100 Foods to Improve Your Productivity

Here is a list of 100 Foods to Improve Productivity. All kinds of favorite foods make the list. Here are a few to whet your whistle:

Salmon: Not just a fish dish delicacy, a single serving of salmon is also full of healthy benefits. Low in calories but high in important omega 3 fatty acids and protein, salmon will keep your appetite at bay while you concentrate on your busy day. Salmon is known for keeping high-blood pressure in check – a benefit for the demanding currency trading lifestyle. Salmon also lowers your chances of sunburn, dry eyes, stroke, prostate cancer, and even minimizes feelings of hostility in young adults. Without the distractions of moody adolescents, you'll be able to get twice as much done!

Spinach: Make like Popeye and inhale that spinach. Full of practically every nutrient you could think of, spinach is the easiest way to take in all your vitamins at once. In addition to fighting cancer and building strong bones and muscles, spinach reduces stress and help keeps your brain young and focused.

Cauliflower: Like most other vegetables included on this list, cauliflower has an immense amount of Vitamin C and impressive detoxifying capabilities. Just don't pour on the ranch dressing, or you'll also be getting a lot of fat and calories. Visit cauliflowers.com for new twists on the vegetable.

Onions: Adding onions to any dish will add taste while lowering your blood sugar. Onions are also good for the overall health of your stomach, settling that queasy tummy during a hangover.

Ok, so you'll really notice one thing reading through the list: most of the foods that made the list are exquisitely healthful and you probably don't need to be told that they're good for you. Lots of fruits, vegetables, and delicious protein. Of course there are a few foods on the list that make me say "Huh?," such as pound cake (#55), tofu (#73..."a healthier alternative to meat"? Who're they kidding?), and vanilla soy milk (#78). And there are a few tweeners that I won't get myself all twisted over, but these shouldn't be a part of daily intake: orange juice (#36), brown rice (#52), bran cereal (#49), and whole wheat pasta (#79) to name a few. Of course, no self-respecting health list would be complete without a few grains huh?

All in all though, this is a solid list of foods to include in your daily eating regimen.

Follow-up to "The Drugging of Our Children"

Yesterday, we had a bit of discussion on my post about The Drugging of Our Children. As luck would have it, Ross Enamait posted this article about the dangers of food additives to kids and their connection to hyperactivity and other disruptive behaviors in this post at his blog. I really can't top what he had to say, so I'm going to paste my favorite part here for all to enjoy...hop over to Ross' blog to read the rest.

It is not the child's job to read up on the dangers of food additives. We as parents must assume this responsibility. Being a parent is a responsibility and privilege. Part of this privilege means taking care of our children. Children don't buy food. We buy the food that they eat.

If you care about your children, you will make educated decisions regarding nutritional habits. Just because your child wants something doesn't mean that they will always get it.

Top notch post by Ross.

Cochrane Report on Low-Carb Diets

Check out Dr. Eades post from yesterday on the Cochrane Report on low-carb diets.

A few months ago the Cochrane Collaboration released a study showing that subjects on low-carb diets lost more weight and improved their cardiovascular risk profiles to a greater extent than did subjects following any other kind of diet. Did you read about this study in your local paper or see it on the evening news? I didn’t think so. I didn’t either.

Hop on over to his site to read the rest.

The Drugging of our Children

(Photo courtesy of WikiMedia) Here is a long, interesting, and infuriating video by Gary Null titled The Drugging of Our Children. It explores the prevalence of Ritalin for the treatment of Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Michael Moore is interviewed in the film, and while I'm not a huge fan of his, he is pretty well spot-on with his words in this film.

There are interviews with several young people that have been on drugs for ADHD and/or depression, all with interesting stories of the effects Ritalin and the SSRIs had on them and their demeanor. One lady's story entails her refusal to put her child on Ritalin as the school demanded she do for him to stay in school. Child Protective Services removed her son from the home and put him on the drugs. She later "kidnapped" him and left for Canada, but the FBI pursued her there and had her son put back into an institution. She had a choice of political asylum in Canada or fighting to keep her son. She chose to be imprisoned to fight for her son. To this day, her son has still not been returned to her. Granted, she shouldn't have taken her son from a government facility.

Obviously this is only one side of the story and is intended to create a certain reaction, but the video is quite interesting. I can't speak on Ritalin or SSRIs as I'm not a doctor nor well-versed in the workings of those drugs. I will say though that I doubt either ADHD or depression is underdiagnosed. I highly doubt that MORE kids need to be on these drugs, especially when it's quite possible that a change in diet, sleep, or exercise patterns could rid a child of ADHD. A kid fed the typical morning breakfast of sugary cereal or waffles or Pop-Tarts is unlikely to be able to pay attention very well in class.

It almost seems like the schools are trying to medicate the "kid" right out of the child. Three times as many boys are diagnosed with ADHD compared to girls. Perhaps the learning environment is not set up for the way that boys learn. Boys and girls are not the same and something tells me that there isn't something inherently wrong with boys that makes them more susceptible to this disease, especially since it's reported in the video that there is no actual difference in brain activity of an ADHD vs non-ADHD brain. Maybe the boys are bored so they act up. And in a system where teachers and counselors are making diagnoses based on subjective determinations, rather than objective tests, the bias towards boys seems to confirm that there is something else going on.

We live in a fast-paced culture now. In most households, both parents work to be "successful". Poor nutrition is prevalent in our society. This study reports that 51% of families eat fast food one to two times a week and 7% eat it three to four times a week. Family dinner time doesn't exist anymore and with the growth of over-sugared, under-exercised, and overweight kids, it's easy to see that the delicate balance of hormones in a kid's brain could go a bit haywire. That doesn't mean the proper recourse is a drug. It is the easy way, but not the proper way when switching to a diet based on natural foods and spending some time exercising or playing as a family would do wonders for the child. Once you start medicating, you then have to medicate the side effects, of which many report hallucinations and violent tendencies. And then there are the ties to murder and suicide.

This story reminded me about this article Most People Are Depressed for a Very Good Reason. There are probably some cases where antidepressants are the right course of action. There are probably many more where the right course of action is for the person taking them to make changes to their life.

