Grass-Fed Omaha Steaks!

We've talked before about the benefits of grass-fed cattle for our environment, and our health.

We've also talked about our favorite purveyor of meat-through-the-mails, Omaha Steaks. Last year in March we blogged about their introduction of vegetable meal options--a laudable effort (and hopefully a successful one for them). In that post, we also said this:

"… I'd also like to see (Omaha Steaks) offer organic, grass-fed beef and cage-free chicken, etc., choices, too, but maybe we'll get there eventually."

I was only mildly hopeful, given this statement on their website:

"For nearly 100 years, Omaha Steaks has sold grain-fed beef. Simply put, we wouldn't still be successful today if it were not the best way to consistently produce the highest quality and best-tasting steaks on earth."

We all know what that means: factory-farmed meat gives them the best bang for their buck, while meeting the expectations of the beef-buying public on what a steak should look like and taste like.

I should back up a bit. If you've ever ordered anything from Omaha Steaks in your life, you know that that is a high-maintenance relationship. If you gave them your e-mail, they WILL be updating you several times a week with new and tempting bargains. Of course, they'll have your mailing address, so expect packets of full-color and extremely glossy special offers arriving frequently, with pictures so succulent you seriously contemplate eating the paper they're printed on. What you NEVER want to do, fyi, is give them your telephone number. They pestered my 80-something father so badly he stopped answering his phone all together, and has informed my sisters and I that if we are expecting any more styrofoam boxes of meaty goodness from him in the future, we are out of luck. Thanks a lot, Omaha Steaks Pester Department.

I bring this up because recently we received one of those luscious picture packets in the mail, and what did my wondering eyes behold?

Hah! I admit to a slight feeling of satisfaction, as well as being impressed that Omaha Steaks continues to be so responsive to food trends. 

So that's the good news. As with anything else, quality does not come cheap. Click on this image to take a gander at those prices!

click to enlarge

According to The Google, pasture grazed, grass-fed beef is currently going for between $6.50 to $6.75 a pound on average. So by that score, Omaha Steaks' burgers (the fourth selection on the page above) is on sale for $24.99 for four six ounce burgers. That's a total of 24 ounces. There's 16 ounces in a pound, so that's a pound and half, making these burgers cost $16 a pound--quite a mark up over the going rate, and that doesn't even include shipping. Not to mention, if one fails to take advantage of the "bargain" and orders them at the regular price of $59.99, that would make your price per pound rise to, what, $36 a pound? My math skills are punking out on me here, but you get the idea.

Now if you're a bargain shopper, or, if you're a "green" shopper, you're probably not an Omaha Steaks customer anyway, so you aren't feeling my pain.

But you do have to wonder: why does it cost more to let cows eat what they find on the ground than go through the planting, harvesting, milling, and feeding of corn and grain to them?

This article, written by a grass-fed beef farmer, explains it in detail (not for the faint of heart, I might add) but I thought these statements were the most relevant (emphasis mine):

The key to profit in the grain/corn fed beef industry, which operates on extremely low individual margins is volume and speed. 

The sooner an animal can be brought to slaughter weight . . . the higher the volume and hence the greater the profit in the grocery store beef industry. Once placed in a feedlot, hyped up on growth hormones and grain/corn . . . the animal can be pushed to gains of of 3.5 to 5 lbs/day.

Animals finished on our grass pastures gain a natural 1.5 to 2 lbs/day.  While our cattle are still being fed and treated the way God intended, the grain/corn fed cows have already gone to market and the large producers are developing their next group of cattle.

Long story short, grass-fed takes longer, and, as we all know, time is money.

Some people, like Patrick Martins, founder of Heritage Foods USA and Heritage Radio Network, and the co-author of "The Carnivore's Manifesto: Eating Well, Eating Responsibly, and Eating Meat", believe that meat should be expensive, and that if the price were high enough, we would be getting a higher quality, healthier product, with far less negative impacts on the planet. As far as where that leaves those with less ability to pay, he reasons they would just have to eat less meat--not the worst thing in the world for their health, anyway. I understand what he's saying, and I don't even necessarily disagree, but it does sound an awful lot like "let them eat carrots," doesn't it?

