Well, today is Tuesday, and as such marks the end of my two-week moratorium of meaty products. No doubt you are wondering how exactly I got on, much less wondering how I actually survived the two weeks without meat.
In truth, there was no real drastic change in my body and health. Of course, two weeks is too short a time span in terms of effecting any real, noticeable changes. However, I did notice a few subtle things happening here and there, of which I will share with you. These were, to be honest, quite unexpected...but very welcome.
Lack of Halitosis - This was one of the changes I did actually expect, and my expectations were met in spades. For those of you who have never encountered the word, 'Halitosis' is a medical reference to bad breath, particularly if it is chronic. In my case, though I do not have medical halitosis, I have to be blunt: For two weeks, it was brilliant not having breath that smelled like a rotting carcass! Or a bitter, carcass aftertaste for that matter. Over these past two weeks, my breath has been notably improved.
Lack of Gluginess of the Bloodstream - This one needs explanation. Prior to my not having meat for two weeks, one of my main meals that would be consumed between grocery shops would be good ol' hearty nachos (with mince as the main meat). However, in cooking up the mince, it would not be uncommon for me to drain a sizable quantity of fat from the mince (and not the good kind of fat either). I would, of course, have no guarantee that all fat would be drained from the meat. As good as the nachos were, it would - after ingestion - leave me with a feeling of "gluginess"; of feeling that my energy levels were falling, and lethargy were increasing. Since I have not had any of this stuff in my body, I have as a consequence had a lot less glugier bloodstream, which means less clog in the arteries, which means better blood flow, which means better health. Oh, and no lethargic feelings either!
As a final result here, nachos are off the menu for me.
More Energy Overall - I have found that in any given day, I have had an increase in energy to get me through the day. As such, I can do more in a day than I would otherwise have been able to.
As a side issue, when I shared my decision to cut meat out for two weeks, I was retorted with the question of where I would get my Protein intake from. The answer is simple: Eggs. Eggs provide your body with protein volumes that are unrivalled when compared to supermarket-bought and/or factory farmed meats. And the darker the egg yolk, the greater health punch your body receives (and protein is not the only thing you get from eggs; eggs contain a whole smattering of vitamins and minerals that are too many to list here. But needless to say, eggs are prime to add to your diet, barring allergies of course).
As tonight is grocery night, I ask the question to myself: What will I buy in the way of meat products, if any? And of course, what impact will all this have on our average menu in the home? I guess, after tonight, I will find out. But for now, time to log off and write a shopping list.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Juicing For Health
If you own a juicer, then give yourself a major pat on the back. If you do not own a juicer (and I rank among those, so I'll be saving up some cash), then invest in one. A decent juicer will cost around the $150-$200 mark, with some more high-end juicers costing a bit more. A proper juicer takes your fruit and vegetables, and simply extracts from them the juice, separating that from the rest of the produce (which will be referring to as the "pulp"). For this functional reason, I do not count home blenders as juicers, as most blenders typically do not separate the juice from the pulp.
Drinking fresh fruit and vegetable juice - from your own produce - is one of the easiest, most effective ways to get a solid nutritional intake. While you can just simply eat apples, carrots, bananas and the like, there are advantages to juicing rather than simply eating them:
- Juice takes less time to be worked through your body
- You can gain multiple minerals and vitamins from a single juice comprised of combinations of fruit and vegetables, and is more effective than trying to eat a similar plateload of them.
- Because your body is having to work less in extracting what it needs from juice, the body absorbs more of the minerals than if it were not juice
And here's one of the real perks of juicing: After you've downed your juice combo, the leftover pulp can be used either for baking or for composting. Why? Because - hopefully - fruit and vegetables are being juiced, the pulp still has some nutrients within, which can be reaped by making pulp muffins and cakes. Or you can take the pulp and slap it in your garden as a form of compost, thereby not only giving your garden nutrients from the pulp, but your garden will absorb these nutrients into the soil, making for quite an effective - and easy - fertiliser.
If you do not own or have access to a juicer, I would recommend saving up for one. Preferably, buy a juicer with a motor that runs at least 1000 Watts. In any juicer, the motor is the most important component, and the motor will be performing a lot of work juicing all kinds of fruit and vegetables, and some are definitely harder than others (for example, lettuce versus carrots). A juicer with a low motor output (less than about 800 Watts) will break down quicker over time.
However, if you do have a juicer on hand, feel free to sample this simple recipe. If you feel the need for a healthy energy spike, with a bodily detox on the side, try this on for size...