The Benefits of Protein for the Elderly

To go along with the post on age and exercise, here is an article titled The Benefits of Protein for the Elderly from Science Daily.

This won't come as a surprise to most of us here, but it could be beneficial to our loved ones.

A new study recently published suggests that a diet containing a moderate amount of protein-rich food such as beef, fish, pork, chicken, dairy or nuts may help slow the deterioration of elderly people's muscles.

The article goes on to say that reducing muscle mass decline is vital in the health of the elderly. As Anna mentioned in the comments of the previous post, there is somewhat of a catch-22 with the elderly and the well-known "shuffle walk" they many of them do. They shuffle to maintain balance, which has been lost due to declining muscle mass. But shuffling keeps the muscles from being worked, so they further decline in strength, which results in even less balance and more shuffling. It's a vicious cycle.

Elderly people may eat less protein for a number of reasons, said Paddon-Jones, including cost, the fact that many foods may not taste as good to them as they once did, difficulty chewing, limited menus in nursing homes or assisted living communities, and decline in appetite. Another important contributor to muscle loss in the elderly is a lack of exercise, he noted.

Of course, we all know the value of a diet rich in protein and fat, but so many people are stuck on a high-carb diet (nearly always low in protein) with lots of joint-pounding, muscle-wasting aerobic activity. Both of these things lead to a decline in muscle mass and a decline in functionality as one ages. The way to go into old age with vigor and vitality, able to care for oneself is a nutrient-rich, low-carb diet (don't fear the fat) and lots of intense, muscle-building activity.

With the increasing cost of health care, it's important to remain functional as long as possible, so take care of yourself and maybe you'll be one of those 80-90 year olds running track in the Senior Olympics, laughing in the face of old age.

Book Review: The Omnivore's Dilemma

Last week, I put to rest another book. This time it was The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this one and the 400 or so pages flew by. It's not an overly technical read, quite enjoyable. There was really only one point of contention that I had with anything said in the book and that was his mention of "the previously discredited Dr. Robert Atkins" or some such statement. I've never seen any scientific research that can actually discredit Dr. Atkins, but the dogma of today makes him seem like a quack. We can only hope that one day people see the truth about avoiding the types of foods Dr. Atkins advised us to avoid, namely the processed garbage that is the cornerstone of the Food Guide Pyramid.

The book is setup in three parts following four different food chains: industrial agriculture culminating in a McDonald's meal, industrial organic, pastoral organic at Polyface Farm, and a hunted and gathered meal. The first part of the book is both riveting and appalling, with loads of very interesting stats. Pollan describes how two crops are dissected into their constituent parts to be rebuilt into the tens of thousands of food products lining our store shelves. These two crops are corn and soy. Corn provides starch, soy provides protein, and either or both can provide the fat that make up the myriad products that you see in your local supermarket. These two crops are so ubiquitous that corn is in at least 25% of the processed foods in the grocery and soy is in around 2/3 of them. That really puts the $3-4 a box for some junk food into perspective. It's just another mix of corn and soy with some stabilizers thrown in for good measure.

In the first section of the book, we also get an in-depth description of the sex life of corn and Pollan describes the evolutionary changes that maize underwent to become the corn that we know today with its huge kernels and reliance on humans for pollination. We follow a single proverbial bushel of corn to its various destinations, 60% of it into feed for cows, 20% processed into Twinkies and Pop-Tarts, etc. This corn is a particular breed (I think it's called "#2 Corn," but can't recall exactly) that humans don't typically eat directly. Most of it goes into our industrial facilities to be turned into either animal protein or junk food.

Speaking of animal protein, Pollan gives a small but significant synopsis of the issues of corn-feeding cows vs. grass-feeding them. One issue is the proliferation of E.Coli 0157:H7 in the guts of corn-fed cows. This is the nasty virulent strain that causes all kinds of ills to those unlucky enough to ingest it. The way it works is that cows are ruminants, intended to eat grass. When fed corn, the intestinal tracts of the cows becomes acidic, killing off all but the most acid-resistant bacteria. These acid-resistant bacteria are the 0157:H7 strain of E.Coli. So it would seem logical to not feed them corn, but corn-feeding is how we manage to turn out cheap, abundant meat quickly. A corn-fed cow comes to market weight in only 14-16 months, while a grass-fed cow takes several years to come to full weight. But since the high-corn diet makes the cows sick, they have to pumped up on antibiotics and are also fed growth hormones to speed the process. All of this goes into the food we eat, not to mention the poor fatty acid profile of typical feedlot meat, very high in omega-6 fatty acids, with little omega-3 and conjugated linoleic acids. Luckily, farmers are now selectively breeding cows to tolerate a diet of corn. Whew! I almost thought we might resort to something illogical like putting the cows on grass.

But I digress. Here are some other interesting tidbits from this section:
- America produces 17.5 billion pounds of High Fructose Corn Syrup per year. BILLION! That's 8.75 million TONS of a product that didn't exist until 1980.
- Americans consume 158 pounds of added sugars per person per year. That's an increase from 128 pounds in 1985.
- Forty-five of the sixty products at McDonald's contain corn.
- Twenty-three of the thirty-eight ingredients in a McNugget are corn-derived.
- One in three kids eat fast food daily.
- One in three kids will get diabetes (one presumes a large subset of the 1-in-3 that eat fast food daily). For African-Americans, that number is two in five.

Section two is about organic farming, specifically two kinds of organic farming: industrial organic and pastoral organic. First, he explores the industrial organic complex. Think Whole Foods where you can buy organic everything and most of it isn't from your local food producers. Strawberries from Chile, asparagus from California, etc. The ingredients of an industrial organic meal travel an average of 1500 miles to get to your plate. It may be more healthful than a meal of conventionally grown foods, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily more environmentally friendly. Pollan explores the notion of organic TV dinners and the organic farms that sit right next to conventional farms, run by the same people. It is an interesting concept to ponder. On the one hand, eating organic is more healthful for the eaters and doesn't douse the land with petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides. More land under organic control means fewer chemicals in our land and waterways. On the other hand, is an organic Snicker's any better than a conventionally produced one? We have the power to produce nearly anything organically, but does that make it a good idea to do so? And since organic foods must be trucked or flown in from far away, is it more or less environmentally friendly than eating a locally produced meal of conventional agriculture products?