Exorbitant prices aside, I think that Omaha Steaks move shows hope for the future. As Americans weaned on Capitalism, we know that supply follows demand. Omaha Steaks is throwing their hat in the grass-fed ring--many more venues have, as well. The demand is going up, and, inevitably, the price will come down (though even when it does, we probably shouldn't be eating all that much meat, anyhow).

Meanwhile, Dad has his own solutions to the price of grass-fed meat:

So stop calling him, Omaha Steaks.

Top Five Books for Eaters of Food

'Tis the season for list making. The "best" of this, the "worst" of that. Usually about events, products, and personages pertaining to the year that's on its way out; in this case, 2015.

This is not one of those.

My list is for all of you who are in the midst of holiday shopping, and maybe you've got someone in your life that has an interest in health and nutrition, weight loss, or just weight management. Now buying diet books as gifts is tricky; you don't want to be like, "Here, I thought you could use this to HELP YOU LOOSE WEIGHT!" That would go over like a lead reindeer, wouldn't it? The cool thing about my list is that these books are tools for learning about more than just dieting. For instance, you won't find a single "21-Day Diet!" type thing here--and there's just one cook book (sorry!). Instead, your friend or relative or co-worker (or, let's be honest, you--you're going to get at least one Barnes and Noble gift card, you know you will) will get a lot more than that.

From each of these five books, you'll learn something new about food, its history, its incredible diversity, and its ever-changing role in culture and health.  And a thing or two about how to eat the right stuff, for you, your family, and your budget.

I didn't pick these books because they are the very best books of their type on the market (though I think they'd easily make that list). I picked them because they are the best books I've read on the subject of food (so far). They influenced me to start this blog, and to be "tuned in" about what I think is the main problem with food today--that it has become "product", and whatever gets that "product" to market looking the best, at the lowest cost, with the highest rate of return, regardless of whether it is even "food" anymore.  I have listed them in the order that I read them, so it's not a case of one being necessarily better than the other in ranking. 

Sick of the preamble? Let's get to the list!

1. COOK THIS, NOT THAT!
by David Zinczenko and Matt Goulding
Why I like it: This is part of a very popular series that I'm sure everyone is familiar with, being, as they are, so ubiquitous that they are for sale in my local Kinkos (??). I like this one in particular because of the simple, easy-to-follow recipes that break down not just the calories, but compare the home made version to what you'd be consuming by having the same meal in a restaurant.

Who it would make a good gift for: A young person, maybe just starting college, or moving out on their own, or anyone who needs a little jump start to stop eating out and learn the benefits of kicking' it in the kitchen. It can guide a beginner through the process of cooking, give tips on how to prepare all the meals of the day including snacks, as well as the aforementioned calorie comparison--a kind of "scared-straight" of calorie counting!
Click here for details.

2. FOOD RULES
by Michael Pollan
Why I like it: This book can fit in your pocket, for one thing. It's a handy-dandy little guide, a "commonplace book," if you will, for the eaters among us. Author Michael Pollan is much more famous for writing probably the seminal work in the world of food and health, "An Omnivore's Dilemma," but I haven't read that yet, so I can't recommend it personally. I can recommend this, though, as a great introduction to healthy eating habits, broken down into quick, bite-sized morsels (natch!). 

Who it would make a good gift for: Someone who is just getting interested in how diet affects health, and wants tips to eating (and feeling!) better.
Click here for more details.

3. FAT CHANCE
by Robert H. Lustig, M.D.
Why I like it: I first learned Dr. Lustig's name watching the documentary "Fed Up!". He impressed me as the person talking who was making the most sense, and who seemed the most knowledgeable about the topic of obesity, its causes, and its dangers. This book follows his experiences as a pediatric endocrinologist and how that led him to, unexpectedly, to become a healthy diet champion. It is a very readable book, written in a warm, self-deprecating yet serious tone. I highly recommend it.