SUPER ENERGY DETOX BLITZ
1 lemon
2 radish
1 beet
1 slice Spanish onion
2 sweet potato
1 celery
2 Tbs. cider vinegar
Happy juicing, and I will let you know the day I get my hands on one myself :)
Rethinking the Heart Foundation Tick
Before you actually read this post, I want to first make one thing clear. If you've been a regular reader and visitor to my blog, then you will probably be aware that I choose my post titles on purpose. This post is by no means different.I also want to make clear (and realising that I am hence making two things clear) that I want you to never take your food at face value! This is perhaps the core essence of this post because, all too often, if we were brutally honest, we tend to fill our trolleys without a second thought. We make our grocery list of things we need for the week or two, and then we simply fill up at the supermarket, apathetically.
What I want you to do...before you continue reading...is to open up to the possibility that we need to properly discern that which we buy, that which we put into our trolleys and - consequently - into our homes. And so I invite - no, challenge you - to take a second look, to make a second thought, about what you put in your trolley.
Right...lengthy intro over. Now onto what I was actually going to write (I hope I haven't lost you at this post. Please, keep reading on).
With winter coming up, soup is usually a good way to fortify our bodies with warmth, taste, and goodness. Tonight was definitely a fresh one...and I had no soup. Now, while I prefer to mix together a homemade vegetable soup, I decided to nip out to the supermarket and get some packet soup. In the end, I came home with two Home Brand five-sachet packs, and one Continental two-sachet pack. The Continental packet had the National Heart Foundation approved tick on the box.
But did that tick really mean that I had made a healthy, nutritional choice?
Unfortunately, not really. And I have to spotlight the why. In the list of ingredients is one particular additive - only one - and surprisingly it's not MSG (E-621). It is in fact E-635, with the following list of 'interesting' effects:
"Mixture of sodium salts of guanylic (E626) and inosinic acid (E630). Check imported foods. May be associated with itchy skin rashes up to 30 hours after ingestion; rashes may vary from mild to dramatic; the reaction is dose-related and cumulative, some individuals are more sensitive than others; typical foods include flavoured chips, instant noodles and party pies. Avoid it, especially gout sufferers, asthmatics and aspirin sensitive people. Banned in Australia." [a]
The last part is very interesting. This additive is banned in Australia. Although the reasons why are not listed (although there may be other sites that will highlight this), it does beg two obvious questions:
(1) Why is it not banned here in New Zealand (or other places for that matter)?
(2) Perhaps more importantly, If it is indeed a banned additive - and banned for good reason - then why does it have a National Heart Foundation approved tick on it?
Sadly, I don't have an answer to any of the two questions. But it does bear out one possible course of action for us: The need to be a tad more diligent with our food choices and purchases. Just because a product carries an endorsement of some kind (such as this example), the central point I am trying to make is that such an endorsement does not automatically guarantee any form of health benefit! In other words, always check your labelling.
Final point to take out of all this: Take ownership of your health and wellbeing, because it is, after all your responsibility, not the Heart Foundation's.
References
[a] MBM Food Additives Guide. http://mbm.net.au/health/guide.htm (accessed April 6 2010, 9:24pm)
Sunday, March 28, 2010
The Cantabrian Reversal!
I think the image says it all, really. But just to be sure, here's the full story behind what I've called The Cantabrian Reversal.For the next two weeks, my wife and I are embarking on a culinary journey, wrought with unknowns, as we discover what it would be like to go without meat for a fortnight. Yes that's right: there exists in New Zealand a pure-bred Cantabrian (myself) who is prepared to slash all beef, Pork and Chicken from the household budget. And as far as eating out is concerned -- no excuse! Should we find ourselves out for dinner, the whole "no meat thing" still applies. If I have latched on to your attention, then please read on.
There are two reasons why we are eschewing meat products from our diet. The first reason is that we want to, well, save a bit of money off of our grocery bill. As a matter of interest, we both sat down one night and worked out how much money we spend on meat per grocery shop (as any good student of math would do). In the end, we calculated that, based on a grocery shop of X dollars, about one quarter (yes, one quarter of X) of our grocery bill is spent on meat. You don't need to be an accountant to realise that a quarter of a grocery bill is a lot of money to be spending. On the basis of economics, this is the first of two reasons.
The second, however, is for health reasons. To invoke common sense, there is nothing to lose by having a crack at a meat-free fortnight. Secondly, as I am quite sceptical over the health quality of our meat industry (for various personal reasons, of which I won't go into here), I genuinely believe that, over the course of this fortnight, we both will see and feel changes to our health and wellbeing -- for the better. I think that meat is actually an inhibitor, rather than a promoter, of good health. And like any good student of science (of which I am), I wish to empirically test this by proposing myself and my wife as test cases of this.
However, I wish to leave a word with my meat-loving pals. I assure you I haven't lost my mind! Rather, I am keenly interested in how a fortnight without meat intake will affect my health and wellbeing. And let's be honest: there is really only one way to find that out. I actually have to live it. I actually have to scrap meat from my diet, and see what happens with my body (both internally and externally).
