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.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
The return of Input/Output!
The title says it all hehehe
But first, a rundown of the past few days...
I now have a Meat Guy. A friend of mine works at Walmart in the meat department. He has now heard every meat-related gay joke, but more importantly he can inform me of special deals and sales before the general public knows about them! For instance, he got me a ten pound bag of chicken leg quarters for 5 bucks 0.0 That's less than half the best price I found at Costco... There are also plans to go to a huge processing plant called Minder's meats when I have some cash, Meat Guy in tow.
Speaking of when I have cash, the first things on the list for new trials include: lamb shanks, chicken liver pate, and (once again) bone marrow. I want to try the bone marrow in a different way though - maybe in a thick stew or something like that. There's also a recipe for pork shoulder boiled in milk (YUM) and steamed whole fish. I've been eying the eels in the freezer at the asian section in the grocery store... they are really loaded with fat and I loved the broiled eel sushi I've tried. Also want to try some duck again in the future - not that it would be new to me, but it is loaded with fat and very tasty. Also expensive, so I will need to get some free from hunters or go hunting myself... And duck season is several months away :/
Anyway, I got to talk to a vegetarian the other day. It was the first time I've ever had to confront someone about the way I eat. He claimed to be a vegetarian because of environmental reasons, citing land use as a major reason. Of all the reasons to be a vegetarian, I think I dislike this one the most. Essentially the solution to the land use/environmental issues is to have fewer people in the world. I don't want fewer people in the world, but I still want to eat meat. Since I live in America, where land use is essentially a non-issue, I considered that argument especially silly, but we chatted about it for a bit anyway. I tried to tell him that animals using land is a relatively efficient use of it, since grass grows almost anywhere year long and doesn't sap soil of nutrients as much as, say, corn does; meanwhile, a cornfield is harvested once a year and requires specific soil and weather conditions. We didn't come to a consensus here but we managed to move on anyway. He asked me if I was afraid of vitamin deficiencies and the host of usual questions, to which I responded flatly "no." I then showed him the nutrition data on various meats, eggs, and butter and showed him that by following a diet consisting only of them I would get almost all of the vitamins and minerals I needed in a day except vitamin C (calcium and vitamin D are the only ones that would be low if I were brave enough to eat liver, and by eating small bony fish I could fix calcium, and sunlight would fix vitamin D). I also brought up the fact that it seems that vitamin C is not necessary for low-carbohydrate diets for some reason, as the inuits show. He insisted that there must be something the body needs that you can only get from vegetables... I answered with fiber, but I haven't had any problems. I had him pretty well flustered, hopefully it will be enough to make him reconsider his vegetarianism... hahaha. No but seriously, I hope it will be enough for him to not think that meat is really bad for your health, which it is not.
As for food adventures, nothing too special except that I ate about 2 sticks of butter on thursday... I also made some teriyaki marinated chicken from the Meat Guy. I was out of ginger though, so the recipe was a bit off. There was a little honey on the marinade, but I don't think much of it ended up in the chicken. At any rate, I'm not worried about the carb content. The story is good though...
The chicken came in a bag and there were 9 leg quarters in it (included pope's noses!). They were all frozen into a truly solid block of ice and chicken parts. After letting them sit in a giant bowl of water for several hours, I managed to pry them apart. I let them thaw some more while I made the marinade. The marinade had some soy sauce, garlic, chives, honey, wine, and cloves (may have been more, but I can't remember). I stuffed the chickens into a baggy with the sauce and let them continue to thaw and marinate for half the day. Then after a long day of tutoring, I started roasting the chickens at 9:30... It was supposed to take only an hour... But 45 minutes in, my oven crapped out and cooled down to about 200 degrees. So the chickens never got above 150ish, and when I cut one of them open it was bleeding. I tried cooking the chickens more, and after giving them 25 minutes it still wasn't enough. I let the chickens "rest" for a bit (LOL cooking term!), not knowing what to do... then I decided to boil/steam them in a skillet. After 20 minutes the coldest spot was just under 160, so i decided I'd just give it a few more minutes... then lost track of time and came back about 25 minutes later and the probe was practically at 200... lol. I was pretty sure the chicken was toast, but it tasted great - I cleaned up an entire quarter and then broke open the thigh bone for the marrow - and that was amazing. Unfortunately, by the time I was done eating it was 1:30...
Basically I've decided that I need to eat more poultry, it's basically my favorite food.
H'okay, so, It's really late and I want to get this written before I forget about it so I'm going to do my best now.
INPUT
Breakfast: Half a super quiche, no bacon
Lunch: 4 eggs with hollandaise sauce, chopped up bacon, about 3 pieces
Afternoon Snack: 2 eggs basted in butter atop shredded cheese melted on half a can of tuna, 2 very small pieces of ham, all topped with the remainder of the hollandaise from lunch
Very Late Dinner: One chicken leg quarter, marinated in a clove teriyaki sauce (end result was very little added anything)
Throughout the day, times unspecified: about 1 cup of milk and about 4 cups of tea, an americano with a little half and half
OUTPUT
One mid-morning, nothing abnormal
Success!
