Forget the fact that it's almost been a week since my last post. This is significantly more important:
Bacon Explosion!
Yes - this is it. It's what we've all been waiting for... the bacon explosion. There could be few things better than this, and I fully intend to have one on my birthday. The only thing better than the bacon explosion? The bacon explosion plus fancy italian cold cuts and cheeses!
OMG it gets better!
Now, I'll probably leave out the veggies, and go a little light on the sauce, and use something other than velveeta (provolone is the cheese I usually think of when I dream about cheese, but I should probably use mozzarella for superior melting properties). I'll also use something other than that awful fake capicola ham - that's effing gross. Also add thyme - thyme goes great with bacon!
Anyway, this is going to be my birthday "cake." I can't imagine candles will work but if they do, it would be extra awesome.
So, sorry about waiting this long to update but there's not much interesting stuff going on and I've become rather busy with the rest of life. I'm hoping this doesn't become a trend - I like updating this frequently and discussing the experiences and the things that I'm learning. I just haven't had much time for anything new and interesting, and there's not much left for me to learn about this that I haven't already researched (okay, that's probably a lie, but at this point it's just going to be repeats of what I've already read).
There have been two interesting things this past week though. One of them involves cooking :) I love to slow cook things, and chicken is such a sucker for slow cooking because a "slow-cooked" chicken only has to braise for about 45 minutes before the meat is falling off the bone. So naturally I braised a few chicken parts just last night and had a great dinner and breakfast (letting it sit in the braising liquid all night was a really, really good idea). The braising liquid was super garlicky and awesome besides - with shallots and onions and wine and basil and bacon.... It had a TON of flavor with just a few ingredients. I'll add the recipe some other time, because it's worth sharing if not simply for how easy it was to make.
The other interesting thing involves almost meeting a vegan in the library at UW. There was some sickly skinny looking hipster walking around the library trying to get people to sign a petition for more vegan options in the cafeterias on campus. I wanted to tell him that they should actually have at least one meatetarian option before I support adding more vegan options, but I've gotten pretty good at holding my tongue. Anyway, I was working on some homework with a homework buddy when he came by... I had to look at him in the face when he asked me and I almost blew up - I felt the bloodlust rising up inside me and I almost ripped his head off and ate him right there - herbivores taste best after all. Okay not really - but I did feel a definite adrenaline response because I was about to start going off on him... it would have been bad. Time for a tangent...
I don't hate vegetarians - in fact, I have some very good vegetarian friends. I respect the fact that they think it is healthier, and the fact that they feel less cruel by not needing to kill animals to survive. I respect even more that they aren't pushy about it, and will even eat meat of they have to in order to be polite. But there is something about some vegetarians that I do hate - I hate when they devote their lives or even a small portion of their time to something that in the grand scheme doesn't really matter. There are a ton of causes you could give your time to - helping unwed mothers, counseling the old and dying, caring for homeless children, feeding the hungry, etc. - and if you choose to waste your time devoting your life to helping animals instead of people, I can't get past the fact that I think there's something wrong with you. I apologize for being so blunt about this, but I cannot be any other way about it. If you care about animals so much more than people that you waste time on a cause supporting animals rather than supporting people, I can't help but be opposed to you.
Anyway, after glaring at him for about 2 and a half seconds, I responded to his stupid question with, "no." But my study-buddy can't help but sign and support things (even though she is not a vegetarian). So the hipster gave her free PETA literature and a DVD featuring (among other similar stars) Justin Bieber. After we finished studying, she gave me the literature and DVD - I assume for the comedic value of it. I read it, and walked away from it with several thoughts. First of all, they had a lot of quotes from celebrities. Second, there were a lot of awful looking pictures. And last, the whole pamphlet made me feel like I was being treated like a 12-year-old girl.
I talked with a sympathetic vegetarian friend of mine about the literature, and insisted that I found it humorous, mostly because of the childishness of it. In my opinion, it didn't look like it was designed for critically thinking college students you would be likely to find in a library at one of the top universities in the country. It looked like it was (literally) designed for young girls who love animals. Now, I can appreciate an argument from emotion, but that shouldn't be the entire argument. I tried to explain to her that people expected to think, like those you would find at a library at UW, would be unlikely to take seriously the strawman arguments and the appeals to "authorities" (like anyone from Grey's Anatomy - the show, not the medical tome) and the barrage of emotion employed by this pamphlet. I assumed that even if they agreed with the points of the literature, they ought to feel insulted by the tone and methods of it. She insisted that it was an effective and well-designed pamphlet. I suppose she may be correct, but if I were to release a pamphlet about the meatetarian diet (unless I intended it to be a joke) I wouldn't intentionally target teenyboppers and then hand it out in a library full of college age people.
Maybe this is because I overestimate the average college student though... Who's to say?
This has gone on long enough. Birthday next weekend! Bacon explosion! WooHoo!