Who it would make a good gift for: If there is someone in your life who has an interest in learning about how food affects health and chronic diseases, this would be a great choice for its in-depth, and possibly life-changing, information.
Click here for more details.

4. EATING ON THE WILD SIDE
by Jo Robinson
Why I like it: This book has it all. Explanations of the origins of the plants we eat, why some plants are better for us than others, and, most helpfully, how to select the best quality fruits and vegetables in the market and how to store them for maximum freshness at home. And, for you gardeners out there, Ms. Robinson supplies lots of info on what seeds to buy and how to cultivate them. This is probably my favorite book on this list.

Who it would make a good gift for: Someone who is ready to dive into the deep end of food, serious about wanting to shop smarter and eat healthier. Also, as mentioned, a good choice for the gardeners in your life.
Click here for more details.

5. THE DORITO EFFECT
by Mark Schatzker
Why I like it: This book is like a culmination of all the others on this list and then some, though it has most in common with "Fat Chance," in that it is focused on the science behind food today (and why that can be a bad thing). It is a great, easy to read examination of that stuff on our grocery shelves, how it got that way, and why we as consumers should be running in the opposite direction.

Who it would make a good gift for: The person who has had enough of commercialized food "product", who no longer accepts that a calorie is a calorie, or who thinks that meals should never come in through the window of a car. With this book, this person is about to achieve a black belt in consumer wisdom.
Click here for more details. 

That list again:

Cook This, Not That!
by David Zinczenko and Matt Goulding

Food Rules, An Eater's Manual
by Michael Pollan

Fat Chance
by Robert H. Lustig, M.D.

Eating on the Wild Side
by Jo Robinson

The Dorito Effect
by Mark Schatzker

That's it! I hope this has been helpful--happy shopping! 

Meatless Wednesday!!

What happens when you don't have a chance to blog about Meatless Monday ON Monday? You just do it on ... Wednesday! After all, it doesn't matter what day of the week you pick to go meatless, except that "Meatless Wednesday" doesn't have quite the same ring.

Now here at Ruth Notes, we advocate for steering clear of processed foods and doing as much of our own cooking as humanly possible. But every once in a while, we get caught needing a meal and not having time to cook. So this post is a tip on how to do not just a cooking work-around, but a meatless cooking work-around.

Spaghetti is an obvious go-to meatless option. Easy to make and lots for left-overs, and especially if you use whole wheat pasta, and a big green salad as a side, a not terrible meal in the health department. But, it does take a while to make, and a certain amount of preplanning, as is true for any kind of cooking. 

I have discovered a nice little secret on the shelf from Barilla called Italian-Style Entrées. They come in many flavors, but I stick to this one, because it is both whole wheat and you guessed it, meatless.

If your goal is to have not just a filling, tasty, meatless meal, but one that manages to be both convenient and not a complete wrong turn for your diet/health, this one's for you. Let's compare its ingredients with the closest thing to it, SpaghetttiOs, that it often is shelved beside. Click on the images to enlarge.

Gallant

Goofus

Yeah, see, this really illustrates the difficulty with the labeling system, I know. SpaghettiOs SEEMS to tell us it has only 170 calories, except that is the number for only one serving. There's two servings in that can, according to someone who has never opened a can of SpaghettiOs. So really there's a total of 340 calories. Pretty sneaky, SpaghettiOs.

Barilla uses no such obfuscation, stating plainly that it has 310 calories in the container. Now, if you compare all the other numbers, Barilla doesn't really measure up that well against its canned cousin. SpahettiOs has less fat, less sodium, and less carbs than Barilla. Hm! Well, my Grandma had a saying about that: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." SpaghettiOs has already tried to pull the wool over our eyes once with its serving size business. Let's look at the top of the nutrients list. 