But first, a rundown of the past few days...
I now have a Meat Guy. A friend of mine works at Walmart in the meat department. He has now heard every meat-related gay joke, but more importantly he can inform me of special deals and sales before the general public knows about them! For instance, he got me a ten pound bag of chicken leg quarters for 5 bucks 0.0 That's less than half the best price I found at Costco... There are also plans to go to a huge processing plant called Minder's meats when I have some cash, Meat Guy in tow.
Speaking of when I have cash, the first things on the list for new trials include: lamb shanks, chicken liver pate, and (once again) bone marrow. I want to try the bone marrow in a different way though - maybe in a thick stew or something like that. There's also a recipe for pork shoulder boiled in milk (YUM) and steamed whole fish. I've been eying the eels in the freezer at the asian section in the grocery store... they are really loaded with fat and I loved the broiled eel sushi I've tried. Also want to try some duck again in the future - not that it would be new to me, but it is loaded with fat and very tasty. Also expensive, so I will need to get some free from hunters or go hunting myself... And duck season is several months away :/
Anyway, I got to talk to a vegetarian the other day. It was the first time I've ever had to confront someone about the way I eat. He claimed to be a vegetarian because of environmental reasons, citing land use as a major reason. Of all the reasons to be a vegetarian, I think I dislike this one the most. Essentially the solution to the land use/environmental issues is to have fewer people in the world. I don't want fewer people in the world, but I still want to eat meat. Since I live in America, where land use is essentially a non-issue, I considered that argument especially silly, but we chatted about it for a bit anyway. I tried to tell him that animals using land is a relatively efficient use of it, since grass grows almost anywhere year long and doesn't sap soil of nutrients as much as, say, corn does; meanwhile, a cornfield is harvested once a year and requires specific soil and weather conditions. We didn't come to a consensus here but we managed to move on anyway. He asked me if I was afraid of vitamin deficiencies and the host of usual questions, to which I responded flatly "no." I then showed him the nutrition data on various meats, eggs, and butter and showed him that by following a diet consisting only of them I would get almost all of the vitamins and minerals I needed in a day except vitamin C (calcium and vitamin D are the only ones that would be low if I were brave enough to eat liver, and by eating small bony fish I could fix calcium, and sunlight would fix vitamin D). I also brought up the fact that it seems that vitamin C is not necessary for low-carbohydrate diets for some reason, as the inuits show. He insisted that there must be something the body needs that you can only get from vegetables... I answered with fiber, but I haven't had any problems. I had him pretty well flustered, hopefully it will be enough to make him reconsider his vegetarianism... hahaha. No but seriously, I hope it will be enough for him to not think that meat is really bad for your health, which it is not.
As for food adventures, nothing too special except that I ate about 2 sticks of butter on thursday... I also made some teriyaki marinated chicken from the Meat Guy. I was out of ginger though, so the recipe was a bit off. There was a little honey on the marinade, but I don't think much of it ended up in the chicken. At any rate, I'm not worried about the carb content. The story is good though...
The chicken came in a bag and there were 9 leg quarters in it (included pope's noses!). They were all frozen into a truly solid block of ice and chicken parts. After letting them sit in a giant bowl of water for several hours, I managed to pry them apart. I let them thaw some more while I made the marinade. The marinade had some soy sauce, garlic, chives, honey, wine, and cloves (may have been more, but I can't remember). I stuffed the chickens into a baggy with the sauce and let them continue to thaw and marinate for half the day. Then after a long day of tutoring, I started roasting the chickens at 9:30... It was supposed to take only an hour... But 45 minutes in, my oven crapped out and cooled down to about 200 degrees. So the chickens never got above 150ish, and when I cut one of them open it was bleeding. I tried cooking the chickens more, and after giving them 25 minutes it still wasn't enough. I let the chickens "rest" for a bit (LOL cooking term!), not knowing what to do... then I decided to boil/steam them in a skillet. After 20 minutes the coldest spot was just under 160, so i decided I'd just give it a few more minutes... then lost track of time and came back about 25 minutes later and the probe was practically at 200... lol. I was pretty sure the chicken was toast, but it tasted great - I cleaned up an entire quarter and then broke open the thigh bone for the marrow - and that was amazing. Unfortunately, by the time I was done eating it was 1:30...
Basically I've decided that I need to eat more poultry, it's basically my favorite food.
H'okay, so, It's really late and I want to get this written before I forget about it so I'm going to do my best now.
INPUT
Breakfast: Half a super quiche, no bacon
Lunch: 4 eggs with hollandaise sauce, chopped up bacon, about 3 pieces
Afternoon Snack: 2 eggs basted in butter atop shredded cheese melted on half a can of tuna, 2 very small pieces of ham, all topped with the remainder of the hollandaise from lunch
Very Late Dinner: One chicken leg quarter, marinated in a clove teriyaki sauce (end result was very little added anything)
Throughout the day, times unspecified: about 1 cup of milk and about 4 cups of tea, an americano with a little half and half
OUTPUT
One mid-morning, nothing abnormal
Success!
