorship. Let’s face it, the Olympics is big business and companies shell out a lot of dough not only for advertising spots but to be able to call themselves a ‘sponsor’ of the Olympics.
I thought the commercial for McDonald’s was most intriguing. McDonald’s, they tell us, is an official food/eating place of the Olympics. Well, yeah. You have to figure with McDonald’s restaurants all over the world, the people who come to see the Olympics will feel very much at home under the Golden Arches…but I had to ask myself, would a dedicated aspiring professional athlete [yes, Olympians are supposed to be amateurs – but aren’t they competing for world wide recognition that could land them sponsorships of their own?] be wise to chow down on a Big Mac and Fries?
Apparently I’m not the only one flummoxed by this. Blogger Brett Blumenthal at Sheer Balance asked the same question and answered it more eloquently than I.
At a time when health and wellness are such a hot button issue, you would think the Olympics might want to take the opportunity to promote food that is actually healthy. Of course I guess that would be hard to do with a lot less money in their pockets.
If you’re a fan of the Olympics, does it bother you to see McDonald’s ads during Olympic broadcasts? Do you feel the message is hypocritical or worse, damaging to aspiring athletes who may get the idea that their idols are sitting down to McNuggets and fries before competing and still managing to win gold?
Anyway, the interesting thing about the Olympics was not the athletes, the costumes, the pageantry or even the dedication to excellence shown by the people from all over the world who come together to compete. What I find most interesting is the sponsorship. Let’s face it, the Olympics is big business and companies shell out a lot of dough not only for advertising spots but to be able to call themselves a ‘sponsor’ of the Olympics.
I thought the commercial for McDonald’s was most intriguing. McDonald’s, they tell us, is an official food/eating place of the Olympics. Well, yeah. You have to figure with McDonald’s restaurants all over the world, the people who come to see the Olympics will feel very much at home under the Golden Arches…but I had to ask myself, would a dedicated aspiring professional athlete [yes, Olympians are supposed to be amateurs – but aren’t they competing for world wide recognition that could land them sponsorships of their own?] be wise to chow down on a Big Mac and Fries?
Apparently I’m not the only one flummoxed by this. Blogger Brett Blumenthal at Sheer Balance asked the same question and answered it more eloquently than I.
At a time when health and wellness are such a hot button issue, you would think the Olympics might want to take the opportunity to promote food that is actually healthy. Of course I guess that would be hard to do with a lot less money in their pockets.
If you’re a fan of the Olympics, does it bother you to see McDonald’s ads during Olympic broadcasts? Do you feel the message is hypocritical or worse, damaging to aspiring athletes who may get the idea that their idols are sitting down to McNuggets and fries before competing and still managing to win gold?
Friday, February 5, 2010
Isn't it just business?
I came across this article about the Coca-Cola company managing to charge more than twice as much for half the amount of soda and calling it an innovation.
Let me start by saying, soda is bad. As a long-term cola addict [notice I didn’t say Coke addict] I had a rough time giving up the fizzy blend of sugar and caffeine that took the place of coffee in my diet. You can’t really win with soda – it’s either full of sugar or it’s full of diet sweetner, so the best thing for everyone is to avoid it all together.
That being said, I still defend a soda drinker’s right to get some value for their money.
Apparently the company is now marketing smaller cans of Coke, 7.5 ounces as opposed to 12 [or 8]. This is healthier – less high fructose corn syrup or less chemical sweetners is good. Since all ‘health’ foods are more expensive, it stands to reason people would be more than happy to pay more for less.
That’s just business, right? Can we blame the company for trying to increase their profits by offering less product at a higher price and marketing it in such a way that consumers think they are getting a better deal? I’m drinking less soda — that will help my health in the long run, right?
Of course, the flip side is, someone who was used to drinking 12 ounces of soda may buy the 7.5 ounce product, but once they’ve downed that tiny can, what’s to stop them from popping open another and ultimately drinking 15 ounces of soda instead of 12? Fifteen ounces, by the way, that costs more than twice as much per ounce. So much for the calorie control aspect of the Coca-Cola ad campaign.
I have no problem with non-consumable items that come in tinier sizes because they’re more convenient to carry around. I know I pay more for that little travel size tube of toothpaste or bottle of mouthwash – and how hard is it really to pack the full-size version right from the medicine cabinet? That’s paying more for less and thinking it’s a good deal. I don’t mind grabbing a little bag of pretzels or chips at a convenience store when pound for pound the full size bags are cheaper because I don’t always want a full size container of some snack food. Why should Coca-Cola be any different?