If you have read this far, and are still genuinely interested, then stick around for two weeks. I'll let you all know how this experiment pans out. And hey -- perhaps you'd like to give it a go for yourself. I'll at least leave that decision in your hands.
I Apparently Return
Well, well, well...it sure has been a long time since I last posted to this blog. I guess before I launch back into the blog, I'll outline the reasons as to why I've been away for so long. Coupled with this will be how my healthy intake (or lack thereof) has been going, as the two are hopelessly intertwined.
University: I'll list the most obvious distraction to my blogosphere first. The fact that I am a student at University, studying Physics and Math (still), one doesn't have to stretch the imagination too far to see how a university workload can sideline somebody.
Motivation: If I had to be honest with myself, although I have for the most part been largely OK, I am aware that lately my motivation has been lower than what it has been. To an extent, this lack of motivation has stemmed from my university commitments; more specifically, when I did summer school (which effectively removed any chance of a real break). However, my lack of motivation hasn't stayed within the realm of university. Over the past few months, I have noticed a general lack of any real motivation and energy for most facets of my life. As a consequence, me blogging has been very sparse, as well as my commitment to nutritional awareness, which brings me to my next bulletpoint.
Health Level: When I first established this blog, I started it with the express purpose to get people thinking about what they eat, and also how they eat. I wanted to get people talking about health and nutrition, and ultimately to get people to question most of the foods that are commercially available today. With all the conflicting advise and clever marketing employed by food companies across the nation (and by extension the world), much of what really constitutes healthy and smart eating and real nutritional awareness has largely been crowded out of the general populace, leaving behind whose marketing can out-entice the consumer world.
However, I have not entirely succeeded as of late, as part of the credibility behind the original (and still current) purpose of this blog rests on how I dictate and model my own health and nutritional awareness. I have to -- regrettably -- admit that I have not been at all close to this. I have over these past few months been putting junk and crap and, for lack of a better word, poison into my system. By 'poison', I do not mean things like drugs or smoke or anything of a narcotic nature. On the contrary, I have been putting through my body poisonous materials like MSG, gross levels of processed sugar via fizzy drinks, deep fried food, other sundry fast foods, takeaway curries...I could go on. On the flip side of the coin, I have not been eating an adequate supply of fruits and vegetables, instead opting for more "convenient" replacements.
In short, I have been incredibly lazy, and this is the essence of the photo at the top of this blog. I have not had the motivation, the drive, or the sheer willpower to have what I should be eating. This does not serve my life well. Nor does it serve this blog well.
But all is not lost and of a depressing bent. I do not write this with the intention of ending on a low note. Instead, I write this blog with the intention to reignite the original passion of nutritional awareness and, once again, to reignite and promote the purpose behind this blog: to get people thinking about what they are putting through their bodies, and what they are putting their bodies through.
So please, watch this space. I do intend to be a lot more frequent with posts here. I certainly intend to return.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Great Artificial Sweetener Debate (Part 2)
DISCLAIMER: This is the second part of these posts. Some content in this part may not make contextual sense without reading the first part. Again, this post is quite lengthy, but stay with me!
Having written up Part 1 to these posts regarding artificial sweeteners, I can only hope you have concluded (or at least thought about the issues) that these aren't worth risking your health over. But if these artificial sweeteners (hereinafter referred to simply as "A.S.") are as bad as they seem, then why on earth do they continue to be manufactured and sold? And more importantly, why do we - the general population - continue to buy them?
There is a multiplicity of issues and reasons as to why these happen, but stick with me, and I'll attempt to list what I believe are the main reasons behind:
Why Companies Use A.S.
We'll kickstart the discussion with this first premise, because intertwined with this is why companies also neglect to mention the dangers of A.S.
For starters, a case in point is Aspartame (951 or E951). Aspartame appears in just about anything that carries the words "diet" and/or "lite". Aspartame is commonly used as the prime sugar substitute, and is in fact up to 200 times sweeter than refined sugar. Aspartame is also relatively cheap to produce, and thus is an easy choice when it comes to using it as a sweetener.
Because it is cheap to produce, it is also a prime choice for companies who utilise A.S. in their products, because let's face it: manufacturing revolves around producing goods as best as possible, with as little cost as possible. It is how basic manufacturing companies survive, because you can produce a LOT of, say, diet soda, from a small sample of Aspartame (owing to its 200 times sweeter than sugar fact).
Unfortunately, the history and inception of Aspartame is a sticky issue at best. It is made stickier because of its supposed "approval" by the FDA, the American equivalent of the NZ Food Safety Authority. And even MORE unfortunate is this mindset: if the "superiors" label it as safe, then I guess it IS safe. Nothing could be further from the truth!