Monday, April 25, 2011
Easter!
Happy Easter! It's a little late for sure but I don't care.
Easter is a day about eating eggs apparently... I'm not even sure I want eggs much now lol - at least not hard-boiled eggs.
I spent the day at my sister's house and ate a LOT of sugar and starch... and I have to say I can tell. My stomach is feeling a bit upset, and despite sleeping for most of the day I've been feeling sluggish. I'm sure it will pass soon. I'm going to try to make up for it by being extra strict for the next couple days.
Anyway, the food we had was a strata, which is like an epic bread pudding. It has half and half and cream cheese and I think sour cream mixed with bread and eggs and spices and topped with jam. Then it gets baked. We also had some monkey bread, which is like a cinnamon roll baked in a bunt pan covered with cream cheese frosting. We had some raspberry cupcakes but I abstained. For dessert we had hokey-pokey ice cream... vanilla ice cream with crispy caramel candy stirred in... it really IS what it's all about.
In addition to the goodies, I also ate a lot of bacon, chicken, and sausage. And of course eggs. I also discovered that my sweet tooth is not entirely outside of my control... I may be willing to try a no sugar (not even milk) experiment temporarily... but I still don't want to become lactose intolerant so maybe not.
I also went the to gym before breaking my diet for the first time since being sick. I can say for sure that the strength has returned (or was just never gone) but the stamina is lacking :/ I think I just need to get back into making it a regular thing and soon everything will be normal again. Also, I'm really sore today XD
I finished reading the rest of Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat. My final conclusion is that I like it generally and think he is right generally, but he makes some assertions and logical jumps that maybe he shouldn't have. I won't get into specifics but I will say that I really liked it and highly recommend it. It has however, convinced me that I will lose weight on my diet XD which explains the initial weight loss and why I am still down about 5 pounds from the starting weight. I've been inspired by this to start including weight in my updates at least once a week.
My sister recommended that I try baked cheese chips from central market. I decided to take it a step cheaper and make my own. They made a mess of the kitchen when I scraped them off of the cookie sheet, but they were tasty. I want to try them microwaved because in my crappy oven it took forever and they baked unevenly. I also need parchment paper...
Anyway, I'm at school and it's really close to Earth Day so I don't wanna catch the ire of some angry vegans so I'm off! Till next time!
Easter is a day about eating eggs apparently... I'm not even sure I want eggs much now lol - at least not hard-boiled eggs.
I spent the day at my sister's house and ate a LOT of sugar and starch... and I have to say I can tell. My stomach is feeling a bit upset, and despite sleeping for most of the day I've been feeling sluggish. I'm sure it will pass soon. I'm going to try to make up for it by being extra strict for the next couple days.
Anyway, the food we had was a strata, which is like an epic bread pudding. It has half and half and cream cheese and I think sour cream mixed with bread and eggs and spices and topped with jam. Then it gets baked. We also had some monkey bread, which is like a cinnamon roll baked in a bunt pan covered with cream cheese frosting. We had some raspberry cupcakes but I abstained. For dessert we had hokey-pokey ice cream... vanilla ice cream with crispy caramel candy stirred in... it really IS what it's all about.
In addition to the goodies, I also ate a lot of bacon, chicken, and sausage. And of course eggs. I also discovered that my sweet tooth is not entirely outside of my control... I may be willing to try a no sugar (not even milk) experiment temporarily... but I still don't want to become lactose intolerant so maybe not.
I also went the to gym before breaking my diet for the first time since being sick. I can say for sure that the strength has returned (or was just never gone) but the stamina is lacking :/ I think I just need to get back into making it a regular thing and soon everything will be normal again. Also, I'm really sore today XD
I finished reading the rest of Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat. My final conclusion is that I like it generally and think he is right generally, but he makes some assertions and logical jumps that maybe he shouldn't have. I won't get into specifics but I will say that I really liked it and highly recommend it. It has however, convinced me that I will lose weight on my diet XD which explains the initial weight loss and why I am still down about 5 pounds from the starting weight. I've been inspired by this to start including weight in my updates at least once a week.
My sister recommended that I try baked cheese chips from central market. I decided to take it a step cheaper and make my own. They made a mess of the kitchen when I scraped them off of the cookie sheet, but they were tasty. I want to try them microwaved because in my crappy oven it took forever and they baked unevenly. I also need parchment paper...
Anyway, I'm at school and it's really close to Earth Day so I don't wanna catch the ire of some angry vegans so I'm off! Till next time!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Ze goalz: Essential Readings
So far here is my list of essential readings, I will list them in order of importance (aka, ease of reading) and then give brief summaries because I know at least a few of you won't read them (or can't).
