Superfood showdown: Quinoa VS Lentils

Quinoa.  Claimed superfood. A sacred crop of ancient Inca culture.

The United Nations declared 2013 the "International Year of Quinoa".

Hailed by endurance athletes for improving performance, with tall tails of how just one handful of the ancient grain can propel you for hours, as it did the Inca's.  Not really.. as one handful of quinoa is about 90 calories (depending on how big your hand is).  That's enough calories to get me about ½ a kilometre (0.8 miles). So, not a miracle endurance food.. such a thing doesn't exist.

It's easy to cook, tastes great, and goes with pretty much everything.

Ok.  What about lentils?  I haven't seen any advertising for lentils, the "superfood".

The hipsters and "clean eaters" aren't into lentils like they are quinoa.  Poor lentils, they're just not hip enough.  At a mere one tenth the cost of quinoa they're just not expensive enough to be posh like quinoa.

 With archaeological evidence showing lentils were part of the human diet nearly 13,000 years ago (about 6000 years before quinoa shows up in our diet), it looks like these little pulses could be assigned even more "ancient" mythical greatness than quinoa.  Looks like the soothsayers who push the idea of "superfoods" magical powers missed an opportunity to bamboozle folks with how lentils are even more ancient that quinoa.

Apparently lentils are blessed by seventy prophets of varying religions, including the big two; Jesus and Mohammed.  Can I get a hallelujah or a Allahu Akbar? How about a praise Saturn, ancient Roman god of a bunch of stuff, including agriculture.

Take that, quinoa.

Cooking time is similar between quinoa and lentils (about 10 - 15 minutes), even less for red lentils.

Witticisms aside, quinoa and lentils are great choices for easily prepared very nutrient dense foods.  Don't let the hype behind quinoa convince you it's something it can't be (magical), and don't let the lack of attention to lentils prevent you from adding them to your healthy diet.

I buy both, and use them interchangeably. I definitely like the price of lentils more. Lentils can go a long way to providing you and your family with good wholesome nutrition while costing literally pennies per serving.

According to wikipedia, Canada is the number one lentil producing country in the world, most of which is exported.

Support Canada! Eat lentils.

Or maybe eat lentils because they're an inexpensive, very nutrient dense, great tasting and versatile food.

The amino acid score for quinoa is slightly better than for lentils, but lentils have about twice the total protein.  If your diet is balanced and you have good variety, you won't be depending on any one food to meet all your protein or other nutrient needs anyway, so nit picking at specific nutrient strengths and weaknesses between comparable foods is a waste of time.

Take a look for yourself.. Lentils come out very favourably. Don't like the price of quinoa? Buy lentils.  You won't be selling yourself short.

Below are the calories and nutrients in one cup of cooked lentils and quinoa. Data from nutritiondata.com.   Links to nutrition data full page below as well.

Claims of quinoa being a super endurance energy food are totally false.  Any starch carbohydrate source will provide an energy source.  Sweet potato, potato, rice, pasta, beans, oatmeal.. take your pick.  The lentils and quinoa deliver more vitamins and minerals per serving, but the others also have nutritional strengths, and energy density is very similar between all of them.  Mix it up.

Whenever I hear claims for tremendous health or performance outcomes from eating "superfoods", I have a cough reflex.  You know, where you muffle saying "bullshit!" while coughing?

In my view the phrase "superfood" is sensationalism, marketing puffery, and typically used by self-proclaimed guru's and diet experts who are ultimately trying to sell some kind of diet or supplement, or food product, or just trying to sell themselves as having extra special insightful secrets that others "don't want you to know".

Nutrient dense foods have enough going for them that's legitimate, no need to make exaggerated claims.  It's true that making the switch from a chronically poor diet to a healthy diet can make a very significant difference in the health and wellbeing of an individual, but it's not true that eating quinoa instead of lentils  (or the other way around) will make a significant difference in ones health.  Or eating kale instead of spinach for that matter.  If you already eat healthy and cover all your nutrient needs through a variety of whole foods, having a kale and blueberry smoothie will not give more energy than something else of equivalent calorie value, and won't cause you to sleep better, or run further, nor will it prevent disease.

I'm not saying never drink a kale - blueberry smoothie. . . I'm saying don't put misguided faith into such things delivering a special and significant health or performance benefit that is better than an otherwise already healthy diet.

The better quality of life comes from the combination of good sleep, varied diet (we need the variety because no single food covers all our needs), and healthy exercise, not from a single "superfood" or super smoothie or whatever.

Don't feel torn between posh quinoa and street-cred lentils.  There is no real dichotomy, no special reason to choose one over the other (unless you have an allergy to one).

Lentils and quinoa are better choices than junk food though.

Lentils

Quinoa

Cooked Lentils

Cooked Lentils

Cooked Quinoa

Cooked Quinoa

Orthorexia; When healthy eating becomes an obsession

Can't seem to get enough kale? Reading every food label to make sure there's no gluten in what you're eating, even though you don't have celiac disease?  Is "clean" eating on your mind a lot?   Like, more than three hours a day?

I have a friend with an allergy to sunflower seeds.  He's careful with avoiding the seeds so he doesn't have an allergic reaction, which I've seen him go through when a restaurant meal had some of the offenders in it.

Another person I know has colitis and has to avoid certain foods that trigger a crappy reaction.  A year ago I was diagnosed with acid reflux (GERD) and mild Barrett's esophagus, so I've had to change what I eat, as well as when I eat (last food intake is many hours before bed) to reduce acid reflux.

There are legitimate reasons for people to be fairly concerned about avoiding eating certain foods, (like gluten if you're a celiac), and it's a good idea to think reasonably about getting the nutrients and energy you need from your diet.

Orthorexia, Greek- (ortho, "right, or "correct"), and (orexis, "appetite"), is when people develop an unhealthy obsession with eating healthy.

Seems difficult to find a portion of the population not affected by either chronic overeating, or now another segment who have the same or similar emotional issues with food (food is a reward, and unhealthy reward seeking eating habits ensue), but take the healthy eating idea too far.

This term was first coined by Dr. Steven Bratman in 1997.  Orthorexia disordered eating is recognized as a thing, but hasn't yet achieved the full "eating disorder" clinical definition as of yet.

There are some interesting scenarios that have a person leaning towards justifying their obsessiveness with healthy choices, the main one being that healthy choices are typically.. healthy.

It's a good thing to avoid ultra crappy typical restaurant meals that are 1000 calories and have enough fat for the whole day in one meal, and enough sodium for three or four days, yet not enough of the vitamins and minerals you need.

It's true that there aren't very many restaurants that serve a half decent healthy meal, so a person who is genuinely practicing balanced healthy eating, or has a real food allergy or sensitivity is likely to end up not eating out very much.

However, one of the possible signs of orthorexia is an obsessive avoidance of restaurants for fear of not being able to have complete control over perceived "clean" eating.  Do you have orthorexia because you avoid restaurants typical crap food? Or, are you simply making a healthy choice that allows you to enjoy life more?

That's the problem with being an armchair observer of more serious medical issues.. it's easy to confuse and conflate information in a way that might have any person side step getting real meaning from it, or get access to the help they may need.

I can see how a person experiencing orthorexia may feel like they're justified in their food choices because one can come up with legitimate healthy reasons to support at least a portion of their decision. Or how a person who has overeating issues that they haven't come to grips with yet might choose to judge a restaurant avoider as being unbalanced, so they can justify their own habit of overeating calorie-bomb meals at restaurants.