Pollan's week at Polyface Farm sounds truly intriguing and enlightening. Polyface is a true pastoral farm. They raise cows, chickens, pigs, turkeys, and rabbits on their 450 acre farm, most of which is wooded. The animals are rotated through the available pasture in a precise dance that ensures each animal gets to eat the food most appropriate for it, all of it grass-based. Joel Salatin, the farm's owner, actually calls himself a "grass farmer". He ensures that the grass receives the proper natural fertilization and amount of rest before reintroducing the cows to feed and drop their patties, which the chickens then come behind later and peck through to eat the grubs. The trees are planted strategically to keep the wind from destroying the pastures and are used as a sustainable lumber operation. Everything about this farm, from the way the manure is turned into fertilizer (through the use of pigs) to the way the chickens are slaughtered (open air, viewable by anyone) is sustainable. Little of anything on the farm is brought in from outside and the entire farming operation is produced on-farm by the work of the sun and the animals coordinated in a natural rhythm. And because Salatin believes in buying local, he refuses to ship his products anywhere but the local Virginia and Maryland markets, which is why Pollan ended up there working the farm. One chapter talks about Pollan's internal struggles with slaughtering a chicken and turning the chicken waste into yet more fertilizer.

Next up, Pollan investigates vegetarianism and the ethics of eating meat. He cites Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation, several times. Singer is a noted animal rights activist and vegetarian. But the really interesting part of Singer's take on animal rights is that he doesn't disagree with responsible farming of the type performed at Polyface. That one of the most vehement opposers of using animals for food can't find an argument against allowing cows, pigs, and chickens to live the lives of cows, pigs, and chickens, only to later be used as food speaks volumes to the responsibility and sustainability of grass-based farming. Aside from the health benefits of eating properly raised animal products, turning away from the conventional agriculture so predominant in our cheap food culture is friendly to the environment and to our animal brethren.

Finally, Pollan goes on his own hunting and gathering expedition to create a completely (or mostly) home-grown meal. His goals are to hunt a California pig and gather chanterelle mushrooms. He meets a fellow that is well-versed in pig hunting and mushroom gathering that agrees to take him out. After he successfully bags a pig, he goes through all kinds of emotions, ranging from disgust at himself for enjoying it to thankfulness for the pig that became part of the never-ending circle of life. The description of mushrooms is absolutely fascinating and I won't give away all of the details here, but thinking of the network growing below the ground, of which a mushroom is only a small little part, is incredible. It is like a brain network within the earth.

All in all, I absolutely loved this book. I give it 5 stars. Sure, not every conventional farmer is like the Iowans he interviewed, but he does a good job of exploring the issues surrounding our food chains, of which we are increasingly removed and which is amazingly opaque. Understanding where our food comes from, how it is grown and processed, and how it gets to us is the best way for returning to a healthful life.

Training Room Snacks

So I was off walking around the building this morning (with a goal in mind, not just wandering aimlessly) and I happened to glance into the Training Room as I walked by. They were preparing for their 8am training class and had plates of snacks at each spot. My brief glance noted that the plates were full of small bags of M&Ms, mini candy bars, and other junk food. Is the goal to keep people awake or to give them a sugar coma so it's easier to fall asleep? Why does the food in a corporate environment nearly always have to be garbage?

Food - America's Foe

A few days ago, Robb Wolf wrote a post about breakfast. In this post, he had one line that stood out for several reasons, not the least of which is that it's in bold and all caps. This line was: "FOOD IS NOT YOUR FRIEND, YOUR SOUL MATE OR THE ANSWER TO YOUR PROBLEMS." I've been thinking about this line a bit since reading his post. Now I know where he was going with this line of thought. Many people turn to food when they are sad or stressed or just plain having a bad day. He's saying to stop expecting food to make your life better, especially since the foods we turn to during these times rarely resemble a spinach and salmon salad. He's saying that Haagen-Dazs isn't going to fix whatever is driving you to need Haagen-Dazs. And I completely agree with him when we're talking about unhealthful foods.

Now I want to look at this quote from the opposite line of thinking. Maybe the problem in America is that we don't treat food as our friend nor as the answer to our (health) problems. In America, we have a very clear love-hate relationship with food. We love eating. We love eating a lot, and we love eating junk food, but we treat food as an adversary, a guilty pleasure, always something to be denied, denied, denied. We battle food for supremacy over our waistlines. And when we can no longer deny ourselves, we turn to foods that make us feel worse about ourselves. We think "My life sucks. I'll just have this bag of cookies and that'll make me feel better," and then an hour later, we're coming down from the sugar rush, cursing ourselves for being weak-willed and indulging, and life still sucks. Maybe it's America's Puritanical roots that force us to think any food that is remotely satisfying is "bad" and only the most bland, tasteless cardboard is "good". We have to make sure nary a gram of fat crosses our lips lest our food actually taste good and satisfy our desires.

What I propose is to start looking at food as your friend. You wouldn't keep friends that make you feel bad about yourself and constantly run you down, so why allow food to do so? Friends should make you feel good. They tell you that you're good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like you. If your friends said "Hey Stupid! There's no way you'll get that promotion. You're just not good enough," they wouldn't be your friends for long. We (hopefully) surround ourselves with people that build us up, not with those that tear us down. We should do the same with our nutrition plans. Why do all of our celebrations revolve around the absolute worst food available? Thanksgiving, Fourth of July, Christmas, the list goes on. All of our holidays are bread and sugar fests and then the sleepy feeling after eating is blamed on the turkey, the so-called "Tryptophan Coma", as if the mashed potatoes, rolls, candied yams, and pumpkin pie had nothing to do with it. We should indulge in and celebrate foods that give us energy, not those that make us want to fall asleep.