Do you think a product designed with portion control in mind is a good thing or just a gimmick? If they called these little cans of Coke ‘travel sized’ would that make a difference? I think the problem here lies not in the size of the can, but in the idea that drinking soda from any size container should be viewed as a healthy lifestyle choice.
Let me start by saying, soda is bad. As a long-term cola addict [notice I didn’t say Coke addict] I had a rough time giving up the fizzy blend of sugar and caffeine that took the place of coffee in my diet. You can’t really win with soda – it’s either full of sugar or it’s full of diet sweetner, so the best thing for everyone is to avoid it all together.
That being said, I still defend a soda drinker’s right to get some value for their money.
Apparently the company is now marketing smaller cans of Coke, 7.5 ounces as opposed to 12 [or 8]. This is healthier – less high fructose corn syrup or less chemical sweetners is good. Since all ‘health’ foods are more expensive, it stands to reason people would be more than happy to pay more for less.
That’s just business, right? Can we blame the company for trying to increase their profits by offering less product at a higher price and marketing it in such a way that consumers think they are getting a better deal? I’m drinking less soda — that will help my health in the long run, right?
Of course, the flip side is, someone who was used to drinking 12 ounces of soda may buy the 7.5 ounce product, but once they’ve downed that tiny can, what’s to stop them from popping open another and ultimately drinking 15 ounces of soda instead of 12? Fifteen ounces, by the way, that costs more than twice as much per ounce. So much for the calorie control aspect of the Coca-Cola ad campaign.
I have no problem with non-consumable items that come in tinier sizes because they’re more convenient to carry around. I know I pay more for that little travel size tube of toothpaste or bottle of mouthwash – and how hard is it really to pack the full-size version right from the medicine cabinet? That’s paying more for less and thinking it’s a good deal. I don’t mind grabbing a little bag of pretzels or chips at a convenience store when pound for pound the full size bags are cheaper because I don’t always want a full size container of some snack food. Why should Coca-Cola be any different?
Do you think a product designed with portion control in mind is a good thing or just a gimmick? If they called these little cans of Coke ‘travel sized’ would that make a difference? I think the problem here lies not in the size of the can, but in the idea that drinking soda from any size container should be viewed as a healthy lifestyle choice.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Like sugar for turkey
I’ve been reading up on the effects of sugar on mood...the health negatives of sugar aside, I’ve always subscribed to the belief that a dose of sugar is a quick pick-me-up.
Of course, like many things I’ve believed for years, it turns out I’m wrong. Sugar actually has a calming effect, and according to this article from CBS News, can also work to dull pain. In fact, carbs in general, are supposed to induce a sense of calm by increasing serotonin in the brain.
No wonder I’m such an easy-going person. I’m a carbaholic. This explains why I’m not energetic too. Those sugary energy boosts I look forward to – the hit of dark chocolate, the illicit shot of orange juice late in the day, are not working to pep me up, but slow me down.
Turns out protein is a better source of quick energy. Turkey or a hard boiled egg will give you a better boost than a Snickers bar, so don’t believe the commercials that tell us chocolate, peanuts and caramel will give us mid-afternoon supercharge, but the next time you’re freaking out grab some carbs to mellow out.
Of course, like many things I’ve believed for years, it turns out I’m wrong. Sugar actually has a calming effect, and according to this article from CBS News, can also work to dull pain. In fact, carbs in general, are supposed to induce a sense of calm by increasing serotonin in the brain.
No wonder I’m such an easy-going person. I’m a carbaholic. This explains why I’m not energetic too. Those sugary energy boosts I look forward to – the hit of dark chocolate, the illicit shot of orange juice late in the day, are not working to pep me up, but slow me down.
Turns out protein is a better source of quick energy. Turkey or a hard boiled egg will give you a better boost than a Snickers bar, so don’t believe the commercials that tell us chocolate, peanuts and caramel will give us mid-afternoon supercharge, but the next time you’re freaking out grab some carbs to mellow out.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Nuke it or not?
I’m still reading Food-Your Miracle Medicine by Jean Carper and I’m currently in a section of the book that discusses cancer-fighting foods. The general consensus is fruits [especially citrus] and vegetables contain plenty of cancer-fighting natural compounds. Meats, not so much – and I knew that, but what I found interesting was a bit about how certain ways to cook meats can increase the carcinogenic chemicals they contain.