The checkered history of Aspartame can be examined by looking at the relationship between the FDA and Monsanto, the company that created Aspartame. Consider the following:
"Of the 90 non-industry-sponsored studies, 83 (92%) identified one or more problems with aspartame. Of the 7 studies which did not find a problems, 6 of those studies were conducted by the FDA. Given that a number of FDA officials went to work for the aspartame industry immediately following approval (including the former FDA Commissioner), many consider these studies to be equivalent to industry-sponsored research.
"Of the 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies, all 74 (100%) claimed that no problems were found with aspartame. This is reminiscent of tobacco industry research where it is primarily the tobacco research which never finds problems with the product, but nearly all of the independent studies do find problems."[1]
I would hazard a guess and say that most kiwis don't know about the above. We generally don't know because such reports are shielded from the public gaze. In short, if the public knew what A.S. could do to the human body, most companies whose incomes rely on the manufacture and sale of A.S. would crumble. So, under the protection of the FDA, the real truth is suppressed. And we, the unsuspecting public, continue to poison ourselves.
Aspartame, sadly, is big business in the diet industry, and because A.S. products continue to sell, companies continue to manufacture. This leads onto the second bullet point.
Why Consumers Continue To Buy
When people decide to go on a diet, generally the first thing to go is sugar consumption. And naturally, people then ask themselves what to have as a sugar substitute. And A.S. are the first and last port of call for overwhelming numbers of dieters. Why do people do this? Let's explore that very theme.
One such mindset in the general populace is that anything is good in moderation. In other words, if I have too much of a given food or drink, then I'm in danger. But if I have only enough without going over the boundaries, then I am safe. There are a number of problems with this reasoning, as you will soon see.
Consider this case in point. Consider a university student, who wants to graduate with an undergraduate degree (say, a BA). But he doesn't want to do too much study, because he still wants to maintain something of a "life". So the students, under the maxim of "C's get degrees", does just enough work in order to pass his chosen courses, with the barest, minimum pass possible.
Now, no student worth their salt would believe that (I hope they don't, anyways). A student serious about passing their courses and graduating with a BA or whatever choice of study, will do whatever it takes to clinch the best possible pass they can get! For me, I'd love to grab myself an A+ in any of my courses, but even if I don't get an A+, must that mean I stop trying my absolute best? Of course not!
In a roundabout way, most dieters operate under the "C's get degrees" mindset. A dieter will generally do just enough in order to stay under a certain weight, to consume just enough calories without going over the limit.
There is another problem however. Suppose a dieter DOES go the extra mile and stays well under the limit for a given thing. This is definitely a good thing, but the problem then comes with what I like to call the "Bankers Mentality". In other words, if somebody wants to lose 5kg but instead loses 10kg, that person would think that the extra 5kg loss somehow entitles them to celebrate by pigging out on the very foods they were cutting out. In other words, the person made a hefty deposit, and therefore believes they are entitled to a hefty withdrawal from the bank account of dieting.
This is an unfortunate and unhealthy mindset to have when dieting or striving for better health, because it actually promotes unhealthy habits. Think about it: if someone strove to shed more weight than necessary because it gave them the obligatory right to a custard square or a cream bun, then that would actually undo all that healthy activity and dieting. It would be like a dieter going for a 5km run, only to come home and eat a couple of chocolate bars. Those choc bars would undo all that hard slog.
I believe that, for dieting to be a true success, we must shed from our minds this compulsion to eat or drink whatever we like, owing to going the extra mile. If you are someone who goes the extra mile in dieting, PLEASE DON'T UNDO YOUR HARD WORK! Ask yourself this: after a days dieting, do you REALLY think it is compulsory to eat that cream bun? Or drink that sugary substance?
if you really feel you require some sort of reward, there is NOTHING wrong with good ol' water! A reward doesn't have to have a sweet taste or fancy colours in order to qualify as a reward object. If you believe you need a biscuit, why not slice up some fruit and eat that instead? I'll say it again: YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A NON-DIET FOOD. You only want to have that non-diet food. Can you see the difference?
A Third Alternative
At this point, people may be thinking they only have two choices available to them: Sugar or A.S. The answer is that that isn't the case. There is always more than one choice. For example, if you had to decide between Coke and Coke Zero, choose Water. There is absolutely nothing wrong with water. Nobody chooses water because nobody wants to.
But seriously, between sugar and A.S. there is in fact another alternative, one that manufacturers don't want you to know about. It is an alternative that the FDA blacklisted for many years, because it posed (and still poses) a challenge to artificial sweeteners. This alternative is also 200 times sweeter than sugar when in powder form (around 30 times when in herb form), AND IS NOT MADE FROM ARTIFICIAL CHEMICALS! This alternative is 100% natural, and also contains some healthy benefits when consumed.
I'm talking about a product called Stevia. Ever heard of it?
Consider this: Japan is a country that enjoys some of the longest life spans in the developed world. Japan is also a country that uses Stevia in nearly everything that requires a sugar substitute. Does this sound like a coincidence? I for one am inclined to think it is not.