Why can't food be the answer to our problems? Food is a powerful drug. It is the original drug and one that many people (and all other animals) use to great effect for staying healthy. By taking a proactive approach and indulging in the proper foods, foods that are friendly to your body, we can make foods the answer to many of our problems. A great majority of the health ills of our modern culture are driven from poor diet. In those cases, food is most certainly the answer to our problems. Instead of seeking foods that torment our bodies by causing all kinds of hormonal wackiness (which are often the very effects that make us feel good while eating them), we should proactively seek foods that set us up for a lifetime of health, vigor, and vitality. Sure, no amount of food is going to get you out of debt or get your kids off of drugs, but it may help you feel better so you can deal with the other issues you're facing. Perhaps if we alleviated our health problems with the proper foods, we would find that our other problems are easier to deal with, cookie cake not required. At the very least, clearing away health problems will give you that many fewer things to deal with.

Unfortunately, finding foods that are good to your body necessarily means declaring some foods to be "bad". Obviously there are foods that should not be eaten at all, namely trans fats, and those that should be eaten in extreme moderation, i.e., sugars and processed junk. Since we're thinking about food as our friend, let's look at it this way. Friends should support our life goals and help us further our dreams and ambitions. If we want to have a good relationship with food, we need to pick foods that keep us on track with our goals as well. Few of us have the goal of being overweight, diabetic, and generally diseased, yet many of us continually choose a diet that promotes those very things. I posted David Seaman's Dietary Pursuit of Disease, which touched on this very subject. The foods you pick clearly illustrate your life goals just as the friends you surround yourself with illustrate your life goals.

As Michael Pollan tells us in The Omnivore's Dilemma, a problem that we have in the States is that we don't really have a national cuisine. France, Greece, Italy, Russia, Japan, and India, to name a few, all have a cuisine that guides their food choices. Sure there are regional variations in spices and flavors, but all in all, you know an Italian or Greek dish when you see it, smell it, and taste it. As a young nation of immigrants from numerous nations, we've never had a single food identity. Are pizza, chicken wings, and flavorless light beer the United States' contribution to the world table? Perhaps our lack of a food identity is why we succumb to every diet fad that comes along. Is it low-fat or all-grapefruit this week? Or was it the cabbage soup diet?

So we're left to the whim of the food processing companies that tell us what we should be eating. The newest celebrity (always a beautiful person) calls out from that colorful cereal box, "Everybody who's anybody is eating these new Sugar-coated Chocolate Bombs for breakfast. You don't want your child to be a loser that doesn't have Sugar-coated Chocolate Bombs for breakfast do you? By some breach of the laws of biochemistry, this cereal will actually make your child think clearly." Did you know that there are some 30-50,000 products in a typical supermarket? That number grows yearly as food manufacturers find new ways to combine corn and soy and give us a new taste sensation that is all the rage. And it'll probably cure your Athlete's Foot too. In 2004, the food industry spent $11.65 billion on marketing while the "5-a-day" campaign for fruits and vegetables spent a paltry $9.55 million. That's roughly 1200-fold higher. Is there any wonder that we don't have any clue what to eat? We're constantly bombarded with ads for foods that are our adversaries. We increasingly down food products rather than real foods and then wonder why all of the wonder promised on the package didn't come true for us. "I'm just predestined to be overweight. It's in my genes." And with that, we turn over our responsibility for our health and the stage is set for an adversarial relationship with food.

So how do we decide what to eat? Simple. Walk into the grocery store and pick up an item you normally purchase and ask yourself, "Does this item have an ingredient list with more than one ingredient?" If the answer is yes, put it back and keep going until you find an item that doesn't have an ingredient list or a nutrition panel. You'll typically find these items in bulk foods, produce, and the butcher section. Don't forget the olive oil, bags of nuts, and eggs (these are the "one-ingredient" labels that I was referring to). Health will never come in a package that has to tell you that it's healthful. Isn't it ironic that the most health-giving of foods - the lettuce and broccoli, chicken and beef, onions and garlic, apples and oranges - aren't the ones proclaiming to cure our every ill, yet they are the only ones that will do so? Would you believe a claim on the package for an omega-3 infused, fiber- and vitamin-enriched Twinkie that tells you it's "heart-healthy" or "a good source of fiber"? Stick to the basics: meat, vegetables, nuts, fruit, and, if you exercise intensely, some starchy tubers and squashes. Those foods are your friends. Keep them close and they'll build you up and help you take care of your problems.

The 98% Solution

This week, on Frank Forenich's GoAnimal newsletter, he talked about The 98% Solution. Frank raises an important point. Too many people focus on the little things rather than committing themselves to the big things. I regularly read guys on the forums that ask about using creatine, protein powders, L-glutamine, and every other supplement under the sun, but most of them haven't taken the big task of getting their diet in order. They want to fix their poor diet (the big thing) with supplements (the little things).

There is a similar focus in fitness on the pretty muscles, the extremities. Most teenage and college age males want "big guns" and "HYYUGE pecs" because that's what attracts the honeys. But few of them put in the work to have a strong, powerful body with the big lifts: squats, deadlifts, overhead press, bench press, and pullups. They're stuck with 15 variations of curls and 6 different cable exercises to hit the chest. But as the saying goes, "you can't fire cannons out of a rowboat". Isolation training produces lots of sizzle, but little in the way of steak. The pretty muscles unfortunately tend to be those in the front of the body that can be easily seen in the mirror: abs, pecs, and biceps. However, the muscles in the back, shoulders, and hamstrings are just as important for overall athleticism. Sprinting requires much more input from the hamstrings than from the quadriceps. You can typically tell which guys focus on the mirror and which focus on true athleticism. The "pretty" guy will tend to have a rounded, hunched look, typical of an overemphasis on the chest with little effort to shore up the back, whereas an athlete has shoulders back and stands tall, chest open and up. This overemphasis on the chest and anterior muscles is not only nonathletic, but also results in muscle imbalances that can be injurious.

So what is the 98%? If you focus on high quality nutrition, plenty of sleep, a low stress lifestyle, and exercising the main movers of the body, you'll be one hellaciously fit person. What would I consider to be the 2%? Supplements (other than fish oil...fish oil is part of "high quality nutrition"), intermittent fasting, isolation exercises, etc. If you aren't eating a diet focused on whole natural foods, getting 8 hours of sleep per night, taking fish oil, drinking plenty of water, keeping alcohol and sugar intake low, and exercising vigorously, all of the 2% in the world isn't going to help you.