See that heading, "Amount/Serving"? A slash separating two words is used to indicate the word "per," which is a Latin preposition meaning "for each", as in per capita, for each person, or per diem, for each day. In the case of this label, it means amount per serving. As the FDA explains it (emphasis theirs):

The size of the serving on the food package influences the number of calories and all the nutrient amounts listed on the top part of the label. Pay attention to the serving size, especially how many servings there are in the food package. Then ask yourself, "How many servings am I consuming"? (e.g., 1/2 serving, 1 serving, or more) In the sample label, one serving of macaroni and cheese equals one cup. If you ate the whole package, you would eat two cups. That doubles the calories and other nutrient numbers, including the %Daily Values as shown in the sample label.

It's worth repeating:  If you ate the whole package, you would eat two cups. That doubles the calories and other nutrient numbers, including the %Daily Values as shown in the sample label.

So this can we had thought contained 600 mg of sodium? has 1,200. Total carbs? 70. Total grams of sugar? 22. Two sticks of a Kit Kat candy bar have 21, fyi. The amount of added sugars doctors say children should not exceed in a day? 24.

To be fair, Barilla does have more fat, 4.5 grams to SpaghettiOs 2 grams/can. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Barilla's fat mostly comes from the "good" fat found in olive oil and also healthy sunflower oil. 

Reading through the ingredient lists of each of these choices is quite a study in contrasts. Ingredients are listed in order of quantity. So, this Barilla meal is mostly made up of cooked whole grain penne pasta. SpaghettiOs first ingredient is water. Water is also listed again, after a long list of chemicals, additives, preservatives, and, of course, high fructose corn syrup. Barilla's list contains only items I recognize as food. Refreshing.

Another aspect of Barilla's that I really like is the fact that it is microwaved in one minute. ONE MINUTE. No nuking it for a few minutes, stirring, and putting it back for more. Just pull back the corner, set timer for one minute. For those times when I need to food up and don't want to spend any time or make any mess to do it, this meal really fills the bill. 

The only down-side to these meals, it seems, is the plastic packaging. It's recyclable, at least, and I absolutely admire it's NASA-like engineering. 

These are pricier than a can of SpaghettiOs, around $2.49 in my market vs. a dollar and change for the can. Making your own spaghetti and freezing the left overs is still the best way to go, budget-wise. Barilla would be among the second best choices. But you, SpaghettiOs, are nowhere on my list at. all.

Did I mention that they are really good, too? I stick by my favorite, Tomato & Basil Whole Grain Penne, and Mr. Notes prefers Spicy Marinara Penne, but there are a many flavors to choose from. 

And some of them even have meat, but that's for another day.

Visit the Barilla website for a gander at the choices, and a rather amusing video demonstration of how to cook the meal. 

Liquidated

Everybody knows by now that we should drink 8 glasses of water a day for good health. Water is super great for us, as it helps us absorb nutrients, cushion our bones, and move waste out of the body, among many other benefits. The trouble is, staying hydrated can be a pain. When I read "drink 8 glasses of water a day," all I see is those glasses of water lined up in a row and me thinking, "I can't possibly drink all that in one day."

So it was quite a relief for me to read that this 8 glasses a day thing has been debunked. 

The New York Times:

"Contrary to many stories you may hear, there’s no real scientific proof that, for otherwise healthy people, drinking extra water has any health benefits. For instance, reviews have failed to find that there’s any evidence that drinking more water keeps skin hydrated and makes it look healthier or wrinkle free. It is true that some retrospective cohort studies have found increased water to be associated with better outcomes, but these are subject to the usual epidemiologic problems, such as an inability to prove causation. Moreover, they defined 'high' water consumption at far fewer than eight glasses."

Finally! One less thing to feel guilty about not doing right. What the author, Aaron E. Carroll, a professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, points out, is that most of us get plenty of hydration from the food we eat as well as from what we drink. Fruits and vegetables contain water, for instance. As does any beverage you can think of.

So, we're not stuck drinking plain old boring water anymore, right? Not to rain on that parade (har har) but this infographic I found shows how quickly calories from other choices add up: 

from http://www.entwellbeing.com.au/alcohol/

1,370 calories!? Should have had 0 calorie water, instead!