Conversly, most countries in the western world, although affluent, experience higher rates of depression and cognitive and degenerative disease (your America's, Europe's, etc). These same countries are also leading producers and consumers of artificial sweeteners. I'll leave you to do the math on that one.
Believe me, if you want a healthy sugar substitute, and you feel that you need to have some kind of sweet stuff in your diet, then Stevia is by far your best choice. If you have never heard of it before, do not be surprised. For decades, A.S. have been promoted (dubiously) by food and drug authorities, over and against all the other, healthier alternatives. If this is the first time you have ever heard of Stevia, it is mainly because A.S. companies don't want you to know about it. Stevia would cut into their sales, providing a formidable competitor for your diet dollars. But because of the cloak-and-dagger methods employed by the FDA in its history, A.S. have become entrenched in the public consciousness, and A.S. companies would like it to remain that way.
Of course, weight loss companies that promote the use of foods and drinks that contain A.S. are unlikely to speak out against their use, because the weight loss programs are more or less controlled by the sales of these goods, and thus to speak out against the use of A.S. would cut into their own finances. Most companies are unlikely to slit their own throats, so in order to continue making the money, they continue selling the products, irrespective of the damage they cause.
On the other hand, weight loss companies are distributing A.S. goods, probably unaware of the damage they actually cause. Hence the need for independent people to sit down and dig deep in order to find out about A.S., and thus raise the public awareness. This is the reason blogs like mine exist.
Oh, and if you don't believe me re anything about A.S., then allow me to present to you a challenge. Cut out of your diet completely anything that contains an artificial sweetener. Try it for a month. Hell, try it for two months, replacing it with stuff like fruit, veges and water. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with the basics of fruit and water, but for most people, simply eating fruit and drinking water is boring. Tell me, when did the state of your health become dictated by what was exciting?
Sure, for most, it may be boring...but it sure is good!
The challenge has been laid out. Who will accept?
Notes:
[1] http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/100.html (August 14, 2009 - emphasis added)
Having written up Part 1 to these posts regarding artificial sweeteners, I can only hope you have concluded (or at least thought about the issues) that these aren't worth risking your health over. But if these artificial sweeteners (hereinafter referred to simply as "A.S.") are as bad as they seem, then why on earth do they continue to be manufactured and sold? And more importantly, why do we - the general population - continue to buy them?
There is a multiplicity of issues and reasons as to why these happen, but stick with me, and I'll attempt to list what I believe are the main reasons behind:
- Why companies continue to manufacture A.S.
- Why consumers (like yourself) continue to buy them.
Why Companies Use A.S.
We'll kickstart the discussion with this first premise, because intertwined with this is why companies also neglect to mention the dangers of A.S.
For starters, a case in point is Aspartame (951 or E951). Aspartame appears in just about anything that carries the words "diet" and/or "lite". Aspartame is commonly used as the prime sugar substitute, and is in fact up to 200 times sweeter than refined sugar. Aspartame is also relatively cheap to produce, and thus is an easy choice when it comes to using it as a sweetener.
Because it is cheap to produce, it is also a prime choice for companies who utilise A.S. in their products, because let's face it: manufacturing revolves around producing goods as best as possible, with as little cost as possible. It is how basic manufacturing companies survive, because you can produce a LOT of, say, diet soda, from a small sample of Aspartame (owing to its 200 times sweeter than sugar fact).
Unfortunately, the history and inception of Aspartame is a sticky issue at best. It is made stickier because of its supposed "approval" by the FDA, the American equivalent of the NZ Food Safety Authority. And even MORE unfortunate is this mindset: if the "superiors" label it as safe, then I guess it IS safe. Nothing could be further from the truth!
The checkered history of Aspartame can be examined by looking at the relationship between the FDA and Monsanto, the company that created Aspartame. Consider the following:
"Of the 90 non-industry-sponsored studies, 83 (92%) identified one or more problems with aspartame. Of the 7 studies which did not find a problems, 6 of those studies were conducted by the FDA. Given that a number of FDA officials went to work for the aspartame industry immediately following approval (including the former FDA Commissioner), many consider these studies to be equivalent to industry-sponsored research.
"Of the 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies, all 74 (100%) claimed that no problems were found with aspartame. This is reminiscent of tobacco industry research where it is primarily the tobacco research which never finds problems with the product, but nearly all of the independent studies do find problems."[1]
I would hazard a guess and say that most kiwis don't know about the above. We generally don't know because such reports are shielded from the public gaze. In short, if the public knew what A.S. could do to the human body, most companies whose incomes rely on the manufacture and sale of A.S. would crumble. So, under the protection of the FDA, the real truth is suppressed. And we, the unsuspecting public, continue to poison ourselves.
Aspartame, sadly, is big business in the diet industry, and because A.S. products continue to sell, companies continue to manufacture. This leads onto the second bullet point.