This Week's Farmer's Market Trip

As usual, I hit the farmer's market again this past Saturday. If you live in Louisville, get down to the Bardstown Rd Farmer's Market ASAP (The picture is not of my farmer's market). If you don't live in Louisville (most of you), find your local farmer's market and go. You'll find some really excellent stuff there. Here is a rundown of my take from this week:

Stand #1 - $4
- A big bag of kale greens
- Grapes (real grapes with seeds)
- 1 cucumber (still have some leftover from last week)
- 1 zucchini (still have two leftover from last week)
- 1 yellow squash
- 2 apples

Stand #2 - $13 (blackberries and blueberries are expensive)
- 1 pint of Brussels sprouts
- 1 quart of blackberries
- 1 pint of blueberries

Stand #3 - $8
- 2 heads of lettuce
- 1 bunch of basil
- Something else that I seem to have forgot

Various other stands
- A dozen free-range eggs with the orangest yolks I've seen - $3
- A bunch of green onions with the biggest bulbs ever - $1
- 1/3lb of raw blue cheese - $5
- 1 sunflower stem that contained about 6 sunflowers and really brightened up the house - $1

And the real gem of the trip:
- 2.xx pounds of rabbit for $4.50/lb - $9.50

I don't know the exact quantities of most of the stuff, nor was it all priced separately. Prices are approximate. Regardless, I know that I walked out $45 lighter, but 5 bags of food heavier! If you take out the rabbit and cheese, both abnormal purchases, the cost was really very low for a week's worth of produce.

My farmer's market has several people selling pastured chicken, grass-fed meats, free range eggs, and excellent raw cheese. You can't find that in the big box grocery, although most of these farms do sell through the local health food stores. The eggs are even cheaper than getting the good Omega-3 eggs from the grocery. One thing that is really cool at the farmer's market is seeing food that would NEVER be sold in a grocery store because it's too ugly. Grocery store tomatoes are all perfectly red and about the size and shape of tennis balls. The guy selling the berries had the craziest looking tomatoes. One of them was literally about 8" in diameter with a hole through the middle. It had actually grown into a ring. The rabbit/sunflower seller had two butternut squashes that were easily 1.5-2 feet long, one of which was a perfect U-shape. Because these items wouldn't pack well, nor are they pretty, they wouldn't be sold in a grocery store. Of course, the bulbous, ugly tomatoes are usually the most flavorful, but unfortunately, grocery store produce is all about yield and durability, not flavor and nutrition.

So why shop at a farmer's market?

• Variety: Note the ugly (probably more flavorful) tomatoes and squashes mentioned above; can't find that in the grocery.


• Freshness: Most of the food at the farmer's market was on the vine/in the ground just a few days before; most of what you purchase in the grocery has been picked before it's ripe (probably at least a week in advance) and artificially ripened (which helps to explain why it isn't as flavorful).


• Local: Supporting your local economy is always a good thing.


• Pollution: Whether you believe in human-caused global warming or not, we can all acknowledge that bringing organic grapes from California spews more pollution than bringing grapes from 75 miles away.


• Seasonality: What better way to eat seasonally than by buying from people who can only grow what is seasonal to your area.


• Price: With the exception of a few items, my bill from the farmer's market was very low. I don't normally purchase rabbit and cheese, so that's $15 I wouldn't have spent and the berries are probably similarly priced at Meijer.


• Meet the growers: You can actually talk to the people that grow your food, ask them about their growing methods, and make friends with them. It is nice to know that a human is at the other end of the food chain.

How to Get Fat Without Really Trying

This video was posted on Ross Enamait's site yesterday: How to Get Fat Without Really Trying

It's 10 minutes long and a good watch. There are quite a few salient points in the video, such as:
- The typical grocery store carries 30-50,000 products, most of which are processed.
- Americans consume 3 times as much corn in the form of sweeteners (high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, etc) as in other forms, including as a side dish.
- It takes 1 hour of biking to burn off the calories in a soda. They showed a 20oz bottle, but didn't elaborate on the quantity of soda.
- A McDonald's meal (appeared to be a cheeseburger and fries) takes about 6 hours of walking to burn off.
- 25% of elementary school kids have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.

All of those tens of thousands of processed products are specially packaged to entice you to make that impulse purchase. Colorful cartoon characters and celebrities call out to us, tempting us to just try a bite of the garbage they're hawking. To counter the excellent marketing of the food companies, stick to the outer perimeter of the store where you can get your meat, eggs, dairy (if you desire), and produce. If you must walk down a center aisle, pick the one with the olive oil and/or nuts or an aisle that has products you are completely disinterested in. It's hard to be tempted if you don't see the products. Another solution is to shop at farmer's markets as much as possible, venturing into the supermarket as little as possible for essentials like spices, olive oil, and nuts. And get one of the small hand baskets as we tend to want to fill whatever apparatus is at hand...smaller apparatus = less room to fill with crud.

Three times as much corn in the form of sweeteners! That is appalling. Art De Vany had a good post on the I'll run it off mentality.

All of those elementary school kids have the makings of Syndrome X. Unless their dietary intakes are changed, most of them will end up obese, diabetic, and disease-ravaged. All of that sugar depletes the immune system and destroys arterial walls.

Peter Jennings was talking to a marketer about the products that the marketer helps shill. They didn't give a name, so John Doe is our marketer so I can quit writing "the marketer". He asked John if he cares if a product is healthy when he designs the advertising. JD's reply was "I care that the product has a positive role in a child's life." What positive role could Twinkies, Pop-Tarts, Oreos, and Cocoa Puffs possibly have in a child's life? Does he think that insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome are a positive thing? When Jennings pushed him to compare his products to asparagus and broccoli, he actually used the words "so-called less healthy products" in reference to the sugary junk. "So-called"! That's marketing speak for "you're absolutely correct that I'm making a living off of pushing crap to kids, but I won't admit it in as many words." One good way to reduce your and your children's exposure to advertising is to....turn off the television.