There's a similar conundrum with compulsive exercise.  Part of healthy exercise can be keeping records of what you do, so you can track your progress and avoid unhealthy trends like overreaching where you gradually become more fatigued, sore, and lose fitness from doing too much.

A compulsive exerciser though won't see these signs as a healthy indication to take a rewarding break, they'll tend to feel shame and guilt for losing fitness, which they will equate to not doing enough training, so in a compulsive delusion the compulsive exerciser try's to "correct" symptoms of too much exercise, with more exercise.

Since exercise is generally good for you, the compulsive exerciser is able to justify their choice by being in denial of the harm they're experiencing, and believing "exercise is good for me".

Orthorexia paradoxically can lead to severe nutrient deficiencies as a persons compulsive delusion has them fixated on eliminating certain foods, and having a very limited selection of what they think are super foods.

Some of the diagnostic questions that can help a clinician identify orthorexia behaviours are difficult to interpret. For instance, "Do you care more about the virtue of what you eat than the pleasure you receive from eating it?"

The trouble with the concept behind the question is that eating purely for reward instead of for sustenance is one of the main drivers of overeating that causes obesity. So how do you answer that question?  Furthermore, upon looking at that question, I can see how many might think, "yeah.. that's not good, I have to enjoy what I eat, it's unhealthy to think about the virtue of the food I eat".   This would then serve as justification for unhealthy, but good tasting food.

Good thing then that healthy food also tastes really good, so you can choose foods because they taste good and are good for you. If you find yourself choosing foods while being dismissive towards enjoying the flavour, it's worth reflecting on why this is.

We sure have a lot of hang ups with eating.  It's a pretty serious issue, there are more people harming themselves with chronic overeating than under-eating or an obsession with healthy eating, but harm is harm, and we generally don't do an honest self inventory of whether our food choices are harming or helping us.

"Does your diet socially isolate you?", is another question to asses orthorexia. Personally, my diet does seem to socially isolate me at times.  I don't like hot dogs, not only because I simply don't enjoy them, but because they're pretty crappy food.  Ditto for potato chips.  Eating a potato chip won't kill me, but neither will eating an apple instead.

However, there have been many occasions where I get teased and isolated for eating healthy. 

How do we work this one out?  It's more typical to be urged into being included and welcomed into group overeating, and if you choose not to overeat, you may get the "what kind of diet are you on?" question delivered in a fairly snarky tone.

It's the obsessive compulsive part of orthorexia that identifies the difference between making balanced healthy choices compared to choices based on excessive fear of eating unhealthy foods, and an obsessive drive to eat specific foods perceived as "clean".

If you're wondering what you're eating, use one of the many free or cheap nutrition apps or websites.  You'll know if you're getting the energy and vitamins and minerals you need.  Be honest though, most people have a tendency to cheat themselves when they enter foods into a food diary by either not entering certain foods, or by changing what they eat on the day they record to something healthier, but not representative of what they really eat.

Kale is great, but you won't be missing out if you never eat it, and instead get the same nutrients from a variety of other food sources.

Pursuing healthy eating doesn't mean you're developing or have orthorexia, but if you feel huge guilt or self loathing when not eating healthy, or are consumed by the idea of singling out healthy choices, it's probably time to talk to a professional about it.

For me, eating healthy (which can sometimes be inconsistent) has been a great relief from the multi fast food burgers and giant plates of pasta I used to eat.  I feel better, I sleep better, and I avoid chronic weight gain and all the trouble that goes with it.

And yes, I've avoided getting caught up in focusing on "superfoods" being some kind of panacea.

More info on orthorexia and other eating issues.. NEDA

Winnipeg vegan restaurant: Healthy?

What could be healthier than vegan food made with wholesome ingredients?

I'm not vegan, but I do love vegan food.  Even all veggie based foods can be made unhealthy though..

Here's what's in the patty of the burger I ordered:

Black beans, red beans, lentils, brown rice, onion, garlic, seasoned with chili, cumin, tomatoes and fresh cilantro.

Fantastic ingredients.

The rest of my burger consisted of a fresh baked organic whole grain bun, roasted red peppers, sprouts, cucumbers, tomatoes, beets, house dressing, red onion, and lettuce.

Sign me up, that sounds great!  This burger tasted fantastic, but along with the side salad, I felt really stuffed afterwards. It was too much food.  Trying to be my own impartial observer, I questioned why I continued eating when I was thinking, "this is way too much food".  I reasoned, it's mostly veggies, it wont be too bad.

Beans, lentils, and rice in addition to being packed with great nutrition, are also somewhat calorie dense providing around 220 calories per cup (1 cup of grilled lean ground beef has 330 calories). It doesn't matter where you get your excess calories from; too much is too much.  An advantage of having more plant based foods in your diet is the high fibre low fat will have fewer calories but still be filling, plus deliver more vitamins and minerals.  This is sort of good, we don't really want to eat until full.  Doing so is a guarantee of eating too much. Still, it's preferable to eat a big plate of low calorie veggies and feel satisfied compared to eating a 1/4 plate of fatty food that has twice the calories and still leaves a lot of room in the gut that is tempting to fill.

At about 3 inches (7.5 cm) tall and 3.5 (9 cm) inches wide, this burger is taller than the average mouth can open.  Not too much of a big deal, but does this lean towards the concept of serving gargantuan serving sizes? Could it possibly be more reasonable to make a burger that you can actually fit your mouth around?

Trying to get your mouth around this huge burger will trigger most to perceive that this burger is better because it's bigger, and that it's a good deal because you get so much for your dollar, and even that it might be a bit of a fun challenge to try to eat this beast.  Each of these values associate a positive connection with an over-serving of food; and we might be completely aloof to the fact that our enjoyment of a great tasting huge vegan burger is actually supporting overeating.  That's why this kind of eating is referred to as "mindless eating".

It's also another reason I kept eating even though I contemplated stopping.  The high salt, carb (sugar), and fat content will have been messing with my brain, stimulating my appetite.  It's the food chemistry that causes us to feel ravenous while eating, and food companies know this, that's why food is made this way. 

We're responding to external triggers to eat more, as well as chemical triggers, found in high concentrations of salt, fat, and sugar.

What?  Say it ain't so.  A vegan restaurant using the same food composition tactic that big food companies use to get you addicted to their food?  Whether by accident or on purpose, making foods with high concentrations of this tripple threat tastes really good, that's why people gravitate towards it, but for sure the outcome is people will feel very compelled to want to eat it again, because of the resulting altered brain chemistry that increases appetite.

And what a nice twist on the tripple threat; make it vegan so it has the image of being healthy, thus diverting our attention from the fact that it's still very high calorie and high sodium, perhaps even allowing us to go into denial and justify the huge serving sizes because we perceive it all as being ok because it's green, it's local, vegan, organic, and animal friendly.  All good things for sure, but when the serving sizes are too big and sodium is through the roof, do we really want to fool ourselves?

I fooled myself, those are the justifications I made.  When I decided to do the breakdown of what I was eating from this much venerated vegan burger joint, I was surprised, and upset at the same time.  It was like an "et tu Brute" moment.