Why Consumers Continue To Buy
When people decide to go on a diet, generally the first thing to go is sugar consumption. And naturally, people then ask themselves what to have as a sugar substitute. And A.S. are the first and last port of call for overwhelming numbers of dieters. Why do people do this? Let's explore that very theme.
One such mindset in the general populace is that anything is good in moderation. In other words, if I have too much of a given food or drink, then I'm in danger. But if I have only enough without going over the boundaries, then I am safe. There are a number of problems with this reasoning, as you will soon see.
Consider this case in point. Consider a university student, who wants to graduate with an undergraduate degree (say, a BA). But he doesn't want to do too much study, because he still wants to maintain something of a "life". So the students, under the maxim of "C's get degrees", does just enough work in order to pass his chosen courses, with the barest, minimum pass possible.
Now, no student worth their salt would believe that (I hope they don't, anyways). A student serious about passing their courses and graduating with a BA or whatever choice of study, will do whatever it takes to clinch the best possible pass they can get! For me, I'd love to grab myself an A+ in any of my courses, but even if I don't get an A+, must that mean I stop trying my absolute best? Of course not!
In a roundabout way, most dieters operate under the "C's get degrees" mindset. A dieter will generally do just enough in order to stay under a certain weight, to consume just enough calories without going over the limit.
There is another problem however. Suppose a dieter DOES go the extra mile and stays well under the limit for a given thing. This is definitely a good thing, but the problem then comes with what I like to call the "Bankers Mentality". In other words, if somebody wants to lose 5kg but instead loses 10kg, that person would think that the extra 5kg loss somehow entitles them to celebrate by pigging out on the very foods they were cutting out. In other words, the person made a hefty deposit, and therefore believes they are entitled to a hefty withdrawal from the bank account of dieting.
This is an unfortunate and unhealthy mindset to have when dieting or striving for better health, because it actually promotes unhealthy habits. Think about it: if someone strove to shed more weight than necessary because it gave them the obligatory right to a custard square or a cream bun, then that would actually undo all that healthy activity and dieting. It would be like a dieter going for a 5km run, only to come home and eat a couple of chocolate bars. Those choc bars would undo all that hard slog.
I believe that, for dieting to be a true success, we must shed from our minds this compulsion to eat or drink whatever we like, owing to going the extra mile. If you are someone who goes the extra mile in dieting, PLEASE DON'T UNDO YOUR HARD WORK! Ask yourself this: after a days dieting, do you REALLY think it is compulsory to eat that cream bun? Or drink that sugary substance?
if you really feel you require some sort of reward, there is NOTHING wrong with good ol' water! A reward doesn't have to have a sweet taste or fancy colours in order to qualify as a reward object. If you believe you need a biscuit, why not slice up some fruit and eat that instead? I'll say it again: YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A NON-DIET FOOD. You only want to have that non-diet food. Can you see the difference?
A Third Alternative
At this point, people may be thinking they only have two choices available to them: Sugar or A.S. The answer is that that isn't the case. There is always more than one choice. For example, if you had to decide between Coke and Coke Zero, choose Water. There is absolutely nothing wrong with water. Nobody chooses water because nobody wants to.
But seriously, between sugar and A.S. there is in fact another alternative, one that manufacturers don't want you to know about. It is an alternative that the FDA blacklisted for many years, because it posed (and still poses) a challenge to artificial sweeteners. This alternative is also 200 times sweeter than sugar when in powder form (around 30 times when in herb form), AND IS NOT MADE FROM ARTIFICIAL CHEMICALS! This alternative is 100% natural, and also contains some healthy benefits when consumed.
I'm talking about a product called Stevia. Ever heard of it?
Consider this: Japan is a country that enjoys some of the longest life spans in the developed world. Japan is also a country that uses Stevia in nearly everything that requires a sugar substitute. Does this sound like a coincidence? I for one am inclined to think it is not.
Conversly, most countries in the western world, although affluent, experience higher rates of depression and cognitive and degenerative disease (your America's, Europe's, etc). These same countries are also leading producers and consumers of artificial sweeteners. I'll leave you to do the math on that one.
Believe me, if you want a healthy sugar substitute, and you feel that you need to have some kind of sweet stuff in your diet, then Stevia is by far your best choice. If you have never heard of it before, do not be surprised. For decades, A.S. have been promoted (dubiously) by food and drug authorities, over and against all the other, healthier alternatives. If this is the first time you have ever heard of Stevia, it is mainly because A.S. companies don't want you to know about it. Stevia would cut into their sales, providing a formidable competitor for your diet dollars. But because of the cloak-and-dagger methods employed by the FDA in its history, A.S. have become entrenched in the public consciousness, and A.S. companies would like it to remain that way.