Of course, I can't get behind the "blame the food industry" tack. It's all about personal responsibility. Granted marketers have mastered the art of using human nature against us to get us to buy things we know are bad for us. But ultimately, companies are only providing that which people are buying. If people would quit buying the junk, the companies would quit making it. It's not Kraft's fault if you're overweight. Kraft, et al, may be enablers, but in the end you and only you put the food in your mouth.

Couch Potatoes

This picture from The Economist says a lot. Americans watch an average of 8 hours and 11 minutes of television per day.

DESPITE an increase in entertainment choices, watching television remains as popular as ever, according to the OECD's "Communications Outlook 2007". In 15 of the 18 countries for which data were collected, broadcast-TV viewing increased from 1997 to 2005. Only in Spain, New Zealand and South Korea did people watch less. America takes the couch-potato crown, with households goggling at the box for an eye-straining average of 8 hours and 11 minutes every day. The nearest rival, Turkey, only manages an average of five hours a day.

It doesn't say if that is for multiple TVs running at once, so perhaps two TVs each on for 4 hours, but I would bet that is the case. Regardless, 8+ hours of TV time is a lot of time spent sitting idle. An hour of TV is more than enough for me and I don't even do that daily. I have a hard time watching movies because they drag on so long and I find my mind wandering to everything else. I'm much more of an Internet person, so it's not like I'm out saving the whales or protecting the rainforests. I simply choose a different way to waste my time. I think as a nation though, this exemplifies our growing obesity problem. We eat more calories, more processed foods and move less. Those variables add up to increased waistlines.

I really can't get into reality TV. Watching other people live their lives, while I'm busy not living mine just isn't fun. We'd all (including me) be better off if we took our dogs for a walk or took the kids out for a game of catch, a stroll in the park, or a bike ride. I don't have kids of my own, but I imagine that would be a better bonding experience than staring idly at the TV.

A Few Recent Posts and Articles

Here are a few posts from the past couple weeks that I've enjoyed:
Frank Forencich, the Exuberant Animal, discusses Who's Holistic? I really like the stuff Frank writes on his Animal Times site. I really like how he closes it out:

It doesn't matter whether you're working at a school, a gym or a studio. The age of specialization is waning; it no longer works to dig one hole, deeper and deeper while ignoring the rest of the world. The time for panoramic vision is upon us. It's time to train the whole animal.

Ross Enamait gave a link to an article showing that high intensity exercise improves learning. So go do some sprints before reading that textbook.

Here is a good read about the Mexican government educating Americans about real Mexican vs. Tex-Mex. I love the American version of Mexican food and would love to try the authentic stuff.

Shaun Boyd, at Life Reboot, has a post that focuses on a different area of health than I typically discuss: happiness (and by extension, stress). Check out his 10 Articles That Changed My Life. If you only have a few minutes or don't want to read them all, I suggest Steve Job's commencement address (#1) and Steve Pavlina's "Don't Die With Your Music Still In You" (#3).

Ad Lib Eating and Intermittent Fasting

"Eat 5 smaller meals per day to maintain energy levels." That's pretty common knowledge in the nutrition world, is it not? I reject this line of thought. I eat only as many times as I need to eat each day. My day consists of somewhere between 1 and 3 meals, generally two large meals with about 18-20 hours of fasting ("compressed eating window"). I don't really see the point in forcing myself to eat 5 or 6 times each day. There are several reasons I eat this way.

First, the human body isn't designed for constant feasting. A constant titration of calories and insulin is not a natural state for humans, who would've fasted (or eaten lightly) during the day's hunting and gathering and then feasted at night. Some days there would be little food (unsuccessful hunt). Some days there would be abundant food (woolly mammoth!). But nevertheless, our ancestors would not have eaten 5 meals each day. I have no scientific data to back this up, but my body tells me that giving it a break from constant digesting is much appreciated. The studies that have been done on Intermittent Fasting (check PubMed) show promise.

Second, Caloric Restriction (CRAN) has shown promise in promoting health and extending life (in mice). Intermittent Fasting, which is technically a 24 hours on, 24 hours off schedule, shows many of the same benefits as CRAN, such as increased beta hydroxybutyrate, marked decreases in blood glucose and insulin, and increases in neuroprotection and neuroendocrine response. But the beauty of IF is that it doesn't have the downsides of CRAN like decreased body weight. Take a look at some of hardcore CRAN practitioners...many are quite twig-like and quite a few lose their sex drive, all for a chance at having a few more years tacked onto the end of their lives. I love this quote: "I'm a much more considerate husband and father than I was prior to starting the diet. My testosterone is extremely low, in the ballpark of an average woman." Sounds like a blast. Robb Wolf has written some good stuff in The Performance Menu about Intermittent Fasting; Issue 6 is a nice introduction.

Also, I find that I think better when I don't have a belly full of food. This works out well at work. When everyone else is hitting their post-lunch lull, I'm still humming along. And I don't lose the 30 minutes or hour of work to eating. Similarly, my workout performance is better during my fast than if I have eaten within 4 or 5 hours before the workout. I'm stronger, lighter, and crisper during a fast than afterwards. The body and mind just seem to work better during short fasts. I surmise that this is an evolutionary adaptation providing peak performance right when it is needed: at food finding time. The body doesn't need such levels of energy and clear thinking following a meal as energy supplies are secure for awhile so it can devote the blood supply to the stomach for digestion.

Finally, it's hard enough to put together 2 or 3 perfect meals of meat, vegetables, nuts, fruits, and tubers. Forcing yourself to eat on a schedule is setting yourself up to eat subpar foods. And eating 5+ times per day is that many opportunities to eat foods that you really shouldn't be eating. I have very few chances to cheat on my nutrition plan each day since I rarely eat away from my house. And the cheat foods that are in my pantry aren't as detrimental as anything in a snack machine. Plus, it is easier to not eat than it is to eat just a little.

While I generally end up not eating breakfast or lunch and then chowing down when I get home, the real beauty is that I can break my fast at any point in time without a major effect. If I get overly hungry, I eat. I don't have to remain dogmatically tied to a certain eating schedule. If I'm hungry in the morning, I'll grab a small breakfast. If I get hungry at work, I can walk downstairs and grab a salad. That's the "ad lib" part of my fasting regimen. I find that following an this nutrition plan puts me much more in tune with my body than 5 perfectly timed meals ever did. I understand what is real hunger and what isn't. I aim for long fasts, but if my body says "uh uh," I eat.