A blog about eating a (mostly) meatetarian diet - one consisting of meat eggs and dairy (meat meaning any part of an animal or fish, and dairy mostly excluding milk, but including other products). Includes food adventures, the good, the bad, and the ugly. You have been warned...
Friday, May 13, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
The Sweet Tooth
So I've been thinking about something for a while... And it has to do with the fact that I haven't really been eating any carbohydrates lately, and it surprisingly hasn't been that difficult. Sure I have bad days when I feel bad about not eating with the group, and chug a beer or eat a piece of cake or chocolate or something, but other than that I haven't had "cravings" for sweets or starches.
This isn't really a new concept for me - I've never tried to diet before, or deprive myself of anything. This is not to say that I haven't said no to goodies because I know they are fattening; I have indeed denied myself an additional doughnut on occasion (though I am known to take literally the phrase "eat as much as you like"). I have experienced the occasional craving though, staying up late into the night to bake and eat a dozen cookies because I need the taste and can't wait till morning. And not once did a guilty thought cross my mind -- well, other than the obvious, "lol... fatass." But the point still stands: dieters often complain about cravings.
My mother tried Atkins for a long time. She has in her lifetime developed an insatiable desire for starchy foods, almost to the point of rationalizing why she's eating them. I suppose the cravings can get to be too much. She was unable to truly give up desserts, and would use artificial sweeteners to replace them. (She reads this blog so I will be as gentle as possible)
If you haven't read Gary Taubes, I'll give a nice hand-waving explanation: artificial sweeteners stimulate the release of insulin. This is normally okay, but if you have no carbs in your diet then it will make you feel tired because it inhibits the use of fat for energy, which basically leaves only protein as a viable source. But we know from Stefansson that protein is not really a viable source of energy. This will make you crave more sugar/starch. If you believe what Taubes believes about the theory of dieting, this will ultimately lead to failure of the diet. You feel tired, you feel hungry, and you feel a desire for the foods that will ruin your diet - and not only will they ruin your diet, but they will finally make you feel good, full, and full of energy. This leads to some sort of Pavlovian response and you start salivating at the thought of a carbohydrate, and pretty soon Dr. Atkins is slipping on ice and you wanna try the sugar-water diet.
For me, while I haven't lost much weight, the cravings have been minimal - and, more interestingly, seem to be on the decline. Since I didn't think about trying to lose weight, I've been letting myself have "desserts" if I can get them to fall under the category of "meatetarian." This includes almost nothing, so I've been eating almost no food that stimulates the over-release of insulin. And while I can't prove it, I'd like to believe that somehow this connection between a reduced insulin response and a waning sweet tooth are connected. It has worked wonders for the rest of my teeth too - no sugar and no starch means next to no decay in my teefs (except for when a piece of steak gets stuck between your teeth and you can't get it out... it leads to breath of death breath...).
I tried to discuss this recently with a family member who was admittedly fairly drunk at the time. He was planning on trying a starvation style of diet, with protein bars throughout the day and "lean and green" in the evening. I know there's something behind the theory of having several small meals a day (improves the bodies ability to absorb and use protein, compared to eating fewer large meals), but I was still cautious. Stefansson's experience had taught me that without enough fat, high protein diets lead to serious diarrhea - diarrhea is a great way to lose weight but it's really bad for you. Starvation diets tend to lead to increased hunger, reduced energy, reduced activity level, and reduced efficacy fairly quickly. It's also not meant to be a long-term thing, so it's unlikely that it would lead to lasting weight loss. I recommended the meat diet as an alternative, even though it hasn't helped me lose much weight. He brought up gluttony and sloth and fast food and overeating and it made me wish everyone had Taubes in his back pocket.
This is when something that I considered odd was brought up in the conversation. He essentially asked me, "What's the catch?" I was taken aback - what could possibly BE wrong with the meat diet? He makes a good point though - why is it not more popular? I've been thinking about this for a while now... Atkins is relatively popular, and the meat diet is essentially that (though I would say to lay off the leafy greens tbh). What are the health risks associated with a high meat diet? After all, high red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of heart attacks compared to those with a low red-meat consumption. Strangely, the heart-disease risk factors of people who are studied while on these sorts of diets are always generally better than those of people on other diets.
The health risks of the meat diet are not fully understood, and are mostly heresay. For example, go to urban dictionary and look up "meatatarian" and go to the second definition (they spell it wrong). I don't know about the rest of you, but I think this is the reason the meatetarian diet is not more popular. People hear it and it makes their skin crawl. Sure, a lot of guys would love to eat meat all the time, and they'd love to believe that it's healthy (which it is). But they believe deep down that it's bad for them. Plus, no one wants to give up beer. Or pizza.
Think of other weight loss plans that work. Eating less works, but it leads to stagnated results and hunger, and is also uncomfortable. Exercising works too, and it makes you stronger, and most people agree it makes you look better! This is leaps and bounds above what the meat diet claims to do (ummm... not kill you?). And people STILL don't do it?