Of course, weight loss companies that promote the use of foods and drinks that contain A.S. are unlikely to speak out against their use, because the weight loss programs are more or less controlled by the sales of these goods, and thus to speak out against the use of A.S. would cut into their own finances. Most companies are unlikely to slit their own throats, so in order to continue making the money, they continue selling the products, irrespective of the damage they cause.
On the other hand, weight loss companies are distributing A.S. goods, probably unaware of the damage they actually cause. Hence the need for independent people to sit down and dig deep in order to find out about A.S., and thus raise the public awareness. This is the reason blogs like mine exist.
Oh, and if you don't believe me re anything about A.S., then allow me to present to you a challenge. Cut out of your diet completely anything that contains an artificial sweetener. Try it for a month. Hell, try it for two months, replacing it with stuff like fruit, veges and water. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with the basics of fruit and water, but for most people, simply eating fruit and drinking water is boring. Tell me, when did the state of your health become dictated by what was exciting?
Sure, for most, it may be boring...but it sure is good!
The challenge has been laid out. Who will accept?
Notes:
[1] http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/100.html (August 14, 2009 - emphasis added)
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Great Artificial Sweetener Debate (Part 1)
DISCLAIMER: This is quite a lengthy post, but I do encourage you to properly read it from start to finish.
The NZ government, and perhaps most western governments around the world, have been expressing a grave concern over what has been dubbed the "Obesity Epidemic". It appears that the population in general is growing, well, wider. Growing so much, in fact, that governments are noticing this and are attempting to publicise ways to combat this epidemic, and thus hopefully result in a healthier, "thinner" populace. One such initiative is to get people to "Push Play"; to get people off their seats and into the outdoors doing some form of exercise.
This is a good drive - but in my opinion, there is something more foundational that needs to be established firmly, if exercise is to succeed. That "something" is a person's food and drink intake.
Now, as I mentioned in an earlier post (my first one, I think), I admitted to being somewhat of a couch potato. Not the stereotypical channel-surfer mind you, but being a student I spend a lot of time either in front of a computer, or at a table. Books out, pens and paper out. Y'know, general studying. And as you can imagine, my time spent doing study seems to overshadow any such time that I could use for exercising my body.
This is the angle that the government is looking at, in order to curb the obesity levels that are running rampant throughout the populace. And because of this, people are - as a spinoff from this - looking at what they put into their bodies. And when it comes to food and drink choices, people tend to substitute what they would "usually" purchase for a "diet" or "lite" option, because of its low-to-no sugar (and possibly fat) content.
BAD IDEA!!!!
There is a mindset within wider society that if Joe Bloggs goes out and buys diet coke, or whatever "diet"/"lite" food and drink options are out there, then said Joe Bloggs is consuming less calories, less sugars, and therefore is putting on far less weight and thus keeps a trim figure. Have you ever thought that of diet foods and drinks?
You might ACTUALLY be surprised to know that these diet options are perhaps what has been contributing to the obesity epidemic. Have you ever thought of that?
The following is an excerpt by Mike Geary, a Certified Personal Trainer and Nutrition Specialist, who has written a brilliant no-spin article on artificial sweeteners. I am posting his article verbatim, because Geary explains them way better than I could.
- - - - -
The NZ government, and perhaps most western governments around the world, have been expressing a grave concern over what has been dubbed the "Obesity Epidemic". It appears that the population in general is growing, well, wider. Growing so much, in fact, that governments are noticing this and are attempting to publicise ways to combat this epidemic, and thus hopefully result in a healthier, "thinner" populace. One such initiative is to get people to "Push Play"; to get people off their seats and into the outdoors doing some form of exercise.
This is a good drive - but in my opinion, there is something more foundational that needs to be established firmly, if exercise is to succeed. That "something" is a person's food and drink intake.
Now, as I mentioned in an earlier post (my first one, I think), I admitted to being somewhat of a couch potato. Not the stereotypical channel-surfer mind you, but being a student I spend a lot of time either in front of a computer, or at a table. Books out, pens and paper out. Y'know, general studying. And as you can imagine, my time spent doing study seems to overshadow any such time that I could use for exercising my body.
This is the angle that the government is looking at, in order to curb the obesity levels that are running rampant throughout the populace. And because of this, people are - as a spinoff from this - looking at what they put into their bodies. And when it comes to food and drink choices, people tend to substitute what they would "usually" purchase for a "diet" or "lite" option, because of its low-to-no sugar (and possibly fat) content.
BAD IDEA!!!!
There is a mindset within wider society that if Joe Bloggs goes out and buys diet coke, or whatever "diet"/"lite" food and drink options are out there, then said Joe Bloggs is consuming less calories, less sugars, and therefore is putting on far less weight and thus keeps a trim figure. Have you ever thought that of diet foods and drinks?
You might ACTUALLY be surprised to know that these diet options are perhaps what has been contributing to the obesity epidemic. Have you ever thought of that?