In addition to poaching, stewing and boiling, according to the National Cancer Institute, believe it or not, MICROWAVING is listed as being one of the better ways to cook meat as opposed to grilling, broiling or of course frying.
As a rule, I don’t use my microwave to cook anything. I melt things in the microwave…butter, chocolate…and I reheat already cooked foods, but I don’t actually prepare any first-run meals in the little radiation box. It’s not so much fear of any health dangers, but just the ick factor. I think fire cooks foods better. Microwaves tend to leave food looking pale and soggy and I’ve found things stay hot for just about as long as you heat them – put something in for two minutes, it stays hot for two minutes. That’s it. I have a temperature thing when it comes to food. I only eat things that are at the optimum temperature. Once they cool down too far or warm up too much, that’s it. No good.
Anyway, I found it mind-boggling that the National Cancer Institute would advocate using a microwave for anything. Especially in light of articles like these available on the web:
The Dangers of Microwaving Your Food
Microwave Cooking is Killing People
The Dangers of Microwave Food
How do you feel about microwaved food? Do you cook in the microwave or just reheat foods? If you thought it would be better for your health, would you cook more food in the microwave, especially meat?
I have to be honest, I don’t buy the microwaving is better for you line. It just doesn’t seem logical. I’ll stick to eating fruits and vegetables to help prevent cancer and consider a microwave free kitchen in the future.
In addition to poaching, stewing and boiling, according to the National Cancer Institute, believe it or not, MICROWAVING is listed as being one of the better ways to cook meat as opposed to grilling, broiling or of course frying.
As a rule, I don’t use my microwave to cook anything. I melt things in the microwave…butter, chocolate…and I reheat already cooked foods, but I don’t actually prepare any first-run meals in the little radiation box. It’s not so much fear of any health dangers, but just the ick factor. I think fire cooks foods better. Microwaves tend to leave food looking pale and soggy and I’ve found things stay hot for just about as long as you heat them – put something in for two minutes, it stays hot for two minutes. That’s it. I have a temperature thing when it comes to food. I only eat things that are at the optimum temperature. Once they cool down too far or warm up too much, that’s it. No good.
Anyway, I found it mind-boggling that the National Cancer Institute would advocate using a microwave for anything. Especially in light of articles like these available on the web:
The Dangers of Microwaving Your Food
Microwave Cooking is Killing People
The Dangers of Microwave Food
How do you feel about microwaved food? Do you cook in the microwave or just reheat foods? If you thought it would be better for your health, would you cook more food in the microwave, especially meat?
I have to be honest, I don’t buy the microwaving is better for you line. It just doesn’t seem logical. I’ll stick to eating fruits and vegetables to help prevent cancer and consider a microwave free kitchen in the future.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Or Vice Versa
Agghhh! It’s becoming a theme here, don’t you think? Medical/nutritional advice that contradicts itself is everywhere – sometimes you can even find contradictions right in the same article.
I found this article over at Health News about after-meal bloating. Not the most entertaining topic, I know, but one I find concerning. I was interested in the list of foods that are supposed to help curb that overfull, gassy feeling after meals.
The article recommends these: Bananas, mangoes, spinach, nuts, asparagus, melons, and tomatoes because they are high in potassium and an amino acid called asparagine. Okay. Sounds like a plan to me. I was all set to stock up on green veggies and tropical fruit until I got to the second page of the article and found this quote:
You may want to try staying away from common foods that do not digest well within the system (cauliflower, broccoli, leafy greens, beans, corn, cabbage, and nuts)
Hello? So, do I eat nuts to get more potassium which will help curb bloating or do I avoid them because they don’t digest well and cause gas??? Isn’t spinach a leafy green? Help.
What could is a nutritional self-help article that tells you to one thing and then not to do the same thing? Do the authors of these articles think people won’t notice?
I’m beginning to wonder if good health is just a hit or miss sitch. Do this to feel better – unless it doesn’t work, then do the opposite.
Does anyone really know what’s good for us?
I found this article over at Health News about after-meal bloating. Not the most entertaining topic, I know, but one I find concerning. I was interested in the list of foods that are supposed to help curb that overfull, gassy feeling after meals.