It's not just the calories, either. It's the caffeine, and the chemicals, and the alcohol, that we're better off without. 

Personally, I think staying on top of one's water consumption is important. It's too easy to go an entire day and at the end of it, realize, "Hey, I'm really thirsty--and I've BEEN really thirsty for A WHILE now." 

So, how DO we keep ourselves properly hydrated throughout the day? I can't vouch for the accuracy of the healthful effects stated here (they do seem a little sketchy), but I think this infographic (below) is a pretty good schedule for keeping on track, nonetheless. 

http://deafseniorsusa.blogspot.com/2013/01/best-times-to-drink-waterfind-out-why.html

The Best "Science" Money Can Buy

Just when you think science has made a definitive statement, it seems like they switch it up on you. First, it's low-fats, then it's no fat, then it's some fats are good, then it's fats are okay, it's sugar that's the problem. Sometimes, these switch-ups are a natural progression of scientific inquiry; as more and better data becomes available, science will, as it must, change its consensus. Confusing for the rest of us, unfortunately, but, at least, it's the result of honest science.

And then there's the other kind. The kind of switch-up that's not made by scientists, and honesty has nothing to do with it. I'm speaking now about a new nonprofit organization called the Global Energy Balance Network, dedicated to creating "balance" in the way we think about diet, disease prevention, and exercise.

The group's vice president, Steven N. Blair, has this to say about its goals:

“Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is, ‘Oh, they’re eating too much, eating too much, eating too much’ — blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks and so on, and there’s really virtually no compelling evidence that that, in fact, is the cause.” 

Uh … No compelling evidence? Doesn't he know that we know exactly how many calories are burned by exercising, and that the damage caused by bad food habits (heart disease, liver disease, etc.) can't be exercised away? Maybe not! Here's a tweet he made recently:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fitness, I'm all for exercise. But to claim it's more important than eating healthy is just plain mind-boggling in this day and age. Where did this Global Energy Balance Network and it's cockamamie ideas come from, anyway?

Maybe the following quotes from a piece in The New York Times can shed a little light on that:

"Coca-Cola, the world’s largest producer of sugary beverages, is backing a new “science-based” solution to the obesity crisis: To maintain a healthy weight, get more exercise and worry less about cutting calories … Coke has made a substantial investment in the new nonprofit [Global Energy Balance Network]. [Coke] had donated $1.5 million last year to start the organization … Since 2008, the company has also provided close to $4 million in funding for various projects to two of the organization’s founding members: Dr. Blair, a professor at the University of South Carolina whose research over the past 25 years has formed much of the basis of federal guidelines on physical activity, and Gregory A. Hand, dean of the West Virginia University School of Public Health."

So an organization supposedly dedicated to improving public health is, in fact, merely a prop, and the professors involved, merely puppets, for a soda giant.

Why the creepy clandestine approach, Coke?

"Health experts say [it is] part of an effort by Coke to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks have played in the spread of obesity and Type 2 diabetes. They contend that the company is using the new group to convince the public that physical activity can offset a bad diet despite evidence that exercise has only minimal impact on weight compared with what people consume."

This sort of behavior by corporations is nothing new, of course. In marketing parlance, it's called having a "front" organization--that's right, just like the mob. Tobacco companies are probably the most notorious for the tactic, frequently using front organizations and doctors to advocate their arguments about tobacco use. One less-than-subtle example:

Click on the image to marvel at the fine print.

It'll be interesting, won't it, to see who comes out of the woodwork to parrot the Global Energy Balance Network's new fitness-over-diet mantra. When you see them, you'll know whose money is in their pocket, and whose best interest they really have at heart.

As for the rest of us, we should feel pretty proud of ourselves. We've been so good at avoiding their products that they've resorted to crazy puppet show theater to lure us back. 

Shame on you, Coca-Cola. Shame on you.

Thanks to Friend of the Blog, Michael, for sending along the NYT article.