Serving sizes have increased by more than 40% since the 1980's, even more than 100% for some items like popcorn, soda, and potato chips.  We've become more expecting of the bigger is better idea, while not necessarily being cognizant of the fact that big servings results in mega calories.

At 448 grams, how does this vegan burger compare to other popular burgers?

Big Mac  209 g, 540 calories

Cheeseburger  115 g, 300 calories

DQ Ultimate burger  262 g, 760 calories  

DQ 1/4 lb Flame Thrower GrillBurger 239 g, 730 calories

The vegan burger consisted of a 173g patty, 111g bun, about 75g of veggies, and about 89g of some kind of spread.

Using nutrition databases on the internet I've put together a reasonable estimate of how many calories there are in this 1 pound burger.. 

I'm not sure what the fat content of the condiments are, but in total this burger will be anywhere between 500 and 600 calories, which isn't that bad at all, if that's the only item you oder, but it's very easy to miss hidden fats and sugars in the condiments so there might be more calories.   This burger could easily be 700 + calories, and is unlikely to be less than 500.  Very comparable to typical fast food burgers in terms of calories, but significantly more nutrient dense.

For the sodium content I called the restaurant and they were friendly enough to tell me how much sodium they put in a batch of 400 bean patties, which worked out to about 140mg of sodium per burger, which would be perfectly reasonable.  However, the food prep person I spoke with was candid, letting me know that the canned beans, the peppers and the other ingredients already have salt in them from their supplier, which will likely be very high sodium items.

The person on the phone mentioned since they went on a low sodium diet themselves that they had stopped eating food at this vegan restaurant.  She mentioned that they are not a low sodium place, but did mention that they are animal friendly. I told her I wish they were as concerned about humans health as much as they were about animals.  She sighed and said she would pass that along to the owners.

I told her some of the food they sell is just as high in calories and sodium as a meal at McDonalds so I'm reluctant to keep eating there. 

The sodium content in this burger is likely to be around 500 mg, but could be higher.

What about the fries?  Can you really make fries healthy?  Sure. I've made oven baked fries that were healthy.  I used spices instead of oil and salt to add flavour.

How do the vegan fries compare to other fast food fries?

Size small 206g, approximately 600 calories, and about 1600 mg of sodium.

McDonald's:

Large fries  292g,  860 calories, 1180 mg sodium

Medium fries  113g,  360 calories,  270 mg sodium

Small fries   71g,  220 calories,  170 mg sodium

The fries were oven baked potatoes, "drizzled in sunflower oil, sea salt and pepper".  The sea salt thing is offensive to me.  Offensive because there is absolutely zero health advantage to sea salt.  It is no different than processed salt, but, it's sold as being a healthy alternative to regular table salt.  Why is that offensive?  Because it's a lie.  A lie meant to convince people that sea salt is better for their health, but is actually no different.  And you pay a premium for that lie.

Greasy fingers from greasy fries.  I don't find any redeeming nutritional qualities to these fries.  They are no better for your health than regular fries at any fast food place.

Burger and fries (small) total calories:  Between 1100 and 1300 calories.

Total sodium:   2000 mg +  (you need 1500 mg for a whole day and the upper intake limit is 2300 mg)

Order medium or large fries and you're over 1500 calories and 2500mg of sodium total.

I went to this place on opening day.  Couldn't wait.  Loved the taste.  Even tried the fries, which I didn't finish because they were just as greasy as any fries I'd had, and I don't like greasy.

I spoke to the owner about how greasy I thought the fries were and he didn't take it very well.  In fact he was quite certain one could drink a cup of olive oil straight and it would be good for you.  I told him no, drinking olive oil straight would have a laxative effect causing very oily stool, and although olive oil is healthy in appropriate amounts, consuming 1600 calories of olive oil at one time would certainly not be healthy.

I also pointed out that virgin and extra virgin olive oil have a low smoke point and are not suitable for high temperature cooking, such as baking fries in an oven.  Also, the high temps will break down much of the healthy compounds in olive oil negating any health effects.  You can get processed olive oil that is more heat stable with a higher smoke point, but typically other oils like safflower and sunflower oil are used for cooking.  Although he blew a gasket at me, he also contacted me later to apologize for doing so and comped me a meal.

I don't know if it was my conversation with the owner back then that caused them to switch from olive oil to sunflower oil, but I think I may have planted the seed.

Recently I spoke with a server working there after having finished a burger.  We spoke about the high calorie, high sodium thing, and how that seems to be the opposite of what a vegan, organic ingredient restaurant is trying to portray.  She replied, "it's burgers and fries, what do you expect?"

So they know their food is high sodium, and that much of what they serve is very high calorie.

I guess I expected that since this place is all about organic, vegan friendly ingredients, that finally somebody decided to create a restaurant that made truly healthy meals, including consideration for sodium and  total calories.

You will get substantially better nutrient density from the food at this Winnipeg vegan burger restaurant, which is promising, but your total calories and sodium with a burger and fries will be the same as high calorie fat bombs you get at any major burger joint, and the health risks with a high sodium, high calorie diet will still be the same.

You'll also get the same appetite altering effect (makes you more hungry the next day, makes you seek out high calorie foods).

If you manage what you eat anywhere, classic fast food burger joint or modern foodie joint, you can maintain a healthy weight, but beware of blindly falling into the habit of making these places a regular feeding trough.

It's still buyer beware, even when food is sold under the pretence of being natural and good.

This place has a lot of potential. Hopefully they realise that high sodium and high calorie is not so great.  We'll see if they change.

BTW, the burger and fries I bought for this review went in the garbage.  I didn't want to repeat my mistake of eating this stuff.

Salty lies: nutrition labels misleading

The average adult needs about 1500mg of sodium per day.

The upper limit for the daily intake is 2300 mg.

The average Canadian consumes around 3300 mg/ day, but many will take in over 7000 mg per day when eating out.

Nearly 80% of Canadians daily sodium intake comes from packaged processed foods and restaurant foods.

If you're exercising for hours and you're a salty sweater, you'll need more sodium, but I seriously doubt these manufactures thought that most of their customers are training for hours every day, thus resulting in an elevated upper sodium intake value.

CBC Market Place says the percent of daily sodium intake listed on most food labels is based on an intake of 2400 mg/ day, instead of the recommended 1500 mg/ day.   What could possibly motivate a company to make percentage of sodium intake for daily needs appear smallar than it actually is?

You all know I love myth busting.  Rarely am I more motivated to dig into something more intently than uncovering an urban myth where diet and exercise are concerned.

The column on the right in the food nutrition label shows the percentage of recommended daily value, the percentage of how much you need for a day.  The recommended daily intake for sodium is 1500 mg.

For the nutrition label below, sodium is shown at  290 mg, which makes up according to this label, 12% of the daily need for sodium.  290 is 12% of 2416.  That's 100 mg more than the 2300 mg upper tolerable intake, and 900 mg more than the recommended healthy intake of 1500 mg a day.