1. The Letter on Corpulence http://www.archive.org/details/letteroncorpulen00bantrich (this is the best link I've found, the PDF version is good enough, the pamphlet is in the public domain so this is completely legal)
2. The blog, Inhuman Experiment http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/
3. "Adventures in Diet" by Vilhjalmur Stefansson (this is the best link for it I could find, and it's not very good...)
4. This scientific paper, published in Clinical Calorimetry in the 1930s about the aforementioned Stefansson, experimenting a one-year diet of just meat (not light reading, but very very informative).
5. Gary Taubes' blog http://www.garytaubes.com/
6. Gary Taubes' book, Why We Get Fat (can't get this for free yet, find it at your library or local bookstore and park it and read it - it's what I did)
If you are interested in the health risks or benefits of eating meat and especially fat, you must read and absorb all of these. In addition, they will improve your understanding of diabetes and diabetes treatments, and of dieting and weight loss.
I also recommend a few videos that are available on the internet, a series by the BBC called "Why Are Thin People Not Fat." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6-A0iHSdcA
I also recommend Fat Head which is a movie critical of Supersize Me. In Fat Head the host loses 13 pounds in a month eating fast food, and actually generally gets healthier. The movie itself is not terribly educational, but in my case I found it to be inspirational. If you are reading my blog, you are already inspired and can skip Fat Head (the quality of the movie is a bit low, and the humor is often stupid... but it is still interesting).
So for the summaries and why they are so interesting.
1. The letter on corpulence details the trials of a fat man trying to lose weight. This is one of those rare moments when the person who is distributing this information was not an expert, was not out to make money, was not some thin healthy person telling you to do what he says because he's healthy, wasn't some college athlete who "got out of shape" then started working out and got back in shape, and was instead a man who understood the ins and outs, the emotional roller coaster, and the physical difficulties of being obese. He gives his account from beginning to end, from failed early attempts to his success on a meat-centered diet designed for the treatment of diabetes (this is mentioned in passing and not referred to by name, but this is indeed what he was speaking of). I found his story compelling despite being short. You will love the writing style if you like mine, and you will wonder why you have never heard of this, especially if you are a dieter (tbh, I'm not too surprised I've never heard of this because I've never really looked into diets before).
2. Inhuman experiment is a blog about self-experimentation for the purpose of improving one's health. His goals are different from mine but I don't mind. Unlike many people who experiment with things like this, this guy isn't out to sell anything. This guy examines scientific evidence and tries to avoid anything he can that will muddy up the info with preconceived notions. The reason you need to read this blog is that it will open your eyes to the scientific evidence out there that vegetarians will insist doesn't exist -- studies showing correlations between eating meat and being healthier among other things. It will also hopefully prove to you that a meat diet isn't insane (mine might no be so god at that...). This is one of the few sites out there that isn't pioneered by a madman who thinks his diet cured his BO.
3. Adventures in Diet will open your eyes to the fact that meat diets are not at all new, and are likely even more natural than the diets we eat today (excuse the use of natural, my intention is just to point out that our diet is forced rather than coming naturally). It's the story of a man who lives with the Inuit for several years on and off, and eats their diet of mostly fish, seals, and caribou. His health doesn't deteriorate, he doesn't get constipated, and he learns to like boiled aged fish. It will hopefully answer the question of why fat tends to be something we desire to eat, and hopefully show you that it is not bad for you. It will also show you that adapting to a diet is possible even if one must eat despised foods, as tastes can be changed. It is also very brief, and fairly easy to read. Despite the cheesiness of the site it is found on, it is a legitimate story (you can find it on other sites if you need to cross-reference it). I find the story interesting,, and if you're like me it will make you hungry for scientific evidence...
4. This study examines the results of eating an all-meat diet for an entire year. The two men in the study experience almost no adverse effects. It also goes in-depth into some things a bit over my head, such as the kidney function involved (the conclusion still makes sense - this wasn't bad for the kidneys). This study will prove to you that a year on meat alone will not cause anything near death, and will likely only improve your health. You will wonder what truly causes scurvy, and start to wonder if you could ever eat enough fat to meet the guidelines of this study. If you try this, you'll probably lose weight. You'll wonder about the importance of fiber, and water-soluble vitamins. You will consider if you could ever eat cow's kidneys and lots of other gross stuff. It's not light reading but it's not really long, and it's the largest source of scientific support for my diet. It will make you wonder why there aren't more like it.
5 and 6. Taubes' blog will be the substitute for his book if you can't find it. Among other things, he gives the results of his blood test (his diet is similar to mine). He tends to be long-winded; many of his posts are longer than the letter on corpulence. Taubes will make you want to read Atkins, but he's less "try my diet" and more critical of nutritionists and scientists. He counters the conventional notion of laziness and overeating causing fatness, and suggests that fatness causes laziness and overeating. He asserts that hormones and genetics cause fatness, which in turn causes the overeating and laziness. Traditional diet and workout plans, he says, are not sufficient for the majority of overweight people to lose weight for the long term. Instead, he suggests people ought to reduce the foods that raise insulin levels in order to lose fat. Interestingly, he also exposes the prejudices normal people (especially thin, healthy nutritionists and doctors) have against the obese, and the difficulties they face, especially when they are constantly told they are fat, lazy, stupid gluttons.