New Rules: the FDA Gets Serious About Sugar

Last time, I posted the recipe for my mom's holiday punch. 

I've felt a little guilty about it. 

After all, we're trying not to have things like punch, right? Loaded with sugar and artificial flavorings and colors, it's a little out of keeping with that healthy lifestyle one works so hard to achieve. The thing is, though, it is a treat. Something for a special occasion or holiday, enjoyed maybe once or twice a year. Nobody would make a daily habit out of it. 

Or would they? 

We all consume far more sugar every day than humans ever have, and it's leading to the myriad health problems we increasingly suffer from; diabetes, heart conditions, obesity. One of the ways, it was hoped, we would make better choices about what we eat was the enactment of the nutrition facts labeling system, appearing on packaged food since 1994. However, the illnesses it hoped to reduce since then have only gotten worse.

This month (July, 2015), the Food and Drug Administration has issued a supplemental proposed rule updating the nutrition facts label on food that would, among other things, require declaration of the percent daily value (%DV) for added sugars, as well as change the current footnote on the Nutrition Facts label.

The label on the left is the current label. The one on the right has the proposed changes.

(click on the image to enlarge)

"The Food and Drug Administration wants to make it easier for Americans to track how much added sugars we're getting in the foods and beverages we choose.

So, in addition to a proposed requirement to list amounts of added sugars on the Nutrition Facts panels, the FDA is now proposing that companies declare a daily percent value, too.

What this means is that, instead of just listing the 65 grams of added sugar in that Coke, soda companies would be required to list that it represents 130 percent of the recommended daily intake. In other words, that one bottle contains more added sugar than you should be eating in an entire day." (emphasis mine) Source 

Do these changes have value? Will they help us make better food choices? Are they earth-shakingly brilliant, or are they modest at best? Whatever your opinion, the FDA invites you to share it with them to help guide the development of the new rules. Starting July 27th, and running until Oct. 13th, 2015, you can follow this link to read the full proposal and follow this link to make a comment, suggestion, or constructive criticism, after having read the changes.

This seems like a great idea to me!

I Love Popcorn!

… and I have the book to prove it!

Doubleday and Co., 1976

Yes, I have been a life-long popcorn-aholic, so it was a natural that my mom would get me this book. 

(click on this and each of the pics to enlarge)

She wasn't fooling anybody though--she was also a die-hard popcorn lover. It is, after all, a healthy, low-cal, whole-grain snack, and something she could give to us kids that was fun and that we wouldn't complain about. She even liked it with a little melted butter (yay!) though she would have never approved of the abominations one sees today--caramel popcorn, cheddar cheese popcorn, chocolate-covered popcorn! 

tellin' it like it is in the '70's

My dad was also a popcorn fan, but I'm pretty sure the thing he liked the most about it was making it--especially if it could be over a camp fire, preferably accompanied by the-opposite-of-healthy hot dogs prepared similarly. I would always beg to be allowed to shake the Jiffy Pop aluminum pan; oh how I loved to watch that foil bubble rise … good times.

... heh heh, they'll never catch me ...

This looks so much like me as a kid it's weird (including the bad behavior of sneaking food into bed)! Probably another reason Mom just had to get it for me. Yes, it's a fun book -- chock-full of recipes and activities and the multiple joys of popcorn.

pseudo-me enjoys popcorn on a stick!

To make the most of your popcorn addiction, be sure to steer clear of non-organic popcorn to avoid GMO's, and overly buttery or flavored kinds, because they'll turn a wholesome snack into a diet killer. And, while we're on the "k" word, be careful when selecting microwavable popcorn. Most brands, it turns out, coat the inside of the bag with something called PFOA, a dangerous chemical that leeches into the popcorn as it heats. All hope is not lost, however. Newman's Own Organics doesn't use bags with PFOA's; neither does Quinn Popcorn, Snappy Popcorn, or Jollytime.

I assume good old Jiffy Pop is still safe. I hope so!