The article recommends these: Bananas, mangoes, spinach, nuts, asparagus, melons, and tomatoes because they are high in potassium and an amino acid called asparagine. Okay. Sounds like a plan to me. I was all set to stock up on green veggies and tropical fruit until I got to the second page of the article and found this quote:
You may want to try staying away from common foods that do not digest well within the system (cauliflower, broccoli, leafy greens, beans, corn, cabbage, and nuts)
Hello? So, do I eat nuts to get more potassium which will help curb bloating or do I avoid them because they don’t digest well and cause gas??? Isn’t spinach a leafy green? Help.
What could is a nutritional self-help article that tells you to one thing and then not to do the same thing? Do the authors of these articles think people won’t notice?
I’m beginning to wonder if good health is just a hit or miss sitch. Do this to feel better – unless it doesn’t work, then do the opposite.
Does anyone really know what’s good for us?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Added value?
While reading the Saturday paper this week, I made myself a little collection of coupons for more of the fortified food products that seem to be becoming the norm at the supermarket.
Now you can get Omega-3s and Vitamin E in your milk
Smart Balance
Probiotics in your sugar substitute
Nevella
And if you don’t like drinking healthy pomegranate juice for the antioxidants it contains, you can now get it in pill form*
POMx
I’m not necessarily knocking any of these products. I just find it fascinating that so few packaged foods are unadulterated these days. The idea seems to be that by adding supplements to everything, or by turning naturally healthy foods into supplement pills value is added. You get more for your money if you’re not only sweetening your drink but boosting your immune system at the same time. It’s not enough just to drink a glass of milk, it needs to contain a dose of vitamins as well.
In our society where no one has time to eat right or exercise enough, it seems to make sense that food manufacturers are trying to help us out by giving us extra nutrition in everything we buy, but I tend to think this only helps us avoid the need to slow down and pay more attention to what we eat and how we eat it. Are we really healthier if we get the daily recommended dose of every vitamin and nutrient from just one glass of a super-fortified drink, whether it be juice, milk, water or even soda [7-Up even comes fortified with anti-oxidants these days]? Or do we just think we’re healthier because we’ve gotten some extra nutrients and saved time in the process?
* Interesting about the pomegranate pill, it also comes in concentrated liquid form...so if you don't like the juice you can take a pill and if you don't like the pill you can have a spoonful of...more juice.
Now you can get Omega-3s and Vitamin E in your milk
Smart Balance
Probiotics in your sugar substitute
Nevella
And if you don’t like drinking healthy pomegranate juice for the antioxidants it contains, you can now get it in pill form*
POMx
I’m not necessarily knocking any of these products. I just find it fascinating that so few packaged foods are unadulterated these days. The idea seems to be that by adding supplements to everything, or by turning naturally healthy foods into supplement pills value is added. You get more for your money if you’re not only sweetening your drink but boosting your immune system at the same time. It’s not enough just to drink a glass of milk, it needs to contain a dose of vitamins as well.
In our society where no one has time to eat right or exercise enough, it seems to make sense that food manufacturers are trying to help us out by giving us extra nutrition in everything we buy, but I tend to think this only helps us avoid the need to slow down and pay more attention to what we eat and how we eat it. Are we really healthier if we get the daily recommended dose of every vitamin and nutrient from just one glass of a super-fortified drink, whether it be juice, milk, water or even soda [7-Up even comes fortified with anti-oxidants these days]? Or do we just think we’re healthier because we’ve gotten some extra nutrients and saved time in the process?
* Interesting about the pomegranate pill, it also comes in concentrated liquid form...so if you don't like the juice you can take a pill and if you don't like the pill you can have a spoonful of...more juice.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Dos and Don'ts of Food Cures
I’m currently reading Food: Your Miracle Medicine by Jean Carper. It’s a thick paperback packed with interesting tidbits about how foods have effect in both healing and preventing disease.
It’s interesting stuff but not as easy to understand as one might think. The main message of course seems to be that eating healthy food will help make you healthy. No problem there. Eating certain foods in larger quantities can ease symptoms of certain diseases and even stop them completely. Avoiding certain foods can also help prevent and cure certain common disorders.
The problem I’m finding with the book, though, lies in the need to cross reference each food…if you take more of something to prevent or cure a certain condition, you may be causing yourself another problem.