Why are thin people not fat details attempts to make naturally thin people fat by making them eat twice as much as usual. All of the people in the study gain weight (not a huge amount). All of them lose all of the weight they gained without exercising or dieting. It's an interesting look at how little control we actually have over our weight.
Whew, that was longer than expected! Enjoy!
1. The Letter on Corpulence http://www.archive.org/details/letteroncorpulen00bantrich (this is the best link I've found, the PDF version is good enough, the pamphlet is in the public domain so this is completely legal)
2. The blog, Inhuman Experiment http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/
3. "Adventures in Diet" by Vilhjalmur Stefansson (this is the best link for it I could find, and it's not very good...)
4. This scientific paper, published in Clinical Calorimetry in the 1930s about the aforementioned Stefansson, experimenting a one-year diet of just meat (not light reading, but very very informative).
5. Gary Taubes' blog http://www.garytaubes.com/
6. Gary Taubes' book, Why We Get Fat (can't get this for free yet, find it at your library or local bookstore and park it and read it - it's what I did)
If you are interested in the health risks or benefits of eating meat and especially fat, you must read and absorb all of these. In addition, they will improve your understanding of diabetes and diabetes treatments, and of dieting and weight loss.
I also recommend a few videos that are available on the internet, a series by the BBC called "Why Are Thin People Not Fat." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6-A0iHSdcA
I also recommend Fat Head which is a movie critical of Supersize Me. In Fat Head the host loses 13 pounds in a month eating fast food, and actually generally gets healthier. The movie itself is not terribly educational, but in my case I found it to be inspirational. If you are reading my blog, you are already inspired and can skip Fat Head (the quality of the movie is a bit low, and the humor is often stupid... but it is still interesting).
So for the summaries and why they are so interesting.
1. The letter on corpulence details the trials of a fat man trying to lose weight. This is one of those rare moments when the person who is distributing this information was not an expert, was not out to make money, was not some thin healthy person telling you to do what he says because he's healthy, wasn't some college athlete who "got out of shape" then started working out and got back in shape, and was instead a man who understood the ins and outs, the emotional roller coaster, and the physical difficulties of being obese. He gives his account from beginning to end, from failed early attempts to his success on a meat-centered diet designed for the treatment of diabetes (this is mentioned in passing and not referred to by name, but this is indeed what he was speaking of). I found his story compelling despite being short. You will love the writing style if you like mine, and you will wonder why you have never heard of this, especially if you are a dieter (tbh, I'm not too surprised I've never heard of this because I've never really looked into diets before).
2. Inhuman experiment is a blog about self-experimentation for the purpose of improving one's health. His goals are different from mine but I don't mind. Unlike many people who experiment with things like this, this guy isn't out to sell anything. This guy examines scientific evidence and tries to avoid anything he can that will muddy up the info with preconceived notions. The reason you need to read this blog is that it will open your eyes to the scientific evidence out there that vegetarians will insist doesn't exist -- studies showing correlations between eating meat and being healthier among other things. It will also hopefully prove to you that a meat diet isn't insane (mine might no be so god at that...). This is one of the few sites out there that isn't pioneered by a madman who thinks his diet cured his BO.
3. Adventures in Diet will open your eyes to the fact that meat diets are not at all new, and are likely even more natural than the diets we eat today (excuse the use of natural, my intention is just to point out that our diet is forced rather than coming naturally). It's the story of a man who lives with the Inuit for several years on and off, and eats their diet of mostly fish, seals, and caribou. His health doesn't deteriorate, he doesn't get constipated, and he learns to like boiled aged fish. It will hopefully answer the question of why fat tends to be something we desire to eat, and hopefully show you that it is not bad for you. It will also show you that adapting to a diet is possible even if one must eat despised foods, as tastes can be changed. It is also very brief, and fairly easy to read. Despite the cheesiness of the site it is found on, it is a legitimate story (you can find it on other sites if you need to cross-reference it). I find the story interesting,, and if you're like me it will make you hungry for scientific evidence...
4. This study examines the results of eating an all-meat diet for an entire year. The two men in the study experience almost no adverse effects. It also goes in-depth into some things a bit over my head, such as the kidney function involved (the conclusion still makes sense - this wasn't bad for the kidneys). This study will prove to you that a year on meat alone will not cause anything near death, and will likely only improve your health. You will wonder what truly causes scurvy, and start to wonder if you could ever eat enough fat to meet the guidelines of this study. If you try this, you'll probably lose weight. You'll wonder about the importance of fiber, and water-soluble vitamins. You will consider if you could ever eat cow's kidneys and lots of other gross stuff. It's not light reading but it's not really long, and it's the largest source of scientific support for my diet. It will make you wonder why there aren't more like it.