I typically follow one of two eating plans each day. Right now, I'm not working out due to my shoulder surgery (which I'm recovering from nicely), so most days I get up, get dressed, go to work, come home from work, then break my fast with a handful of nuts while I make my patented enormous salad (~20 hour fast). This constitutes my first meal, which I follow about 2 hours later with another feast of meat and vegetables and plenty of olive oil. If I'm still hungry after that, I might coat some berries, grapes, and/or melon with coconut oil, coconut, and cinnamon for dessert or get ahold of some almond butter and get some more good fat calories in. Two large meals in 3-4 hours. When I am working out, I usually time my workout for early- to mid-afternoon and then eat some starchy carbs, protein, and fat an hour or so later, then I head home after work and have 1 big meal (15-18 hour fast).

Many people that follow a "compressed eating window" (eating the same number of calories in a shorter time frame, like my 18-20 hour fasts) find that they recover from workouts faster and contrary to what you would think, don't lose tons of weight. Until my recent bout of two shoulder dislocations and surgery (mid-May), I had gained about 8 lbs while dropping some fat, so probably a 10-pound muscle gain starting in Dec, with pretty big gains in the major lifts of deadlift, squat, and overhead press. So I was getting in enough high quality calories to fuel muscle growth while gaining weight and still losing fat. That's contrary to the popular belief that you can't gain muscle while losing fat unless you are a rank beginner, isn't it? It is possible if one is eating properly and lifting properly. Alwyn Cosgrove touched on this recently.

I've been asked a few times about "starvation mode" and catabolism (muscle breakdown). I don't know the mechanisms behind it, but my jump from 185 lbs (~9.5% bodyfat) to 193 lbs (~8.5% bodyfat) during the months of Dec to May certainly show that I wasn't wasting away and that a bit of catabolic action didn't harm muscular growth. Catabolism is every bit the natural process that anabolism (muscle growth) is. Art DeVany gave a brief description of the benefits of catabolism following a workout.

An easy way to get up to speed on fasting is The Fast-5 Diet. I dislike the author's lack of concern over food quality, but I think that's more of a way to make it marketable than anything else. I mean who really wants to hear that they have to get rid of their crappy food AND not eat for 19 hours of the day? Needless to say, a fasting protocol with high-quality natural foods is better than a fasting protocol with low-quality processed foods. It is also easier to fast on a low-carb diet than on a low-fat diet since carbs stimulate the appetite, while protein and fat are satiating.

One other thing I've noticed is that I appreciate my food much more. When I eat, I really savor the flavors, textures, smells, and colors rather than just mindlessly forcing more food down my gullet as I did in past days of eating every 3 hours. Fasting really brings an appreciation of the food that you are eating. Give it a shot.

Paleo Diet trumps Mediterranean Diet

Say it ain't so Joe! But it is. Imagine that...eating a diet in line with our genetic roots helps people regain/maintain their health. Here is the abstract of the study for those inclined to read such things.

The main result was that the blood sugar rise in response to carbohydrate intake was markedly lower after 12 weeks in the Paleolithic group (–26%), while it barely changed in the Mediterranean group (–7%). At the end of the study, all patients in the Paleolithic group had normal blood glucose.

The main difference between the diets was that the Paleo group consumed more fruit and fewer grains and dairy. It goes back to what I always say: Eat a diet based on meat, vegetables, nuts, seeds, fruits, tubers, and squashes. There is nothing in a grain that isn't found in fruits and vegetables. I imagine as more of these studies on Paleolithic nutrition roll out, we'll keep seeing these kinds of results.

Iron Deficiency? Have a Coke (?)

City scientists test pizza and Coke diet to determine if "the fizzy drink can help prevent young women from becoming anaemic."

And of course this research is sponsored by Coca-Cola, which has high hopes for the outcome.

The Coca-Cola Co is hoping the study will show that Coke could be a cheap, efficient way to tackle iron deficiency problems, especially in young women.

That would be a huge boost for the company, with its public image tarnished by claims its sugary fizzy drinks cause dental problems and contribute to obesity.

Let's get real...even if Coke does increase iron absorption, it is still a contributor to dental problems and obesity. The last thing we need to do to help people overcome health issues is to promote other problems. There are many food sources of iron that aren't quite as detrimental to health as is Coke, such as meat, liver, spinach, and watermelon.

I can see the headline now: "Coke - It'll destroy your metabolism, but at least you'll absorb some iron."

Protect the Corporations; Damn the Consumers

I ran across this article today and after reading it, I am incensed. Here's the headline: U.S. government fights to keep meatpackers from testing all slaughtered cattle for mad cow.

The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease. The Agriculture Department tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef.

This President of ours and this Agriculture Department of ours are supposed to protect the American public. What do they do instead? They protect the conglomerate corporations that line their pockets with dollars. Why do they do this? Apparently, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef decided to voluntarily test all of their beef for Mad Cow Disease, or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. Well, the large meat companies think that having well-informed consumers is a bad idea. If consumers know that Creekstone beef is free of BSE, they may opt for that over the meat of the conglomerates forcing the big companies to also test their beef and assure us that it's safe. And that costs money, which will cut into their margins, resulting in less profit and smaller bonuses for the already-fat cats running these companies.

So the Agriculture Department has sued Creekstone Farms, but a federal judge ruled that Creekstone must be allowed to voluntarily test its herds. And now we're in the appeals process, which keeps the ruling from taking effect. Yes, that's right - our very own Agriculture Dept is suing a company that is trying to inform its consumers that its products are safe! It is appalling. During the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln declared our government to be "of the people, by the people, for the people." Unfortunately, everyday it seems that, contrary to Mr. Lincoln's declaration, that government has perished. We are now ruled by a government (and this isn't a problem that's come about only during the Bush administration) that is more concerned with corporate interests than those of "we the people". We seem to be "of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation."

Trying to Hack the Body Again

...and I have my doubts that this try will be more successful that previous attempts. Animal research raises possibility of end to fat-free diets.