Tea is a perfect example – it seems to have lots of healing properties and has effect in numerous medical conditions. The take home message in a lot of health related literature I’ve read lately is drink more tea. But tea is also listed as a culprit in the formation of kidney stones [been there, done that, don’t want to go back.] So, do I continue to drink large amounts of tea because of the anti-oxidants and other healing properties or do I give it up in order to prevent a recurrence of my kidney stones?
Sweet potatoes are another suspect on the kidney stone list – and they’re likewise a superfood reported to have numerous health benefits. Another dilemma. By changing my diet to include more sweet potatoes and more tea for their healthful effects, I seem to be putting myself at greater risk for a recurrence of kidney stones.
{Insert big sigh here}. I won’t even mention all the bad things chocolate is supposed to cause because I haven’t started reading this book yet. Of course, I would never give up chocolate, even if it caused sudden, irreversible, flatulent death. Maybe my love of chocolate means I’ll never be fully healthy – or maybe it means I’ll never die. I don’t know, and I don’t care…but I do want to know how I can cure with food and not cause some other ailment in the process.
Any suggestions?
It’s interesting stuff but not as easy to understand as one might think. The main message of course seems to be that eating healthy food will help make you healthy. No problem there. Eating certain foods in larger quantities can ease symptoms of certain diseases and even stop them completely. Avoiding certain foods can also help prevent and cure certain common disorders.
The problem I’m finding with the book, though, lies in the need to cross reference each food…if you take more of something to prevent or cure a certain condition, you may be causing yourself another problem.
Tea is a perfect example – it seems to have lots of healing properties and has effect in numerous medical conditions. The take home message in a lot of health related literature I’ve read lately is drink more tea. But tea is also listed as a culprit in the formation of kidney stones [been there, done that, don’t want to go back.] So, do I continue to drink large amounts of tea because of the anti-oxidants and other healing properties or do I give it up in order to prevent a recurrence of my kidney stones?
Sweet potatoes are another suspect on the kidney stone list – and they’re likewise a superfood reported to have numerous health benefits. Another dilemma. By changing my diet to include more sweet potatoes and more tea for their healthful effects, I seem to be putting myself at greater risk for a recurrence of kidney stones.
{Insert big sigh here}. I won’t even mention all the bad things chocolate is supposed to cause because I haven’t started reading this book yet. Of course, I would never give up chocolate, even if it caused sudden, irreversible, flatulent death. Maybe my love of chocolate means I’ll never be fully healthy – or maybe it means I’ll never die. I don’t know, and I don’t care…but I do want to know how I can cure with food and not cause some other ailment in the process.
Any suggestions?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Is more of a good thing really better?
In the paper this weekend I saw an ad for yet another brand of fat free milk. Now the debate as to whether or not humans should even be drinking cows’ milk, has been raging for a while. I remain in the ‘what do we really need all that milk for anyway?’ camp. Having been lactose intolerant [and I do believe that’s a curable condition by the way] I developed a dislike of milk in my early teens when I associated it with all kinds of gastrointestinal discomfort. Right now, I use milk as an ingredient in other foods when necessary but it’s been years since I’ve downed a whole glass [at least one that wasn’t liberally spiked with Hersey’s syrup] and I never drink milk with a meal. To be honest, I don’t even like to watch other people drink milk with a meal. It’s a quirk, what can I say?
In deference to my husband who is still severely lactose intolerant, we’ve been using Lactaid brand fat free milk for a while. I don’t find a significant difference in the taste or performance of the milk. Having used fat free milk most of my life, I don’t need my milk to be ‘creamy’ – I just need I to be liquid.
I’ve noticed there are dozens of brands of fat free milk available and in order to differentiate themselves they all offer something different. Some are lactose free, some are calcium fortified and this latest one I came across has added protein.
My question is, do we really need everything we eat or drink to have additives, even supposedly healthy ones? If I drink orange juice for the vitamin C, do I need it to also have extra calcium, just in case I’m not getting enough of that from my milk? Do I then need my milk to have added protein or fiber or something else, because I’m likely not getting that nutrient from the place it would normally come from?
I guess the idea is that fortifying a product with some vitamin or nutrient gives people the idea that it must be a healthier alternative for them. Clearly we can’t get all the nutrition we need from eating foods in their natural state, so they should be adulterated in order to give us a better diet.
Do you think foods that are fortified either with extra of whatever healthy nutrient they already contain or with something they don’t are better for you or are they just a marketing ploy? Do you use any of these products because you don’t think you would get that particular nutrient anywhere else?