For these reasons I think the question, "What's the catch?" is a silly question, that is asked only because of preconceived biases, and without any solid basis. What's the catch with exercising? Then why isn't it more popular?
I've rambled for long enough now, so I'm gonna end this for now. Might update with input/output later... Know this: things are back to normal, and I'm swearing off binge drinking lol.
This isn't really a new concept for me - I've never tried to diet before, or deprive myself of anything. This is not to say that I haven't said no to goodies because I know they are fattening; I have indeed denied myself an additional doughnut on occasion (though I am known to take literally the phrase "eat as much as you like"). I have experienced the occasional craving though, staying up late into the night to bake and eat a dozen cookies because I need the taste and can't wait till morning. And not once did a guilty thought cross my mind -- well, other than the obvious, "lol... fatass." But the point still stands: dieters often complain about cravings.
My mother tried Atkins for a long time. She has in her lifetime developed an insatiable desire for starchy foods, almost to the point of rationalizing why she's eating them. I suppose the cravings can get to be too much. She was unable to truly give up desserts, and would use artificial sweeteners to replace them. (She reads this blog so I will be as gentle as possible)
If you haven't read Gary Taubes, I'll give a nice hand-waving explanation: artificial sweeteners stimulate the release of insulin. This is normally okay, but if you have no carbs in your diet then it will make you feel tired because it inhibits the use of fat for energy, which basically leaves only protein as a viable source. But we know from Stefansson that protein is not really a viable source of energy. This will make you crave more sugar/starch. If you believe what Taubes believes about the theory of dieting, this will ultimately lead to failure of the diet. You feel tired, you feel hungry, and you feel a desire for the foods that will ruin your diet - and not only will they ruin your diet, but they will finally make you feel good, full, and full of energy. This leads to some sort of Pavlovian response and you start salivating at the thought of a carbohydrate, and pretty soon Dr. Atkins is slipping on ice and you wanna try the sugar-water diet.
For me, while I haven't lost much weight, the cravings have been minimal - and, more interestingly, seem to be on the decline. Since I didn't think about trying to lose weight, I've been letting myself have "desserts" if I can get them to fall under the category of "meatetarian." This includes almost nothing, so I've been eating almost no food that stimulates the over-release of insulin. And while I can't prove it, I'd like to believe that somehow this connection between a reduced insulin response and a waning sweet tooth are connected. It has worked wonders for the rest of my teeth too - no sugar and no starch means next to no decay in my teefs (except for when a piece of steak gets stuck between your teeth and you can't get it out... it leads to breath of death breath...).
I tried to discuss this recently with a family member who was admittedly fairly drunk at the time. He was planning on trying a starvation style of diet, with protein bars throughout the day and "lean and green" in the evening. I know there's something behind the theory of having several small meals a day (improves the bodies ability to absorb and use protein, compared to eating fewer large meals), but I was still cautious. Stefansson's experience had taught me that without enough fat, high protein diets lead to serious diarrhea - diarrhea is a great way to lose weight but it's really bad for you. Starvation diets tend to lead to increased hunger, reduced energy, reduced activity level, and reduced efficacy fairly quickly. It's also not meant to be a long-term thing, so it's unlikely that it would lead to lasting weight loss. I recommended the meat diet as an alternative, even though it hasn't helped me lose much weight. He brought up gluttony and sloth and fast food and overeating and it made me wish everyone had Taubes in his back pocket.
This is when something that I considered odd was brought up in the conversation. He essentially asked me, "What's the catch?" I was taken aback - what could possibly BE wrong with the meat diet? He makes a good point though - why is it not more popular? I've been thinking about this for a while now... Atkins is relatively popular, and the meat diet is essentially that (though I would say to lay off the leafy greens tbh). What are the health risks associated with a high meat diet? After all, high red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of heart attacks compared to those with a low red-meat consumption. Strangely, the heart-disease risk factors of people who are studied while on these sorts of diets are always generally better than those of people on other diets.
The health risks of the meat diet are not fully understood, and are mostly heresay. For example, go to urban dictionary and look up "meatatarian" and go to the second definition (they spell it wrong). I don't know about the rest of you, but I think this is the reason the meatetarian diet is not more popular. People hear it and it makes their skin crawl. Sure, a lot of guys would love to eat meat all the time, and they'd love to believe that it's healthy (which it is). But they believe deep down that it's bad for them. Plus, no one wants to give up beer. Or pizza.
Think of other weight loss plans that work. Eating less works, but it leads to stagnated results and hunger, and is also uncomfortable. Exercising works too, and it makes you stronger, and most people agree it makes you look better! This is leaps and bounds above what the meat diet claims to do (ummm... not kill you?). And people STILL don't do it?
For these reasons I think the question, "What's the catch?" is a silly question, that is asked only because of preconceived biases, and without any solid basis. What's the catch with exercising? Then why isn't it more popular?
I've rambled for long enough now, so I'm gonna end this for now. Might update with input/output later... Know this: things are back to normal, and I'm swearing off binge drinking lol.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)