5 and 6. Taubes' blog will be the substitute for his book if you can't find it. Among other things, he gives the results of his blood test (his diet is similar to mine). He tends to be long-winded; many of his posts are longer than the letter on corpulence. Taubes will make you want to read Atkins, but he's less "try my diet" and more critical of nutritionists and scientists. He counters the conventional notion of laziness and overeating causing fatness, and suggests that fatness causes laziness and overeating. He asserts that hormones and genetics cause fatness, which in turn causes the overeating and laziness. Traditional diet and workout plans, he says, are not sufficient for the majority of overweight people to lose weight for the long term. Instead, he suggests people ought to reduce the foods that raise insulin levels in order to lose fat. Interestingly, he also exposes the prejudices normal people (especially thin, healthy nutritionists and doctors) have against the obese, and the difficulties they face, especially when they are constantly told they are fat, lazy, stupid gluttons.
Why are thin people not fat details attempts to make naturally thin people fat by making them eat twice as much as usual. All of the people in the study gain weight (not a huge amount). All of them lose all of the weight they gained without exercising or dieting. It's an interesting look at how little control we actually have over our weight.
Whew, that was longer than expected! Enjoy!
Brief Update
I need this to be brief or I won't get breakfast this morning lol
This is a statement of my goals for the near future: I want to compile a list of essential reading for this blog. Anyone who reads my blog should read certain scientific papers, experiences, and books in order to understand much of what I speak of (and to understand that I'm not nuts). I also want a list of my favorite recipes so I can share and get new recipes.
I'm sure there was more than this when I planned this in the shower, but something has been lost in translation... oh well. That's what the "edit" button is for.
Until next time.
This is a statement of my goals for the near future: I want to compile a list of essential reading for this blog. Anyone who reads my blog should read certain scientific papers, experiences, and books in order to understand much of what I speak of (and to understand that I'm not nuts). I also want a list of my favorite recipes so I can share and get new recipes.
I'm sure there was more than this when I planned this in the shower, but something has been lost in translation... oh well. That's what the "edit" button is for.
Until next time.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Recovering
I am recovering from being sick finally. I know this because my cough is now producing legitimate results, my throat hurts less and I'm able to survive once again on fewer hours of sleep.
Enough of that though. Today I want to discuss something that has been weighing heavily on my mind ever since I first read the story of Vilhjalmur Stefansson (say THAT five times fast). In case you forgot, he's the guy who lived with the Inuit people on and off for about 9 years, eating their diet (90% fish, seal, and caribou) and later took part in a study in which he ate only meat for an entire year (there's a link to that story in my first blog post). This has been weighing heavily on my mind because truth matters more to me than so many other things; and when I see controversy surrounding truth, I have to wonder what the truth of the matter is, and what the truth behind the controversy is. In this case, I am of course wondering about the answer to the question, "Is fat bad for you?" and why it has become so controversial.
I like to think of myself as a relatively simple person and I like to project this onto other people. In my mind then, this ought to be a simple matter (I will explain my theories as to why it may not be, but bear with me for now). To figure out if fat is good or bad for you, all that needs to be done is an experiment that controls for any sort of potential confounding variable that tests the hypothesis that fat is good or bad for you. If results are inconclusive, it seems obvious to me that fat is neither good nor bad for someone. This makes me think that there must be ulterior motives -- if there were not ulterior motives, no one would have a reason to create a huge fuss out of something this simple. So what are the motives for stating that fat is bad for someone if it is not... I can think of a few, mostly by calling upon my own prejudices, and one very important one that is not based entirely on my prejudices. I want to list them all anyway just for fun:
Hippies got into doing science and want to be able to say high fat diets (which consists of animal products) are bad for you so that people will stop eating meat and eggs from those poor birdies. Vegetarians want people to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong, because they are self-righteous hipsters, so they want the information to come out in support of them. People for whom low fat diets work think fat people need to practice more self-control and discipline in order to lose weight. Farmers who produce vegetables want people to buy their products instead of animal products (hurt the competition to better oneself). Lastly, people (similar to vegetarians) who believe they are right and who would lose positions of power if they were shown to be wrong don't want information to come out that shows them to be wrong (obviously).
I hope you can understand that the last reason is devoid of my bias. I can understand why someone in such a position of power would behave this way (not that it excuses it). I can even understand the hippies' position even though I disagree with it. But what this amounts to is sufficient reason to create controversy in all levels of society among both lay-people and scholars. Essentially the point I'm trying to make is that nutritionists don't want to say, "Fat is not so bad for you," because if they were to do so, people would react by saying, "Well, what good are you if you didn't tell us this sooner?"
To get back to why this isn't quite so simple is to point out the simple fact that nothing about the way the human body processes food is simple. Especially, doing a long term study of the effects of a particular diet is a daunting task - one that even has moral implications - in addition to practical implications like the prohibitive cost, and the difficulty of controlling for variables (like midnight ice cream binges).
So, to reiterate, we have two big reasons for a difficult question and an apparently unfounded controversy. Namely, to answer "Is fat bad for you?" we first have to consider how difficult it is to study such a thing, and why certain people in positions to study such things may be opposed to it.