Here's the reality check on common food items:

Milligrams of sodium per serving size - percentage of daily intake

Organic yogurt:  85 mg   4% of daily value              calculated daily intake = 2125 mg

Multigrain bread:  300 mg  13%                                              2307 mg

Skim milk        140 mg         6%                                              2333 mg

Almond milk     150 mg        6%                                             2500 mg

Vegan kale juice  80 mg       3%                                              2666 mg

Low fat mayonnaise   135 mg 6%                                           2250 mg

Low sodium Ketchup 60 mg    3%                                          2000 mg

Mustard            55 mg    2%                                                     2750 mg

Canned pizza sauce  250 mg  10%                                           2500 mg

Canned kidney beans    350 mg 15%                                       2333  mg

Low sodium canned peas  15 mg  1%                                      1500 mg 

Canned sardines        200 mg  8%                                             2500 mg

Tomato paste            20 mg  1%                                                 2000 mg

Potato chips        180 mg  7%                                                     2571 mg

"Healthy" potato chips  210 mg  9%                                          2333 mg

If you use the percent of daily intake on nutrition labels as your guide for your sodium intake, you will always be far above the recommend intake of 1500 mg/ day.

The only product out of these samples that based the daily intake of sodium on the recommended intake of 1500 mg a day was Safeway "Eating Right" low sodium canned peas.  Hooray for Safeway!

But wait.. Safeway "Eating Right" multigrain bread used 2300 mg/ day, and Safeway brand tomato paste used 2000 mg/ day.

The superfood superstar, super expensive, ultimate-in-health-anti-cancer organic vegan kale juice?  They think you need 2666 mg/ day of sodium.

Even within the same brand, you can't expect consistency, and don't expect that makers of health foods are beyond tweaking their values to appear more healthy than they actually are.

The percent of daily sodium needs value is bogus on nutrition labels.  I wouldn't pay any attention to it.  Instead, look at the total milligrams of sodium and do the math yourself, since food companies math can't be trusted it seems.  Who knows if companies actually put in the amount of sodium they claim in the first place.  This is self-regulated by manufacturers, there isn't any third party process in place that ensures nutrition label claims are accurate.

A final note: Sea salt has the exact same amount of sodium in it as regular processed table salt and affects blood pressure exactly the same; there is zero health benefit to using sea salt instead of regular salt.  In fact sea salt might even be worse for you if it isn't fortified with iodine.

The Great Salt Shakedown, CBC Marketplace:

Marketplace tests the sodium levels in junior hockey players, masters swimmers, and non-athletes.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/ID/2341619350/

Government of Canada stats, info on sodium intake in Canada:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/sodium/index-eng.php

Reading food labels Health Canada

Junk food bliss

Have you heard the news?  Food companies commit substancial resources to figuring out how to manipulate food composition that in turn manipulates brain chemistry that makes people have a serious craving for eating that food.

They actually call it the "bliss point".  A sense of satisfaction that is achieved with the right dose (large dose) of sugar, salt, and fat.

What's interesting is that once hooked, you don't need to be stimulated by advertising to provoke the idea of eating more junk, you'll take care of that yourself.  Or, your brain will.

Once the brain gets that hyper-stimulis it will want to get it again.  Your brain adapts by influencing your reasoning to justify seeking out this junk food.

It isn't just candy bars and potato chips. Everything from poutine to salads, pasta, dinner rolls, wraps, burgers, milk shakes, ice cream, yogurt, soups, sandwiches, and even some veggie burgers.  Most of these foods can be made without high concentrations of sugar, salt, and fat.. (poutine not so much) and can be enjoyed without the hyper altered brain chemistry.  You'd be hard pressed though to find restaurants or packaged food companies not making foods with this "bliss point" chemistry, and that's why you want it so much.

You will most likely be oblivious to the actual reasons for the cravings, but you will feel strongly motivated to want to eat junk, and moreover to defend eating junk.  Eating junk and celebrating eating junk with others makes it a communal event, and re-enforces positive association with overeating bliss point junk food.

You may believe that you're arguing in support of eating junk because it's your right to choose, or that it doesn't really cause any harm, or that you do it only occasionally.. and some of the time, these reasons may apply.  Most of the time it will be because of a narcotic like addiction process.

Like a junkie in denial of overtly justifying their next hit, all of us that have experienced junk food bliss are actually responding to the brain chemistry changes that are caused by a mega dose of salt, sugar, and fat.

You think you simply like junk food as a matter of personal choice.  Perhaps partially, but really it's triggered brain chemistry that is desperately trying to achieve the reward stimulation provided by the food.

It's psychologically challenging to overcome the expected reward of the bliss point reward.  Once hooked, overeating foods with high concentrations of salt, sugar, and fat becomes a habituated norm.  Trying to break the habit results in withdrawal symptoms.

To make it worse, since the majority of the population is into seeking foods with this chemical bliss point, it is difficult to find support amongst peers to avoid this food.  More likely, your peers will try to cajole or guilt you into giving in to the junk food bliss.  Who can blame them?  They're like you: addicted, and unaware of the underlying brain chemistry that is the driver of the desire felt to eat and eat and eat.

Ok I'll lighten up a little now.

Happily this can all be reversed by realizing that our desire for junk food bliss is really from hijacked brain chemistry, and that the effect is reversible.

Choose healthy foods.  One of the greatest things about eating healthy, aside from that it's healthy, is that there is no baggage with it.  You never have the post-eating guilt associated with appeasing oneself through junk food bliss, and you never have excessive cravings to overeat that are caused by the "bliss point".

Expect emotional challenges with denying the overconsumption of crap food.  If you make it through this though, your brain will adapt to being satisfied with healthy eating.

What about those companies doing dastardly deeds in the lab; purposefully making unhealthy, cheap to make foods, addictive?

Shouldn't that be illegal? That's debatable.  It isn't like we don't have a choice though.

The special interest groups can battle it out with food companies to try to sway favor with legislators.. in the meantime, we have power over our own choices.

We all have the choice to not fall for junk food bliss, even though due to altered brain chemistry, that choice can be difficult to follow through on.

Sodium levels in Canadian restaurants high

Is this really new news?

I don't think so.  There have been studies like this before showing obscene levels of sodium in most restaurant meals.  We don't need a study to show us this, since most restaurants post their sodium levels for all to see (and ignore).

If nearly all restaurant meals in nearly all restaurants have unhealthy levels of sodium; why is this accepted?

Why are we all so willing to accept and rejoice in eating unhealthy food?  Restauranteurs and customers alike appear to have little concern for health.

Am I going too far with a statement like that?  Maybe, but I can't help but coming to that conclusion.

A new study (1) published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health revealed that the average meal in a sit down restaurant contains 1455mg of sodium, just shy of the adult recommended intake of 1500mg/ day.

It gets worse.  40% of restaurant items had more than 1500mg of sodium, and 22% of items like stir fry, sandwiches/ wraps, ribs, and pasta entrees exceeded the upper tolerable limit of 2300mg/ day.  Kids meals were equally offensive with over half the amount of sodium a child needs for the day in one meal.

High sodium levels lead to high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease.  While some people are less sodium sensitive, meaning dietary sodium affects their blood pressure less, this isn't the case for most people, so the risk isn't worth it.  "Whoops! I gave myself high blood pressure hoping sodium didn't affect me much."

Adding a few dashes of salt to that meal you ordered?  It already has ginormous amounts in it.  Every 3 shakes of the salt shaker adds another 120mg of sodium. Hello high blood pressure!

What's up with that?  Why put more salt "to taste" if there is already between 37-75 shakes worth of salt on the food already? One shake = 40mg sodium.  The reason is over time the tongue and brain adapt to the flavour of sodium and in order to experience reward from sodium, you need more.