The Graham Cracker--Relic of the First Food Revolution

If you're like me, you thought vegetarianism in the U.S. started with the 1960's counterculture, or, at least, in the health food movement of the '70's. It actually began with a nineteenth century Presbyterian minister named Sylvester Graham. He hailed from Connecticut, and he had some mighty powerful convictions about food that seem nothing less than prescient today. 

Rev. Graham,  July 5, 1794 – September 11, 1851

THE PROBLEM
During the early decades of the Industrial Revolution, an important problem was the preservation of flour. It becomes rancid in a matter of months, and when it had to travel sometimes hundreds of miles on muddy, sheep-clogged roads to get to stores and bakeries, it most likely had gone bad by the time it got there. Removing the germ (where the soon-to-be-rancid fatty acids were stored) was a brilliant solution. Without the germ, flour cannot become rancid. Degermed flour became standard. Problem solved!

The degermed flour that was produced was far lighter in weight, and smoother in texture, than whole wheat flour, and was preferred by bakers as less labor-intesive in the making of bread and pastries. The new flour was also far lighter in color as well, producing a slight yellowish shade of white to the dough and resulting products. To improve upon this, bakers typically used additives to achieve the alabaster brightness we still know and love in our grocery aisles today.

This stuff. At our house, we were never allowed to eat this stuff.

What they didn't know then was anything they couldn't see with the naked eye. For instance, removing the natural oils from the whole grain also removes many of the vitamins and nutrients. You know, the "food" part of food. And what do you think the bakers were using to make the bread so white? Typically, alum and chlorine--yum. Today, potassium bromate, azodicarbonamide, or chlorine dioxide gas does the job, so relax! It's fine!

MEANWHILE...
Back in the early nineteenth century, at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, anything made by a machine, or in factories, or in large quantities, was the rage. The American romance with consumerism had begun. The growing middle class demanded ready-made, store-bought goods--why not food, too? White bread became a status symbol of the middle class, and was valued for the "purity and refinement" of its color. Darker wheat bread came to be considered the fare of country rubes, and the less well-to-do.

Enter Rev. Graham. Even though he knew no more about nutrition than anyone else of his time, to him, white bread was the opposite of "pure." He and his followers strongly condemned it as being essentially devoid of nutrition, a claim echoed by nutritionists ever since. Graham believed that a firm bread made of coarsely ground whole wheat flour was more nutritious and healthy, and in 1829, he invented “Graham Bread,” and the recipe first appeared in The New Hydropathic Cookbook (New York, 1855). 

About this time, Graham also invented the "Graham Diet," which consisted mainly of fresh fruits and vegetables, whole wheat and high fiber foods, and excluded meat altogether -- basically modern vegetarianism. Very fresh milk, cheese, and eggs were permitted in moderation, and butter was to be used “very sparingly”. Tea and coffee were verboten; ditto, alcohol.

Graham believed that the way most people were eating was intrinsically unhealthy. That meat products, sugar, honey, and spices, over-stimulated people, and that this excitability lead to alcoholism and excessive sexual desire. He was particularly disturbed by masturbation, which he believed was an evil that lead inevitably to insanity, and, of course, blindness.

He preached that a vegetarian diet was the cure, and spread that gospel every chance he got. In 1837, he had difficulty finding a place to speak in Boston because of threatened riots by butchers and commercial bakers, perhaps proving his point that eating their products made a person excitable, and mentally unstable.

Sure, he looks harmless, but ... !

"Grahamites," as Graham’s followers were called, accepted the teaching of their mentor with regard to all aspects of lifestyle. They practiced abstinence from alcohol, frequent bathing, daily brushing of teeth, vegetarianism, and a generally sparse lifestyle, and, of course, ate a LOT of his graham bread.

Besides vegetarianism, one of the Grahamites’ major contributions to American culture was probably their insistence on frequent bathing, and teeth brushing.

Graham’s doctrines also found later followers in two brothers named Kellogg. Their invention of corn flakes was a logical extension of the Grahamite approach to nutrition.