The following is an excerpt by Mike Geary, a Certified Personal Trainer and Nutrition Specialist, who has written a brilliant no-spin article on artificial sweeteners. I am posting his article verbatim, because Geary explains them way better than I could.
- - - - -
I wanted to talk about artificial sweeteners today because I've noticed that there's a lot of confusion and misconceptions revolving around these non-caloric sweeteners. Artificial sweeteners and the huge list of products sweetened with them are marketed to you relentlessly as "healthy foods" or "healthier" than sugar or corn syrup sweetened products. But are they really?
Just to clarify, some of the most popular artificial sweeteners on the market today are:
Splenda (sucralose)
Aspartame
Saccharine
Acesulfame Potassium (aka - acesulfame K)
These artificial sweeteners are used in abundance in almost every "diet" drink, "lite" yogurts, puddings, and ice creams, most "low-carb" products, and almost all "reduced-sugar" products. Heck, even most protein powders are loaded with artificial sweeteners too (just look on the ingredients and you'll usually see one or more of them).
Splenda is probably one of the worst offenders of claiming to be "healthy" as they say that it's made from real sugar. Don't be fooled! It's still an artificial substance. What they don't tell you is that Splenda is actually a chemically modified substance where chlorine is added to the chemical structure, making it more similar to a chlorinated pesticide than something we should be eating or drinking.
The truth is that artificial sweeteners are not even close to being healthy, and as you'll discover in a minute, can easily be just as bad for you, if not worse, than sugar or corn syrup. Most people think that they are doing something good for themselves by choosing the "diet" drinks or "lite" yogurts compared to the sugar-laden versions, but the problem is that you're exposing yourself to a whole new set of problems with the artificially sweetened drinks and foods.
I know you're probably frustrated by all of the contradicting messages you hear each day about which foods are good for you and which are bad. I'm sure just today you probably saw some clever ad or commercial somewhere screaming health benefits for a food product that is loaded with artificial sweeteners. Don't worry.
Just stick with me and I'll get past the marketing hype for you and decipher the truth. I'll also give you some ideas for great alternatives to artificial sweeteners as well as alternatives to sugar or corn syrup sweeteners.
The fact is, artificial sweeteners vs. sugar or corn syrup is really just a battle between two evils. Which evil is worse?
I'm sure you already know the problems with sugar or high fructose corn syrup sweetened products. The excess empty calories, blood sugar spike, and resulting insulin surge this creates in your body not only promotes fat gain, but also stimulates your appetite further, making things even worse.
On the other hand, artificial sweeteners save you calories, but there's growing evidence that they can increase your appetite for sweets and other carbohydrates causing you to eat more later in the day anyway. Therefore, you don't really save any calories at all. Also, studies have shown that artificial sweeteners can stimulate high insulin levels in your body too, which again can promote fat storage.
All of the 4 artificial sweeteners listed above are nasty chemicals that the human body is simply not meant to ingest. However, most of us are ingesting a whole lot of these chemicals on a daily basis. Aside from the problems I touched on so far, other health issues that have been related to artificial sweeteners in scientific studies as well as observations are:
- some have been linked to potential cancer risks
- negative effects on the liver, kidneys, and other organs
- stimulating cravings
- gastrointestinal problems
- developmental problems in children and fetuses
- headaches
- and too many more issues to list
Now some of the above potential health problems are definitely not proven as fact in studies. However, some of them have been shown in animal studies given high doses. Regardless of the fact that any real health problems for actual human use are not proven yet, I don't know about you, but I'd rather protect myself and steer clear of these possibly dangerous artificial chemicals.
Of course, despite all of the health issues potentially associated with artificial sweeteners, the companies that sell the products will continue to claim that they are fully safe and they have studies that prove that they are safe. The bottom line is that the body was not designed to deal with foreign substances like artificial sweeteners. Take my word on that one.
- - - - -
I will finish at this point, but in the very near future I will write a Part 2 to this post, because one of the main problems with artificial sweeteners is that there are as many viewpoints re their safety as there are people! In other words, who do you ultimately listen to when it comes to artificial sweeteners? Industries may tell you one thing, and doctors may tell you another, and so on. This is further complicated by the fact that there is no uniform decision regarding artificial sweeteners, and thus they continue to be marketed.
For now, before I write a Part 2, let me say that you are far better off without artificial sweeteners. And if you wish to avoid ingesting them, look out for these particular ones, by name and by number (where the E stands for Emulsifier, and may not necessarily appear in the ingredients list; the number by itself means the same thing). These ones appear more frequently in the marketplace:
- Phenylalanine
- Acesulphane potassium (aka Acesulphane K - E-950)
- Aspartame (E-951 and E-962)
- Sodium Saccharin (E-954)
- Sucralose (E-955 - also known as Splenda)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