I'll just go ahead and lead off with a comment that logic should have put an end to fat-free and low-fat diets long ago.

A new study in mice raises a tantalizing possibility – that humans may one day be able to eat any kind of fat they want without raising their risk of heart disease.

"We deleted an enzyme in mice and they could eat any type of fat and not get heart disease," said Lawrence Rudel, Ph.D., a professor of comparative medicine. "If you're a mouse, it's great. Of course, we don't know yet if it will be the same in humans."

Yes, you read that correctly. They are wanting to delete enzymes to protect against atherosclerosis. I'm sure plenty of problems will arise from this. For one, enzymes don't usually control only one function. They are usually involved in several bodily processes. You can't just delete them and expect no downstream effects. Unfortunately, too many people are perfectly fine with popping a pill or undergoing weight loss surgery and putting up with the side effects (like cosmic pizza grease), rather than adjusting their lifestyle. Popping a pill is easy. Cutting out sugar and processed carbs isn't easy. Eating more fruits and vegetables isn't easy. Getting up off of the couch and moving around more isn't easy. Oh sure, it's simple, but for the majority, it isn't easy. We're all victims looking for science to save us rather than realizing that humans were lean and healthy for hundreds of thousands of years. Here is a simple solution: stick to the perimeter of the store - produce, meat and eggs. Grab some olive oil and nuts and go home. If a food product is in a bright package with a cartoon character, put it back on the shelf. If it has a celebrity advertiser, put it back.

This is still in animal testing stages and may never come to fruition, but we don't need to tamper with the human body! The body is perfectly capable of maintaining itself if given the proper fuel, rest, and activity.

I'll Take "Feed the Cows Grass for $1000, Alex"

Here is an article from last week's New York Times: Scientists Look to Vaccines in the War on E. Coli

E.coli 0157:H7 has been in the news quite a bit of late. This is the particularly virulent strain that causes humans so many problems, up to and including death. When the news first broke of E.coli-tainted spinach, the FDA went after the spinach growers and there was talk of irradiating produce to ensure no bacteria survived. What a typical response to look for a proximate cause instead of the ultimate one. Then it was green onions at Taco Bell. I mean, as if Taco Bell food couldn't be bad enough for your health, there was the threat of picking up something more viscous than the typical "next morning" response.

Well, now people are starting to look to the ultimate cause of E.coli 0157:H7, namely cows. Here's a brief primer: all mammals have E.coli in their digestive tracts. You do, I do, my dog does, your cat does, the horses that ran in this Saturday's Kentucky Derby do, and the little mouse that makes you shriek in fear does. It's all well and good until you go intermixing E.coli strains; 0157:H7 comes from cows. It is then passed out through the manure where it taints ground-water, which is sprayed on crops, and is used as fertilizer, mostly on organic crops since commercial agriculture uses chemicals. "So we should monitor produce suppliers to make sure they are not using E.coli-tainted water and manure!" Not so fast. Sure, there should be some burden on the produce growers, but let's look for the ultimate cause, not just a proximate one. The ultimate cause is the root; eliminate it and you eliminate the proximate ones. This strain of E.coli comes from corn-fed cows. The corn acidifies the stomach, which kills nearly all E.coli except this acid-resitant strain, which proliferates in the gut of the cows. An easy way of getting rid of E.coli 0157:H7 is to take away the acidic environment that it thrives in, by feeding the cattle grass. It has actually been shown that taking a cow off of corn and feeding it grass for only 5 days reduces E.coli 0157:H7 levels 1000-fold. Sounds pretty simple.

Too simple in fact. Oh, it would work, but that would be too easy of a solution. We need vaccines for the cows and for humans! Why do something simple like feed the cows a natural diet, even if only for 5 days, when we can simply pump them and ourselves full of more drugs? Ridiculous! I can't imagine the cost of 5 days of hay feeding being that prohibitive, especially when it comes to consumer health. And this my friends is the ultimate cause: corn. If we switch the cows to hay for 5 days (or better yet forever, as in grass-fed cows), the incidence of E.coli-illness would drop off drastically. We can vaccinate and irradiate and otherwise treat the symptom, or we can go to the source and eliminate it there. Would you cut down a tree by chopping off it's branches or would you cut off the trunk and destroy the roots?

We'll never learn until all Americans are vaccinated and drugged to the moon and back.

Kids Like Homegrown Vegetables

Here's a good follow-up to my recent post on the growing obesity problem amongst kids: Children Eat More Fruits and Vegetables If They Are Homegrown.

The study found that preschool kids served homegrown fruits and vegetables were nearly twice as likely to eat five servings per day than those who rarely or never had homegrown produce. These kids prefer the taste of fruits and vegetables to other foods and eat a greater variety of fruits and vegetables. This is obviously a great finding. Kids that learn healthful eating habits as young'ins will tend to grow up to be healthier adults. Overweight kids tend to grow up to be overweight adults, so reducing the intake of McDonald's and Burger King in favor of meat and produce is a positive step.

I'm not sure planting a garden is necessary. I bet that much of the reason for the difference is that those that grow their own vegetables just have more vegetables readily available than those that don't. I surmise that a study comparing two groups of families, one group eating 5+ servings/day of homegrown vegetables and one group eating 5+ servings/day of store-bought vegetables, would yield very little difference in the attitudes of kids toward produce. The key is availability and familiarity rather than where the produce is grown. Granted kids are probably more excited about eating something that is grown by mom and/or dad, but I think just having a menu replete with fruits and vegetables will accomplish at least 90% of getting kids to eat their vegetables. And of course mom and dad have to eat them too.

I am working on building my own garden. I've been so busy with the new house and such that I haven't found the time yet and since we're fast approaching summer, it won't happen this year. However, I have picked a spot in my backyard and will start working on getting the soil up to snuff soon. I'm also deciding on what I would like to grow. I'm thinking about broccoli, cauliflower, cucumbers, asparagus, some sort of lettuce, perhaps onions, and squash. I'd also like to plant some herbs and maybe a chili pepper plant. As I've never really grown anything before, we'll see how my first "harvest" turns out. No kids yet, but hopefully by the time they come along, I'll have a nice green thumb and can provide them with fresh, homegrown produce.