Can you see yourself shaking a salt shaker 75 times over a plate of food (about 35 seconds of non-stop salt assaulting)?  Most people will see that as being a bit excessive, even if they love salt, but this is the amount of salt that is in many restaurant meals.

Of course restaurant industry reps are refuting the study results with lame claims that restaurants are doing their best to supply customers with what they want.

I don't buy it.  Literally. I very rarely go to many popular restaurants because the food is so demonstrably unhealthy that it isn't worth it.  It isn't worth it monetarily because I'm paying for an inferior product, and it isn't worth it health wise.

I'm approaching age 50 and I don't want to be another overweight, high blood pressure, high cholesterol statistic.  I'm certainly not going to support a business that is openly willing to sell me poor quality food that negatively affects my health.

A reasonable piece of cake isn't going to harm anyone but when almost everything on the menu is obesogenic and far in excess of healthy levels of sodium, the only choices are between unhealthy items.

You can have any meal you want, as long as it's unhealthy.

Thanks for being so conscientious.

To be fair healthy dishes are starting to become slightly more popular, but it took huge pressure from health experts, special interest groups, the threat of government intervention, and customer demands.

Most restauranteurs are not making changes because of an altruistic concern for their customers health.

Nevertheless, I hope the tiny trend expands.  Everyone wins with healthy eating.  Restaurants still make money because they still sell food, and people are healthier.

Kudos' to restaurants that specialize in healthy foods and to those making room for healthier menu items.

The same journal also shows more Canadians are still becoming obese every year (due to overeating and inactivity), but the rate of increase is thankfully slowing (2)

Web site and iphone app for checking sodium levels in foods sodium101.ca

(1) http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/article/view/3683

(2) http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/article/view/3513

Eat chocolate mousse, lose weight

I don't know exactly how many calories were in this piece of chocolate mousse cake, probably around 300 to 400, according to a Google search on calories in chocolate mousse cake.

 A few years ago Mark Haub, professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University made the news with a controversial diet he placed himself on where he ate mostly Twinkies, but maintained a daily food energy intake of 1600-1800 calories, providing him a significant caloric deficit.

Losing 27 pounds he went from 201 to 174 lb. in about 2 months.  His 'bad' cholesterol (LDL) and tryglicerides dropped, and 'good' cholesterol (HDL) went up.

Haubs commented that previous to his convenience store diet he ate healthy foods, a mix of fruits, veggies, whole grains, nuts, and lean meats, but was overweight because he ate too much.

He did his 'diet' to demonstrate to his students that fat loss and gain is all about calories in, calories out, regardless of the quality of food you eat.

When his weight loss success hit the news it drew mixed reviews and as one might imagine, many of those reviews were critical.

His diet was nutrient poor, not very much delivery of vitamins and minerals, but it wasn't his intention to recommend a junk a food diet.

It was simply a demonstration of how calories are king.  Eat too much, even healthy food, and you'll pack on pounds of extra body fat, and that excess body fat will drive up tryglicerides and cholesterol, as well as blood pressure and blood sugar over time.

The professor made the point that there is often a disconnect between eating healthy and being healthy, indeed he was a living example of this; a professor of nutrition who you would think would know how to eat healthy, became overweight by eating too much healthy food, then lost weight by eating junk food, but fewer total calories, enough to provide an 800 to 1000 calorie daily deficit.

Let me clarify; eating too much healthy food isn't bad because healthy food itself becomes bad.  The body simply stores excess calories consumed as fat.  It doesn't matter if the extra comes from Twinkies or from strawberries.  The advantage of nutrient dense healthy food is that in addition to getting the fats, carbs, and proteins we need, we also get all the vitamins and minerals we need, plus other phytonutrients and antioxidants we don't get from junk food.

So the professor ate junk food, but not very much of it.  His deficit is too large for most.. 800-1000 calories per day less than what is needed to maintain weight leaves most feeling hungry to the point of irritation and increased appetite that makes it too difficult to resist a chow-down.  300-600 calorie deficits have been shown to be realistically manageable and one would not need to achieve this every day, maybe most days, with an avoidance of overeating on the other days.

Back to my deadly chocolate mousse.

I used to eat this stuff more often.  It tasted fantastic but ultimately was not as satisfying as I once found this kind of food.  Our palate is trainable.  We can learn to like new things, and even lose the appreciation for something we once liked.  Anyone who's made the switch from whole milk down to 2% or down to skim knows what I'm talking about.

Try whole milk after getting used to skim milk and the whole milk tastes like liquid lard.

I recently overcame my life long hatred of brussels sprouts.  Love them now.  Just had to eat enough of them to adapt.

Did I overeat on the day I ate my delicious chocolate mousse?  No.  In fact I had a caloric deficit.

And so what if I would have ended up going over by a couple hundred calories.  Over a little on some days, under a little on others, so long as we're relatively even most of the time we wont gain or lose body fat.

Our trouble is that we overeat too often, and place significant importance on the cakes and donuts for reward and not so much on the healthy foods.  We see the healthy foods as the doldrums of human existence that we have to do to try and stay somewhat healthy, and that thank goodness, we can overeat junk food to celebrate and make life worth living.  And then we wonder where the extra weight came from.

I'll still eat deadly chocolate mousse from time to time, but like whole milk, I no longer have as much satisfaction from it as I once did.  The fatty part doesn't agree with me that much, but I sure like the chocolate.

I feel greater reward overal after eating spinach salad than after eating chocolate mousse, and no, I'm not crazy.  Like I said, the palate is trainable.  Give it time and the preference moves away from calorie dense foods and towards healthy foods.

If I started eating more of the crap again I would begin to like it more again.  Knowing that this is how the body works is an advantage.. To reduce the power of cravings for crap food I know I need to avoid eating crap food often.  If I start eating too much of the crap again I will naturally gravitate towards it.  We are habit forming creatures.  It's how our brains work.

Just like the professor of human nutrition, I know how to eat healthy, but that doesn't prevent me from gaining body fat.  Knowing isn't enough, it's doing that counts. Only avoiding eating too much too often will maintain a healthy weight.

Part of doing that includes putting chocolate mousse in its place. Which yesterday was in my mouth, but not today. Today is the other side of the balancing act.

Mayo clinic article on the professors convenience store diet

*Update*  I've been diagnosed with GERD.

In learning about GERD and how to manage it, I learned chocolate can cause the oesophageal sphincter to relax, allowing stomach acids to pass into the oesophagus.  It's very, very rare that I'll eat chocolate now, and if I do, it's a very small amount, not enough to cause reflux.  No more chocolate mousse for me.

It's not a sad thing, it's a good thing.  Eating chocolate can cause me physical harm.  It's good to know this, and it's good to stop eating chocolate under these circumstances.

As we age, even if we take good care of ourselves, we can still develop medical conditions, as I have.

My previous habits of pigging out after a big training ride on my bike, stuffing my gut full at all you can eat pasta restaurants, certainly didn't help my gastric health.. that's a lot of pressure to put on that valve between the stomach and oesophagus.

If you like chocolate and it's not a risk for you, by all means enjoy it, but try to keep the serving size healthy, and don't let your head fool you into thinking you must have it :-)

Food police: banning junk food

You would think that with all yammering I do about how bad overeating is that I would be immediately in favor of junk food bans like the one being implemented in New York which limits the sale of servings larger than 16 oz soda's, or pop if you're Canada.