In deference to my husband who is still severely lactose intolerant, we’ve been using Lactaid brand fat free milk for a while. I don’t find a significant difference in the taste or performance of the milk. Having used fat free milk most of my life, I don’t need my milk to be ‘creamy’ – I just need I to be liquid.
I’ve noticed there are dozens of brands of fat free milk available and in order to differentiate themselves they all offer something different. Some are lactose free, some are calcium fortified and this latest one I came across has added protein.
My question is, do we really need everything we eat or drink to have additives, even supposedly healthy ones? If I drink orange juice for the vitamin C, do I need it to also have extra calcium, just in case I’m not getting enough of that from my milk? Do I then need my milk to have added protein or fiber or something else, because I’m likely not getting that nutrient from the place it would normally come from?
I guess the idea is that fortifying a product with some vitamin or nutrient gives people the idea that it must be a healthier alternative for them. Clearly we can’t get all the nutrition we need from eating foods in their natural state, so they should be adulterated in order to give us a better diet.
Do you think foods that are fortified either with extra of whatever healthy nutrient they already contain or with something they don’t are better for you or are they just a marketing ploy? Do you use any of these products because you don’t think you would get that particular nutrient anywhere else?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
With sugar on top
I make no secret about being radically against artificial sweetners. I’m not ashamed to say loudly in public that items like Splenda (sucralose) and NutraSweet (aspartame) are poison. I tell my kids, I tell my friends.
As another alternative to the evils of processed white sugar, the Whole Earth Sweetner Company (PureVia) and Cargill, Inc. (TrueVia) have come up with sugar substitutes made from the stevia plant.
Stevia has it’s own website [which, interestingly mentions problems with the FDA in getting the supplement approved for use in the United States.] Apparently this calorie-free relative of the sunflower can provide better sweetening services than cane sugar with none of the adverse side effects of artificial sweetners. Personally, I develop a headache after using products that contain aspartame. I also find foods sweetened this way tend to have an unpleasant aftertaste. Getting less calories might be a good thing, but doing it by eating things that don’t taste right isn’t the answer for me.
I understand that sugar intake can be a serious problem for diabetics and people suffering from other disorders. Sugar substitutes have their place, but are they really a good idea for the average person looking to lose weight or avoid excess calories? We’re a society that lives on Diet Coke and low fat yogurt [often supplemented with artificial sweetners] and yet obesity is still a major health issue. Is something like Stevia really the solution?
The story of Stevia isn’t all sweet according to this article which highlights problems caused in laboratory rodents when exposed to high amounts of the supplement. Too much of anything, as we usually discover, is bad, no matter what it is.
I’m actually planning to give one of the Stevia products a try. Though I don’t normally use sugar to sweeten my drinks or my cereal anymore, and most of my sugar intake does come from already prepared food, not items I make and add sugar to myself.
I’d love to hear from anyone who has tried PureVia or TrueVia. What do you think of it? Will it replace sucralose and aspartame in popularity? Do you think sugar substitutes really have an effect in weight loss and diabetes or would a naturally reduced or sugar free diet be a better alternative?
As another alternative to the evils of processed white sugar, the Whole Earth Sweetner Company (PureVia) and Cargill, Inc. (TrueVia) have come up with sugar substitutes made from the stevia plant.
Stevia has it’s own website [which, interestingly mentions problems with the FDA in getting the supplement approved for use in the United States.] Apparently this calorie-free relative of the sunflower can provide better sweetening services than cane sugar with none of the adverse side effects of artificial sweetners. Personally, I develop a headache after using products that contain aspartame. I also find foods sweetened this way tend to have an unpleasant aftertaste. Getting less calories might be a good thing, but doing it by eating things that don’t taste right isn’t the answer for me.
I understand that sugar intake can be a serious problem for diabetics and people suffering from other disorders. Sugar substitutes have their place, but are they really a good idea for the average person looking to lose weight or avoid excess calories? We’re a society that lives on Diet Coke and low fat yogurt [often supplemented with artificial sweetners] and yet obesity is still a major health issue. Is something like Stevia really the solution?
The story of Stevia isn’t all sweet according to this article which highlights problems caused in laboratory rodents when exposed to high amounts of the supplement. Too much of anything, as we usually discover, is bad, no matter what it is.