Well, after that crazy tangent, I come back to my main point - there is indeed someone who has studied this controversy in relative detail. His name is Gary Taubes (see his blog: http://www.garytaubes.com). I've been reading one of his books, called Why We Get Fat, when I get no-showed by my students at Barnes and Noble on Thursday nights (and after I see them when they actually show up... it's just more fun to complain, amirite). Anyway, his book details something that makes me feel so much better about not being a hipster...
Way back before the internet age, in like the 19th century, there was a pamphlet published called Letter on Corpulence. This pamphlet essentially detailed my diet: high meat, little to no carbohydrates, no beer, and was published in 1863. It tells the story of a man who tried and tried to lose weight and finally, by trying a high-fat diet, managed to do so. As it turns out, it was actually well known that this was the only effective means of controlling weight by diet. Only later on did we recoil from this idea and start trying low-fat diets for weight loss. In other words, the idea of eating high fat is not new, it has only gone out of fashion. So while I can't slip on my hipster glasses as I tell you that I'm a pioneer in the world of eating, I can still tell you that you've probably never heard of it as I sip organic fair trade coffee (which I don't actually like, it just makes me feel better about my carbon footprint - or something like that).
In addition to bringing up the Letter on Corpulence Taubes also reviews mounds of scientific studies that show that, for instance, the American Heart Association's diet doesn't actually produce heart healthy (or even lean) people, and other studies to that effect.
I feel like wrapping this up now, so I'm only going to make a few more closing comments. Taubes makes another point that perhaps the reason we have found it so difficult to understand obesity is because of the tacit prejudices towards the obese. While I don't necessarily like the specifics of his argument, he makes a good point - why is it that we tend to think people only become obese by being lazy or eating too much? I could tell you the sob story of my battle with my weight, but honestly it's not that sad - more aggravating than anything really. Like I said, I'm not really fat, I just would rather be less fat than I am and don't seem to be capable of it because I like food too much. The only thing I've wondered is something like this "Why is it that people who are less active than me and who eat more than me can stay thin, whereas I will get fat if I don't go to the gym 4 days a week and eat nothing but lean fish and green veggies?"
A better question for me to ask is this: "How have I not become morbidly obese?" Not just to say that I haven't always lived healthy, but to consider people in situations similar to mine who have become obese. They didn't become obese because they were more lazy than me -- I'm not even sure that's possible. They didn't become obese because they ate worse than I did. Indeed, by any standard I ate way too many treats and even my ordinary diet was too high in anything everyone will tell you is bad. One would think I ought to be at least be MORE fat than I am, if not obese.
Taubes asks us to consider genetic and hormonal factors, and what affect our diet has on them (and also how the modern diet isn't very good for most people). It brings to mind the question I asked earlier, "What does it mean to say something is healthy anymore?"
I don't feel like detailing input and output today, so I'll skip to food adventures.
On the recommendation of a distant friend, I decided to make a crustless quiche. Now, I know real men don't eat quiche, but this had bacon in it.
4 eggs
1/2 c salted butter, melted
3/4 c milk
4 slices cooked bacon, chopped
2 c shredded cheddar cheese
pepper
thyme
Preheat oven to 450. Mix all ingredients together in a bowl (be careful not to cook eggs in melted butter or with bacon). Bake for 20 minutes uncovered, then cover with foil and cook for 15-20 minutes more (cover sooner if it begins to brown too much).
It was amazing :) Thanks Ashley
Until next time...
*I had to edit a few things in this post because of inaccuracies. My bad!
Enough of that though. Today I want to discuss something that has been weighing heavily on my mind ever since I first read the story of Vilhjalmur Stefansson (say THAT five times fast). In case you forgot, he's the guy who lived with the Inuit people on and off for about 9 years, eating their diet (90% fish, seal, and caribou) and later took part in a study in which he ate only meat for an entire year (there's a link to that story in my first blog post). This has been weighing heavily on my mind because truth matters more to me than so many other things; and when I see controversy surrounding truth, I have to wonder what the truth of the matter is, and what the truth behind the controversy is. In this case, I am of course wondering about the answer to the question, "Is fat bad for you?" and why it has become so controversial.
I like to think of myself as a relatively simple person and I like to project this onto other people. In my mind then, this ought to be a simple matter (I will explain my theories as to why it may not be, but bear with me for now). To figure out if fat is good or bad for you, all that needs to be done is an experiment that controls for any sort of potential confounding variable that tests the hypothesis that fat is good or bad for you. If results are inconclusive, it seems obvious to me that fat is neither good nor bad for someone. This makes me think that there must be ulterior motives -- if there were not ulterior motives, no one would have a reason to create a huge fuss out of something this simple. So what are the motives for stating that fat is bad for someone if it is not... I can think of a few, mostly by calling upon my own prejudices, and one very important one that is not based entirely on my prejudices. I want to list them all anyway just for fun:
Hippies got into doing science and want to be able to say high fat diets (which consists of animal products) are bad for you so that people will stop eating meat and eggs from those poor birdies. Vegetarians want people to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong, because they are self-righteous hipsters, so they want the information to come out in support of them. People for whom low fat diets work think fat people need to practice more self-control and discipline in order to lose weight. Farmers who produce vegetables want people to buy their products instead of animal products (hurt the competition to better oneself). Lastly, people (similar to vegetarians) who believe they are right and who would lose positions of power if they were shown to be wrong don't want information to come out that shows them to be wrong (obviously).