I say limits the sale because although you won't be able to indulge your preference for ginormous servings of pop from restaurants in New York City in a single serving, you will still be able to buy 32 oz'ers and more at supermarkets and convenience stores.  So yeah they call it a ban, but it's not as slash and burn as some are making it out to be.  You can still get 54 ounce of soda at 7-11. There is no ban at 7-11, where overeating is still very convenient.

You can simply order two or more 16oz soda's at the same time if you want, if you're in a restaurant where the 'ban' is.  So not really a ban.

Here are the nutrition facts for 16 and 32 oz servings of pop from nutritiondata.com
Lot's of sugar, only traces of nutrients.

16 fl oz, 470ml, about 2 cups

32 fl oz, 9.5 ml, about 4 cups

By today's standards 2 cups of pop is hardly considered ginormous, but it isn't necessarily a good thing to have become so complacent with consuming too much that we now regard over-serving as normal.

A person is still likely to order a pop like they normally would.

Some of the arguments for these bans:

Will limit overconsumption of pop for some people.

Will support the idea that drinking lot's of pop isn't really a good idea.

If people follow through, the average weight of people should decline over time improving the health of people and saving money on health care.

May start to cause the population to make changes in how they think about buying junk food, reducing the perceived need.

Some of the cons..

Nanny state interfering with freedom of choice.

No real eating behavior change will take place as people can still buy pop at other places.

That's all great about the pro's and con's.  Except that despite the uproar about nanny state, there isn't really a ban at all in NYC, if you understand the details of the ban.  So for those crying about their rights being taken away, this has not happend.  You can still order as much soda as you want, anywhere and anytime you want in New York City.

Ok, so there isn't really a ban on soda's in NYC.  It's a political move meant to get people thinking about what they're consuming, or so they say.

So what about that; and what about the actual idea of junk food bans?

Everyone who currently consumes too much will be healthier if they consume less and lose weight.  Healthcare costs will go down if the population becomes more healthy.

This really would happen if we ate less.

So how do we get there?  By forcing people?

We've all heard the argument that individuals can make their own choices, good or bad, and that people are smart enough to choose for themselves.

Might be smart enough to choose for themselves but obviously don't.

That's just a simple reality.  One that's tough to acknowledge for many individuals.  People clearly are not making the best choices with food intake despite the argument they are fully capable of doing so without government intervention.

So this argument doesn't really seem all that valid, given the actual practical reality, which is quite removed from theory; people are not choosing very well, to the detriment of their own health and  increasing the cost of healthcare for the nation.

The majority of the population does in fact make poor choices over and over again where overeating is concerned.  That's a simple population statistic that is real and has been repeatedly measured for the past two decades, at least.

It's this true statistic that is the main drive behind pushing legislation to reduce overeating food choices.

The civil liberty argument wisely says people can choose for themselves and will naturally resolve to make the right choice because of the natural need for self preservation, and because right to choose is a constitutional choice.

Not really, and sort of.

Again, the reality is; we as a population are clearly not demonstrating our capacity to make the right choices where our health is concerned.  Not right now anyway.  Maybe we can learn.

It is true that individual freedom is a right, but we also have laws that set realistic limits.  For instance we can't get away with drunk driving because we choose to. I'm not saying drink driving is exactly the same as overeating, although more people die annually in Canada from complications due to obesity (25,000) than do from drunk driving (1300ish).  The numbers are far greater for the US, but still heavily weighted towards obesity.

What I am saying is that we take drunk driving seriously like we should, but not so much with chronic year over year overeating and excess weight gain across the population.  Nobody is MADD about overeating.  Quite the opposite.

I think there is merit to the idea that although at first people will oppose junk food bans, over time enough people will adapt.  In addition to all the public education that is out there if we simply get rid of the opportunity to overeat in many of the places where we typically overeat, then over time people get used to and appreciate the healthier choices.

Or, that could be a nice academic argument, but not necessarily the way public opinion adapts over time.

I think there is also merit to the idea that banning junk food will simply cause people to flip the bird to big brother and get their fix somewhere else.  Or that the principal of 'food police' is such a slap in the face that people will get stuck on that and ignore the actual overeating issue.

Governments appear to be at their whits end (not hard to do when you're short on whits), and are expressing that nothing else is working, people aren't getting it (which is true), so bans are in.

I really do personally have a huge problem with the fact that the vast majority of restaurant meals are over 1000 calories.  1000 + calories?  That's a joke.  A cruel joke.

I am in a very small minority.  I have been so disappointed so many times at virtually every restaurant I have been to that I have almost stopped going to restaurants all together.  From my perspective most are selling gross slop that isn't worth eating.  Oh sure, much of it tastes good, and has a nice presentation, but it is so demonstrably bad from a health perspective that for me the meal is crap and a complete let down and waste of money.

No, I don't have an anti-restaurant thing.  Just looking for some half decent product I can spend my money on. I actually want to go to restaurants because I enjoy the experience.  I also enjoy eating at home so I'm not really feeling like I'm at that much of a loss by eating out less than I have in the past.

You see, I no longer buy into the idea that part of eating out is the reward of the overindulgence.  Overindulgence isn't all that compelling to me anymore.  I want to indulge in great tasting healthy food, not in slabs of fat covered in sugar and salt, made to look nice.

Iv'e got room for a desert of chocolate badness as long as it's not too freaky big, but I don't have room for the 800 calorie appetizer, the 1200 calorie, meal, and the 500 calorie desert.  And when nearly all meals are over 1000 calories and there are only 2 or 3 choices under 1000 cals, my choices are far more limited than what the fat bomb part of the menu offers.  Further, most of the lower calorie meals are simply smallar versions of the bigger fat bombs.  The smallar meals aren't all that healthy either.

I'm not making this about me.  Ok maybe a little.. What I want to show is that demand for unhealthy meals is so large that even if you want to eat healthy, your choices are are far less compared to calorie bomb choices.  Try to ban any part of this and you'll upset a lot of people who buy into and sell the huge meals.

People want huge meals and restaurants are all too happy to promise bigger meals for better deals, and neither the seller nor buyer want's restrictions on this access to a whole lotta love.

I do see a light at the end of the tunnel. Hopefully it's not astigmatism. One that might not require junk food bans, or fake bans like the one in New York.

With no junk food or calorie bans, many restaurants are starting to serve healthier choices and some restaurants shtick is presenting an entirely healthy menue, and these restaurants although small in number, are typically very busy.

As much as I dislike the idea of selling calorie bomb meals because of how seriously bad they truly are, I can't get passed thinking that bans might backfire or might not be as effective as promised.

Maybe though, people will personally get sick of feeling like crap from overeating and will gradually demand healthier meals.  If this happens restaurants will respond with delivering healthier products.

The trend for overeating is currently still growing and is larger than the trend to eat and live healthy.

Maybe the junk food ban is actually part of the healthy trend and we can't see it yet because we're so into junk food right now.

Maybe the junk food ban is an act of desperation and not well thought out.

In the end though, no matter how much I write or anyone writes about how passionately they feel about their view and quoting statistics, law, and precedent, and calorie counts, eating healthy is factually dramatically better than eating too much.   Eating too much does cause personal harm.

In the end we all make our choices.  It is ultimately an individuals choice.  Right now most are willing to defend the idea that overeating is not only a personal choice, but also the preferencial choice.

