On eating three meals per day

Who created the "rule" that we need to eat three meals per day? At Alternet, Anneli Rufus looks at the history of how we eat. Here's an excerpt:

"There is no biological reason for eating three meals a day," says Yale University history professor Paul Freedman, editor of Food: The History of Taste (University of California Press, 2007). The number of meals eaten per day, along with the standard hour and fare for each, "are cultural patterns no different from how close you stand when talking to people or what you do with your body as you speak. Human beings are comfortable with patterns because they're predictable. We've become comfortable with the idea of three meals. On the other hand, our schedules and our desires are subverting that idea more and more every day," Freedman says.
But there do seem to be benefits to a family eating meals together:
"American parents have a particular kind of guilt about the disappearance of family meals," Freedman says. Perhaps for good reason: A recent University of Minnesota study found that habitual shared family meals improve nutrition, academic performance and interpersonal skills and reduce the risk of eating disorders.

Continue ReadingOn eating three meals per day

Health care and death

Progressive sites are howling at the insensitivity of the Tea Party based on a hypothetical. This is how the conversation went down at a recent Republican debate:

Wolf Blitzer: A healthy 30 year old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides—you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy—I don’t need it. But something terrible happens … all of a sudden he needs it. Who’s going to pay for it if he goes into a coma. Ron Paul – He should do whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself . . . My advise to him is to have a major medical policy . . . Blitzer: But he doesn’t have that and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays? Ron Paul: That’s what freedom is about . . . taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to compare and take care of everybody . . . Blitzer: Are you saying society should just let him die?" [A couple voices in the large crowd shout “Yes!”] Ron Paul: . . . The churches . . . [will help him]
Several things come to mind. The hypothetical was designed to make us not want to take care of this man. After all, if I am working overtime to scrape together huge payments for my family’s health insurance and the man in the hypothetical decides he won’t bother to pay even though he “makes a good living,” my gut feeling is he is trying to cheat the system, which makes me highly ambivalent about him, and much less sympathetic about his terrible situation. How much do I care about this man? I once told a friend of mine that I “cared” about a sad situation, and he said, “No you don’t. If you cared, you would do something to fix the problem and all you’re doing is complaining.” I think he was dead-on with that comment. If we care, we get involved. If we’re merely complaining, we don’t really care, no matter what we say. How do Americans often show they really care? By reaching into their pockets and giving money to the cause. With this in mind, allow me to offer a few of my own hypotheticals. [More . . .]

Continue ReadingHealth care and death

The right foods to eat

Time Magazine has a long article on nutrition tips by TV host Dr. Oz (full article available online only to subscribers).  This article is notable due to its lack of any recommendation regarding fad-food or micro-management (There's no advice like this: for breakfast on Monday, "Eat one egg, half a piece of toast and an apple."). Here are two paragraphs that stood out for me:

This summer a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that it's not just how much food you eat, but which kind, that influences weight gain. After adjusting for age, baseline body mass index and lifestyle factors such as exercise and sleep duration in 120,000 participants, the authors found that the foods most associated with adding pounds over a four-year period were french fries, potato chips, sugary drinks, meats, sweets and refined grains. The foods most associated with shedding pounds were yogurt, nuts, whole grains, fruits and vegetables. But there's more than simple caloric arithmetic at work here. When you sit down to a meal, your brain is looking for nutrients, not calories, and will prod you to eat until you're satisfied. That's one of the many reasons it's harder to push away from a plate of fries or a bowl of ice cream than from a healthier meal of fruits, vegetables, grains and lean meats. A simple matter of digestive mechanics is at work too. High-fiber foods expand in the stomach, slowing digestion and augmenting satiety. That's the reason I try to eat fruit or a handful of nuts prior to a big meal. Consuming a controlled amount of calories from the right kind of food now helps avoid taking in many more calories from the wrong kind later.
Based on ebbs and flows of weight over the year, I will agree that I don't gain weight when I'm eating the good foods listed above, and I DO gain weight when eating the bad foods, especially when combined with lack of sleep and lack of exercise. As I mentioned here, meat is on the defensive these day, problems being a correlation with cancer and diabetes. The following is from Scientific American:
Sugary soda and other sweet treats are likely not the only foods to blame for the surge in diabetes across the U.S. New research out of Harvard University supports the theory that regular red meat consumption increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes. An average of just one 85-gram (three-ounce) serving of unprocessed red meat—such as a medium hamburger or a small pork chop—per day increased by 12 percent the chances a person would get type 2 diabetes over the course of a decade or two. And if the meat was processed—such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon—the risk increased to 32 percent, even though serving sizes were smaller.

Continue ReadingThe right foods to eat

Meat is on the defensive

Today I ate and much enjoyed a hamburger for lunch (it was grass-fed beef, the restaurant said).   I eat burgers about once every two weeks, and I eat chicken quite often. Once in a while someone will offer me a processed meat like hot dogs or bacon, and eat that sort of food about once a month.  I don't buy pork or order it at a restaurant, but if it is offered to me by a host, though, I will gladly eat it. Two years ago I decided that pork would be a meat that I didn't eat, after seeing and hearing a truck full of squealing pigs being taken to slaughter in the middle of Springfield, Illinois.  I eat fake meat about once per week: I typically use the popular brands of veggie burgers and fake sausage sold at the grocery story (such as Morningstar's "burger" patties and "sausage" links).  If you haven't seen these products cooked up, here are some photos. At bottom, I enjoy eating meat, but I'm an ambivalent meat eater, and that ambivalence has been made all the worse with two recent articles I've recently read. One of the articles is by Neal Barnard, M.D., who brings this bad news:

At least 58 scientific studies have looked at the issue, and the jury has rendered its verdict, which is now beyond reasonable doubt. The more hot dogs people eat, the higher their risk of colorectal cancer. And it's not just hot dogs. Any sort of processed meat -- bacon, sausage, ham, deli slices -- is in this group. And here are the numbers: Every 50 grams of processed meat you eat on a daily basis (that's about one hot dog) increases your risk of colorectal cancer by 21 percent. And just as there is no safe level of smoking, no amount of hot dogs, bacon, sausage, ham or other processed meats comes out clean in scientific studies.
I'd like to know more about this study, but if this is accurate, it gives me serious pause about eating hot dogs and other processed food. The other bad news comes from the Environmental Working Group, which warns of the harsh environmental impact of eating meat. Check out the damage caused by meat-eating in the at-a-glance brochure. There is a lot more information here. These brochures also mention studies indicating that high rates of meat eating are associated with high rates of cancer and heart disease. If you'd like to take the first step to cut back on meat eating for yourself and for the planet, here's an easy way to start: Meatless Mondays.

Continue ReadingMeat is on the defensive

Annie Leonard warns us about toxic cosmetics

Well-informed Annie Leonard (The Story of Stuff) is back with a new video on the completely unregulated toxic crap many manufacturers pump into the shampoos and cosmetics we use. The new video is called "The Story of Cosmetics." It's an important story that touches a theme common to all too many of today's tragedies: The unwillingness of the federal government to regulate business that feed large amounts of money into the the campaigns of politicians.

Continue ReadingAnnie Leonard warns us about toxic cosmetics