I hope you can understand that the last reason is devoid of my bias. I can understand why someone in such a position of power would behave this way (not that it excuses it). I can even understand the hippies' position even though I disagree with it. But what this amounts to is sufficient reason to create controversy in all levels of society among both lay-people and scholars. Essentially the point I'm trying to make is that nutritionists don't want to say, "Fat is not so bad for you," because if they were to do so, people would react by saying, "Well, what good are you if you didn't tell us this sooner?"
To get back to why this isn't quite so simple is to point out the simple fact that nothing about the way the human body processes food is simple. Especially, doing a long term study of the effects of a particular diet is a daunting task - one that even has moral implications - in addition to practical implications like the prohibitive cost, and the difficulty of controlling for variables (like midnight ice cream binges).
So, to reiterate, we have two big reasons for a difficult question and an apparently unfounded controversy. Namely, to answer "Is fat bad for you?" we first have to consider how difficult it is to study such a thing, and why certain people in positions to study such things may be opposed to it.
Well, after that crazy tangent, I come back to my main point - there is indeed someone who has studied this controversy in relative detail. His name is Gary Taubes (see his blog: http://www.garytaubes.com). I've been reading one of his books, called Why We Get Fat, when I get no-showed by my students at Barnes and Noble on Thursday nights (and after I see them when they actually show up... it's just more fun to complain, amirite). Anyway, his book details something that makes me feel so much better about not being a hipster...
Way back before the internet age, in like the 19th century, there was a pamphlet published called Letter on Corpulence. This pamphlet essentially detailed my diet: high meat, little to no carbohydrates, no beer, and was published in 1863. It tells the story of a man who tried and tried to lose weight and finally, by trying a high-fat diet, managed to do so. As it turns out, it was actually well known that this was the only effective means of controlling weight by diet. Only later on did we recoil from this idea and start trying low-fat diets for weight loss. In other words, the idea of eating high fat is not new, it has only gone out of fashion. So while I can't slip on my hipster glasses as I tell you that I'm a pioneer in the world of eating, I can still tell you that you've probably never heard of it as I sip organic fair trade coffee (which I don't actually like, it just makes me feel better about my carbon footprint - or something like that).
In addition to bringing up the Letter on Corpulence Taubes also reviews mounds of scientific studies that show that, for instance, the American Heart Association's diet doesn't actually produce heart healthy (or even lean) people, and other studies to that effect.
I feel like wrapping this up now, so I'm only going to make a few more closing comments. Taubes makes another point that perhaps the reason we have found it so difficult to understand obesity is because of the tacit prejudices towards the obese. While I don't necessarily like the specifics of his argument, he makes a good point - why is it that we tend to think people only become obese by being lazy or eating too much? I could tell you the sob story of my battle with my weight, but honestly it's not that sad - more aggravating than anything really. Like I said, I'm not really fat, I just would rather be less fat than I am and don't seem to be capable of it because I like food too much. The only thing I've wondered is something like this "Why is it that people who are less active than me and who eat more than me can stay thin, whereas I will get fat if I don't go to the gym 4 days a week and eat nothing but lean fish and green veggies?"
A better question for me to ask is this: "How have I not become morbidly obese?" Not just to say that I haven't always lived healthy, but to consider people in situations similar to mine who have become obese. They didn't become obese because they were more lazy than me -- I'm not even sure that's possible. They didn't become obese because they ate worse than I did. Indeed, by any standard I ate way too many treats and even my ordinary diet was too high in anything everyone will tell you is bad. One would think I ought to be at least be MORE fat than I am, if not obese.
Taubes asks us to consider genetic and hormonal factors, and what affect our diet has on them (and also how the modern diet isn't very good for most people). It brings to mind the question I asked earlier, "What does it mean to say something is healthy anymore?"
I don't feel like detailing input and output today, so I'll skip to food adventures.
On the recommendation of a distant friend, I decided to make a crustless quiche. Now, I know real men don't eat quiche, but this had bacon in it.
4 eggs
1/2 c salted butter, melted
3/4 c milk
4 slices cooked bacon, chopped
2 c shredded cheddar cheese
pepper
thyme
Preheat oven to 450. Mix all ingredients together in a bowl (be careful not to cook eggs in melted butter or with bacon). Bake for 20 minutes uncovered, then cover with foil and cook for 15-20 minutes more (cover sooner if it begins to brown too much).
It was amazing :) Thanks Ashley
Until next time...
*I had to edit a few things in this post because of inaccuracies. My bad!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)