When I made the switch it wasn't from someone telling me to do so or a government intervention.  It was because it seemed to me that the healthy choices had more to offer in return that the calorie bomb meals I used to adore.

If more healthy choices are made all this goes away, and for the better.

Here is a great video on the New York City 'soda ban'. It's funny and to the point.

http://laughingsquid.com/new-york-city-soda-ban-explained-by-casey-neistat/

Unhealthy habits similar or greater complexity than healthy habits

One of my favorite diet analyses websites is eatracker.ca.

You enter all the food you eat in a day and the free web-based software tells you everything you need to know about what you're eating.  I mention eatracker a lot because I really want people to use nutrition tools to rebuild their diets into nutrition powerhouses with no gimmicks.

I've rarely had a person express excitement about eatracker, or any other nutritional analyses program or app, web based or not.  In fact most of the time nobody will go near eatracker.  Even after months of suggestion most people I work with refuse to use diet analyses software, to see a registered dietitian, or to tell me what they eat.

A frank analyses of what one eats seems to be treated like a prickly porcupine, nobody want's to touch it.

The main complaints are that it takes too long (it doesn't), and that it's too complicated (it's not).

For those who enjoy baking, a new sugar-bomb, fat-bomb recipe for a cake, cookie, or muffin will be given a lot of attention.  After all, the anticipated reward of biting into fresh baked ooey gooey goodness is very appealing.

If the new recipe requires ingredients not in the house, a special shopping trip is in order. An unhealthy recipe is revered as the path to reward.  Using nutrition software is no more complicated than following a recipe, but in reverse.  However it's reviled as the path to restriction and removal of reward.

Same process, different perception.

I steam my broccoli for 4 minutes.  I read a research paper that showed that steaming broccoli for 4 minutes increases the antioxidant release from broccoli.  Sounds good to me.

I've had so many people say to me that I take it (healthy eating) too far with finicky details like steaming broccoli for 4 minutes.

Ok.

So what about brewing coffee for X minutes.

How about throwing coffee out if it stands more than 20 minutes.

What about the old standard of boiling pasta for 7 minutes.

What about the 3 minute boiled egg.

Ever set the timer for baking?

Ever pay attention to how long a 10 oz steak is cooking?

How about deep fried or oven fried french fries?

What? You mean you have a timer in the kitchen?  Whoa, whoa whoa.. Get out!  Your stove has a built in timer?  All restaurant kitchens have timers?  What the heck for?  Say what?  Timing the cooking of food?

But not broccoli.

See what I mean?

Whatever the process is, if it's applied to not so healthy food or food that isn't really considered healthy or unhealthy, the process is normal and justified.  Apply the same process to something that is perceived as 'healthy' and suddenly the process is arduous.  It's an extra step.  It's time consuming.  Maybe even a little over the top.

There is a decided prejudice against healthy choices.

I've also found that many will be hesitant to learn what they're eating because ultimately they know that it won't be all good and the outcome will be that they should eat less of the bad stuff and more of the good stuff.

Facing these plain right-in-front-of-you facts is very hard for many people as research shows most people will under-report the amount of food they eat to avoid the issue of overeating.

 Once hooked, we really, really want to keep revisiting the hyper-rewards of overeating. Diet analyses is seen as the reward blocker.

The irony is that maintaining the unhealthy diet saps our energy, makes us overweight and reduces quality of life.  That which we seek with so much tenacity just happens to be that which ultimately is making us feel like crap overall, save for those few minutes that our brain is getting a dopamine hit from overeating.

Once I personally experienced the change in how good I felt from chronic healthy eating vs chronic not so healthy eating I became hooked on healthy eating.  Eatracker and similar programs became a source of reward because I can use these tools to help make my nutrition choices better and more informed.

So what's the difference between taking the time to purposefully eat unhealthy vs purposefully eating healthy?  It doesn't take more time to make a homemade burger with lean or extra beef or ground chicken or turkey compared to regular beef.

It doesn't take more time to make the patty smallar rather than larger.  It doesn't take more time to put on less mayonnaise or skip the mayo.

Once we get down to reality it's clear that healthy choices are not complicated and not more time consuming than less healthy choices.

There is one reality that is difficult to overcome and get used to.

As rewarding as healthy food is to eat, it can't achieve the exact same level of instant gratification dopamine stimulation as food that is dense in fat, sugar, and salt.

A good way to look at this is that the hyperpalitability of calorie-bomb food is unnatural.  It's true that it clearly feels good at the moment, but it ain't good.

It really is like learning to quit smoking.  Sure, to the smoker having a smoke feels rewarding at the moment, but it's kicking the crap out of the body.  It's not worth it.

Ex smokers will tell how great it feels to not be hooked anymore and that ultimately healthier choices provide more overall reward than they ever received from the instant gratification of smoking.

Same goes for overeating.

BTW healthy eating doesn't mean not eating chocolate muffins.  It meas not eating too many chocolate muffins.

Everyone I know who has got to the place where they lose weight in a healthy way or didn't need to lose weight but started eating more healthy, have been surprised at how good they feel.

Healthy eating doesn't give you that big smack of dopamine and neither does using eatracker.  The same level of instant gratification wont happen, so let that go.  Once you feel the overall greater reward of what a healthy weight and healthy living does for you, you may get hooked on living healthy.

I hope you do :-)

I finally got a cold

Not too long ago I wrote a piece on how not to catch cold where I mentioned that I had not had cold symptoms in many years.  The reason why the number of colds I have plummeted is because, while not always successful, I do manage to eat, sleep, and exercise healthily most of the time.

I got the familiar feeling in the back of the throat on Saturday.  By Monday I had the runny nose and sneezing and felt a little lethargic.  I still managed to get in a training ride on my bike (mounted on my indoor trainer Kurt Kinetic trainer review), but I cut the ride at 90 minutes instead of the 2-2.5 hours I would normally had done.

Side note:  exercising with a cold rule of thumb: symptoms above the neck (head cold), exercise is not a problem but you may have reduced exercise capacity.  If you have a cough or really sore throat exercising intensely with heavy breathing may aggravate an already irritated respiratory tract, possibly inviting a bacterial infection, so don't exercise hard. Nausea or fever? Don't exercise.  You need rest and a visit to the doc might be a good idea if symptoms persist. 

Today I feel pretty good.  Only had to blow my nose twice so far.  I'd say the cold is pretty much over.

So that's Saturday to Wednesday, maybe a little into tomorrow - 5.5 days with three days of a fairly snotty nose.

That's not too bad, and thats what the research suggests you might feel if you live healthy, primarily exercising regularly and getting good sleep.

Healthy living can reduce the frequency, duration, and intensity of cold symptoms by 40%.

I've been lucky and had good multi-year stint of no cold symptoms.  I say no cold symptoms as I would have still had cold viruses enter my body, but my strengthened immune system would have defeated the cold virus before I became symptomatic.

I didn't take a pill that's promised to reduce colds.  I didn't take an alternative medicine concoction that is the suposed secret cure for the common cold that apparently regular doctors don't want you to know about.  I didn't take massive doses of vitamin C.  I didn't whip up an antioxidant detox super juice every morning.

I ate healthy, exercised regularly, and most of the time got good sleep.

I recall a few times though where it felt like a cold might be coming on but then nothing further materialized.  There were several times where I was in the company of people with colds and I thought for sure I would be sniffling a few days later.. nope.