Oh, and there is one more notable item: the graham cracker, as his graham bread came to be called.

One can only hope that in the great Hereafter, the Rev. Mr. Graham has no idea the abomination we have made of his dietary touchstone.

Really, people?

Stop the Pop! Part lll

Full disclosure: I used to drink a lot of Coca-Cola. A LOT. I didn't grow up drinking it; soft drinks were strictly off limits on our house. Not only was our mom a health fanatic, she was a thrifty health fanatic. Whenever one of us might hint that perhaps having pop around would be kind of awesome, she'd say: "I'm not paying good money for sugar water!" So, naturally, the first thing I did when I moved away was to start drinking Coke, which had grabbed my customer loyalty in my formative years. If there ever was a kid who wanted to be a hippie on a hillside, it was me.

This ad captured not just my imagination, but was an advertising smash; what in today's marketing parlance would be referred to as "Lifestyle Branding." That is, the ad wasn't about the product--fizzy brown sugar water--as much as it was about the experience that the customer could associate with it; it provided consumers with an emotional attachment to a particular lifestyle.

And that was me. Every time I had a Coke, I felt I became all the things the commercial had imprinted on me at a very young age: beautiful, peaceful, independent. Laterally, it also tapped into my always-appealing rebellion against my mom and her rules, and her generation's (in my view) missteps and misdeeds. Pretty silly, isn't it? That all those things could be contained in a bottle of fizzy brown sugar water, straight out of Atlanta, Georgia.

That's where they make it.

Mindfulness means thinking about why we do the things we do. What influences the decisions we make about what we eat and drink? Are they based on emotion? rebelliousness? conformity? economics? politics? Are our children learning to make their own choices, or are their choices being made for them by the bombardment of advertising they see every day?

Our house, where even the toys were vegetables.

The Shamrock Shakes

It's March, the month of extremely unpredictable weather, though with a strategically placed holiday: St. Patrick's Day. Here in America, this has become a day of celebrating the Irish, in the looniest ways possible, but it's only ostensibly about them. It's really about helping us to forget, at least for a day (and a night and a painful morning-after) that Spring, though right around the corner, is still at the end of a very long, cold, miserable street. 

So don't blame the Irish, or St. Patrick, for the abomination that is McDonald's Shamrock Shake.

Now it's rare that you'll indulge in a milkshake and expect it to be anything less than a calorie bomb, double that if you are eating at McDonalds. But there's something special about a dessert that has not just 820 calories in the large (22 ounce) size, but is also home to 54 mostly mysterious ingredients: 

click on the image to enlarge

The maraschino cherry alone has 11 ingredients. 11. Ingredients. In. The. Cherry.

This article from Bamboocorefitness.com goes even farther in-depth, listing every ingredient. and describing what it is and how bad it is for you. By their calculations, there are only 33 ingredients in this science nightmare. I'm not sure, but it may be because they only listed high fructose corn syrup once, whereas the HuffPost graphic lists it every time it occurs throughout the separate elements of the drink. Whatever. I think all reasonable people would agree that 33 or 54, that's still way too many freaking ingredients for a milkshake, especially when the vast majority of those ingredients are dangerous, health-threatening chemicals.

Look, McDonalds, you and I have never really had much of a relationship, so I know I'm not your target audience. What I wonder is, who IS your target audience? Not humans from Earth--I think that much is clear.

FYI: you can't pump us full of chemicals. We're really not made for it. It hurts us, makes us sick, and, over time, kills us. You know, makes us ex-customers. Maybe back on your home world, Carrageenan, things were different. Maybe there, the beings who came through your doors could tolerate the toxic concoctions you serve. Maybe they even thrived on it. But we humans don't; we really, really don't. So please, McDonalds, do the human race a favor: figure out how to put food in your food. Even the desserts. Even the special holiday desserts. Even the St. Patrick's Day desserts, when you think no one can tell the difference anyway. That would be really great, McDonalds.


Thanks to Big Sister Marsha, RN, MSN, for the Bamboocorefitness.com article.