I’m actually planning to give one of the Stevia products a try. Though I don’t normally use sugar to sweeten my drinks or my cereal anymore, and most of my sugar intake does come from already prepared food, not items I make and add sugar to myself.
I’d love to hear from anyone who has tried PureVia or TrueVia. What do you think of it? Will it replace sucralose and aspartame in popularity? Do you think sugar substitutes really have an effect in weight loss and diabetes or would a naturally reduced or sugar free diet be a better alternative?
Monday, January 11, 2010
Tap, tap, tap...or bottle?
During dinner the other night my son asked me, “Is tap water bad for you?”
Good question. Really good. I wasn’t quite sure how to answer him, because like so many things today, the answer is muddled by all the information out there.
This article at ReadersDigest.com gives some of the poop – I mean scoop on bottled water versus tap. Or maybe, more accurately – the tap water that comes out of the tap and the tap water that comes out of a bottle. It seems that a percentage of expensive bottled water doesn’t actually come from those pastoral mountain springs, filtered by rocks and dirt like water is supposed to be. Some of it comes out of pipes at the water bottling plant. Yum!
Now, at my house, we’ve been drinking bottled water for years. The reason I started paying to bring home three to four plastic gallon water jugs every week from the supermarket was because I was told the unseemly history of the pipes in my house. They’re old. Like – made of lead old, and that lead can seep into the water and cause lead poisoning.
For me, that’s reason enough to spend $0.75-$0.89 per gallon for something to drink. Even if it just comes out of copper pipes, at least it’s better than what I’m getting out of the sink. We still brush our teeth with town water, which fortunately in our little boro is not fluoridated. The pets drink tap water. Maybe that’s the reason they’re a little...you know...nuts? I don’t know, but I’m not taking any chances.
In addition to the lead thing, bottled water just tastes better, I think. And I was fine with that reasoning. Lead aside, I’m willing to pay for water that tastes good. [Not that I don’t pay for tap water mind you, but it’s a whole lot less.] Now I find out that while the water in my bottle might be only slightly healthier than what comes out of the tap, the container it comes in could be leeching harmful chemicals into it. The thought of getting cancer from my bottled water makes drinking something flavored with rocks and dirt seem more appealing. Heck, it makes the lead seem more appealing.
So what’s the solution? Is tap water bad for us? I told my son it was okay for him to grab a gulp from the water fountain at school after gym. Better than passing out from dehydration. Now I have to ask myself the question: Is bottled water better or worse than tap? Tap? Tap? Tap?
Good question. Really good. I wasn’t quite sure how to answer him, because like so many things today, the answer is muddled by all the information out there.
This article at ReadersDigest.com gives some of the poop – I mean scoop on bottled water versus tap. Or maybe, more accurately – the tap water that comes out of the tap and the tap water that comes out of a bottle. It seems that a percentage of expensive bottled water doesn’t actually come from those pastoral mountain springs, filtered by rocks and dirt like water is supposed to be. Some of it comes out of pipes at the water bottling plant. Yum!
Now, at my house, we’ve been drinking bottled water for years. The reason I started paying to bring home three to four plastic gallon water jugs every week from the supermarket was because I was told the unseemly history of the pipes in my house. They’re old. Like – made of lead old, and that lead can seep into the water and cause lead poisoning.
For me, that’s reason enough to spend $0.75-$0.89 per gallon for something to drink. Even if it just comes out of copper pipes, at least it’s better than what I’m getting out of the sink. We still brush our teeth with town water, which fortunately in our little boro is not fluoridated. The pets drink tap water. Maybe that’s the reason they’re a little...you know...nuts? I don’t know, but I’m not taking any chances.
In addition to the lead thing, bottled water just tastes better, I think. And I was fine with that reasoning. Lead aside, I’m willing to pay for water that tastes good. [Not that I don’t pay for tap water mind you, but it’s a whole lot less.] Now I find out that while the water in my bottle might be only slightly healthier than what comes out of the tap, the container it comes in could be leeching harmful chemicals into it. The thought of getting cancer from my bottled water makes drinking something flavored with rocks and dirt seem more appealing. Heck, it makes the lead seem more appealing.
So what’s the solution? Is tap water bad for us? I told my son it was okay for him to grab a gulp from the water fountain at school after gym. Better than passing out from dehydration. Now I have to ask myself the question: Is bottled water better or worse than tap? Tap? Tap? Tap?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