Aside from maintaining if not gaining athletic performance as I approach age 50 I think not getting the two colds per year I used to get a pretty good dividend from healthy habits.  I don't know anyone who likes the misery of a cold.

The benefits of exercise aren't limited to the most commonly referenced weight loss and muscular or lean look.  The main benefits are feeling more energetic, preserving health, having the strength to easily do pretty much any normal task.. shovelling snow is no big deal, neither is lifting heavy things like furniture.

I see many of my mid-late 40's peers gaining weight and getting weaker.  That could have been me and I'm glad it isn't, I'm also glad it doesn't have to be this way for anyone.

I didn't make the change overnight and pretty much everyone who tries to do it fast fails and returns to a state of being less fit and more overweight than when they started.

Ignore all the goofy claims to lose weight fast and get fit fast.  That's for losers, or I guess gainers as the weight comes back later when a return to previous habits occurs.

Make some small changes like eating a little less and learning to feel good about it.  Gradually add small amounts of exercise.  Boot camps are very stupid.  Yes, I said that and mean it.  I'm not some shlep who fell off the bus yesterday, I've been studying this subject and coaching for two and half decades and I live it myself.. quick fix promises are meant to appeal to desperation and gullibility; they don't actually work.

How did I get to "boot camps are very stupid" from exercise prevents colds?  It's not hard to get me going.  I am passionate about the subject.  And why not?  Making these changes turned my life around and the lives of many others.  I really, really want people to feel as good as I have after having made these changes.

Having fewer colds is better.  Colds are miserable.  Less misery from colds, from aches and pains, from lethargy, and from illness.  It's all good.   Best thing?

It's not a miracle product that costs $49.99 per month or more.  It's not a pill.  It's not a secret metabolism energizing exercise routine (those don't exist by the way so don't fall for the con).

There is one catch though. Your benefits will automatically renew without your consent if you keep living the healthy lifestyle.  That's right, even if you find that you don't like not having colds, can't stand being strong, hate your doctor for telling you your cholesterol and blood pressure are normal, and don't want to deal with near boundless energy and clear cognition day after day, the contract can't be broken.  So long as you live healthy you will reap the benefits.

Oh well.  What can you do?

How I survived Christmas without overeating

For regular readers you'll know that I'm always on about changing our reward association with overeating and working on making the same reward association with healthy food choices.

A favourite example of mine is; picture this, you're at the office and the boss walks in with a box of donuts and says, "you're all doing a great job and I wanted to show my appreciation". The boss presents the donuts. How do feel?

You may be thinking, "hey great! I love donuts".  Mmm..

Same scenario, boss says the same thing, but has a plate of broccoli. Are you feeling that?

No?  Not feeling the little green trees?

How about a plate of oranges and bananas?  Some feeling for this but not as much as for the donuts?

There you have it. That's what reward association does. Reward association makes you feel compelled to do things that you perceive will be rewarding in some way. The stronger the reward association the more intense the reward seeking will be.

One little snafu is that some of that which we associate reward with can also get out of hand cause negative outcomes.  Like scarfing down 1000 calories from donuts that nobody needs.

And so it goes for Christmas dinners.  Personally I've been getting better every year. I don't do three or four plates anymore, plus buns, plus desert. 

Years ago when I cut down to 2.5 plates and desert I felt like I had accomplished a lot. I was only consuming 1500 calories more than I needed instead of around twice that.  (3500 calories in a pound of fat in case you wondering about the scale impact of so much overeating)

Cutting down to two plates I felt physically much more comfortable. Not so much of a bloat-on.  I also had less of the post Christmas overeating guilt-on. Another bonus is I didn't have to think about all the extra cardio I'd have to do to repent my indulgence. 

Exercising to compensate for excessive eating is not a healthy exercise or eating strategy. 

This year I thought about how good I would feel emotionally and physically if I didn't overeat.  I knew that whenever I eat healthy I feel good about it. I didn't always feel this way. Years ago I scoffed at the idea.  I looked forward to the stuffed gut. Having to loosen your belt was a sign of success. At that time I didn't bother to think about why I believed this. It was just something you did. It was tradition. 

Then I had to go and become a cycling coach in 1987, which involves among other things, learning about proper nutrition. I learned that I didn't really know how to eat. Sure, sure, I was an expert at the selecting, chewing, and swallowing, but was pretty clueless when it came to understanding my actual nutritional needs. 

I really liked a lot of crap food that wasn't that great for me. 

Being a bit slow it took me years to gradually change my eating habits so that my eating reflected what healthy reconditions are. 

As I ate healthy more consistently I grew further from wanting unhealthy foods but still found myself feeling rewarded by overeating. Yes you can eat too much healthy food. Calories are calories. 

Over time this changed too. As overeating became less frequent each time I did dive into calorie bomb meals I was more attune to the after affects.  I was getting used to what it felt like to eat satisfying healthy meals. I didn't feel bloated or lethargic. There is no brick in the gut. I slept better.  I didn't have to deal with feeling remorseful for overeating. I actually felt pretty damn good. Better than I knew I could. 

Over time I had developed a new reward association with eating healthy to the point of instead of looking forward to overeating at holiday meals I started to regreat these meals in advance. I regretted feeling obliged to fulfill the custom of overeating. I really wanted to eat healthy but there was social pressure to overeat as well as my own pressure because some of the old reward seeking was still there. I knew the food would certainly taste good and that I could make excuses to keep eating. 

Afterwards I'd feel not so good. When you eat healthy most of the time your digestive system gets used to high fibre low fat foods. When you suddenly burden your GI tract with high fat low fibre traditional foods in large volumes, you get constipated. You feel like crap, literally. 

So this Christmas I felt compelled not to overeat because I didn't want to deal with the uncomfortable aftermath. I felt incentive to eat what I need because I knew this would feel more satisfying. 

This year was different because I had done enough work on my thoughts, feelings, and eating habits that it all came together and was easy.. And oh so satisfying. 

Christmas dinner with family was great. That value did not change. The food still tasted great and I enjoyed it. I enjoyed the company and good times. I didn't feel the need for extra food being a prerequisite for enjoying Christmas with my family. 

The Christmas dinners two days in a row were the best I'd had because there was no underlying food drama. I think I have it better than many though.  Eating healthy at Christmas dinner doesn't always go over well. I've had friends tell me that when they try the same thing they get questioned by family and friends.. "Are you sick? Don't you like the food? Are you on some kind of diet?" Many are ostracized for not overeating. There is societal pressure to be thin for some but there is more social pressure to overeat and if you don't comply someone will point it out to you. 

The things that enabled me to feel completely satisfied without overeating at Christmas dinners (or whatever dinners for those who don't say Christmas), were:

  Completing a long path to adopting an appreciation and sense of reward from healthy eating while at the same time unlearning my previous reward connection with overeating. 

  Having family that is happy I'm there no matter how much I eat. 

This didn't happen overnight so don't expect instant results if you try the same. If you hang in there though change will come. You'll adapt. After a while wanting to eat healthy will feel good instead of being misinterpreted as feeling restrictive. Ironically if you think about it, chronically overeating is restrictive. We restrict ourselves to only overeating and are not open to healthy options, perhaps even offended by the idea of eating healthy because eating unhealthy is so practiced, so naturalized, that eating healthy is perceived as interfering with the status quo. 

I really had a great Christmas this year and eating healthy made it even better.