From VegSource

February 26, 2010

Rant: On "Comfort Foods" & Related IssuesIMHO, by characterizing foods as "comfort foods" we draw upon emotions rather than intellect. Many of the food products (or, as Pollan would put it, "food-like substances") we were given as children have been shown to be rather unhealthy. They have become "unhealthy" attachments and, in many cases, taste addictions. The topic came up in a list I belong to (fat free vegan). My response got too long, hence this post.Plastic white Wonder Bread, Cocoa Puffs, Campbell's Soups, Pizza, McDonald's Fries, Gummy Bears, and the list goes on and on. I remember when doctors would SMOKE in their offices (one in particular, advising me that my being a vegetarian was risky to my health). It's not a coincidence that food companies spend most of their advertising dollars targeting

children ("hook 'em when the're young, you get them for life"). Then there's the "bond" to these unhealthy foods that comes from the fact that it's those we trust when we are young, (our parents and relatives) who give us that stuff.It takes determination, will, and mental discipline, to remind ourselves that emotional attachments to unhealthy food are one of the reasons we have around 24 million diabetics in this country (6 million of those unaware of such), and lose near half a million (not counting those deaths from other cardiovascular-related problems) a year to heart attacks. Our public and governmental institutions have failed completely, for the most part, in helping people understand what is healthy and what isn't. Considering the amount of money spent on advertising bad food products it's not surprising how screwed up the conventional views of good nutrition are ("Over 10 billion dollars is spent on fast food

advertising to children annually in numerous fashions.").I see many vegetarians and vegans gleefully substitute high fat faux cheeses and meats, lots of sugar, excessive sodium, and/or added oil to recipes to duplicate "comfort foods." Large amounts of sugar and refined flour as "they deserve a treat" on Valentine's Day. "Deserve?" Hardly. They misleadingly believe that because they are vegan, they have removed the risk of having cardiovascular issues or diabetes. Far from it. It might be reduced some, but they can still get fat and saturated fat from non-animal sources that, from the body's risks standpoint, is essentially the same as from animal sources. Added oil fuels development of plaque that causes strokes (that's not a cholesterol issue) and inflames your blood vessels. One fatty meal decreases your blood vessels elasticity for several hours (that's a measured fact). Using more sugar

in a meal than recommended per day by the American Heart Association is not a "treat." It's potential long-term suicide. Over time, it's probably gonna kill ya. A la McDougall, Esselstyn, Barnard, and Campbell: "Moderation kills."This is why when celebrated vegan chefs like Tal repeatedly say, "Fat is Flavor," I believe he isn't really helping the human animals and is basically a nutritional moron. PCRM recently praised his cookbook, "Conscious Cooking" while dissing Julia Childs, mentioning heart disease, yadda, whereas in fact, some of his recipes are significantly higher in added fat then hers!"Daiya Cheese," which so many vegans worship, has more fat per serving than WHOLE MILK mozzarella. It's essentially a nutritiously vapid food-like substance that's mostly oil. "But it melts!" proclaim the fat-addicted vegans. "It saves [non-human] animals!" yell the animal rights

activists.Big whoop. Remember that when they put the stents in. Which reminds me: how ironic that many articles about President Clinton's recent surgery mentioned that his last one (quadruple bypass) was successful. Successful? That means he didn't die from complications. If it were successful, he wouldn't need the stents. You see, modern medicine CANNOT cure heart disease, only extend one's life a bit. Yet, two people, independently, 20 years of peer-reviewed research, have REVERSED IT through a no-added fat diet (one was vegetarian, one was vegan). Both men recommend NO added oil, not even in moderation. Here's 15 documented and referenced reasons to avoid added oil to help elucidate the problems.How can anyone intelligently argue against this? Added oil/fat, salt, and sugar is killing us in huge numbers. It's not just a meat or dairy issue. To argue against

no added fat and limiting sugar and salt in your diet is like arguing against evolution, gravity, and the Earth revolving around the Sun. We're talking facts here people, not theory, conjecture, or educated guesses.My "take no prisoners" approach stems from Dr. Esselsytn telling me in that interview I did with him three years ago this week. He didn't want to just reduce the numbers (a la Mediterranean Diet as he pointed out in someone else's interview), he wanted to crush it (different phraseology). By thinking of such fatty, salty, and or sugary foods as "comforting," it's too easy for many people to justify consumption of same, and continued addiction. Making a fatty vegan mac'n'cheese for your kids is not loving, it's potentially killing. Creating future fat addicts.Re-training your taste buds to not crave excess salt, sugar, and fat, is doable (around 14 wks.), but, imho, like an alcoholic, it's usually

an "all or nothing" situation for most of us. Fortunately, many of the so-called "comfort" foods can be duplicated, to varying degree, without the fat, sugar, salt, and unpronounceable chemicals. Perhaps, though, the best strategy, is to create new and healthier comfort foods. We can then break with the unhealthy past and establish new rituals based upon new knowledge.For those interested, Jonathan Foer goes into the issue a lot in his book, "Eating Animals." His work surprised me in depth of thought and overall approach. The issue of family rituals and eating was one of the book's arcs that he was wrestling with in his eventual decision that eating factory farmed meat was wrong. There would be new family rituals regarding food, they would be healthy, and they would not involve meat. In effect, "healthy" comfort foods would be emphasized, and his child would have a better chance of living longer

and healthier as a result.Optimally, the healthiest comfort food is no-added oil, minimal sugar, minimal salt, and vegan. The evidence is in, and if one can eliminate the emotional attachments and taste addictions, one can drastically increase opportunities for a longer and healthier life. For me, that's a comforting thought, and, the real treat.Patricia

February 26, 2010

While I do agree that too much fat, sugar etc is not particularly good for you I

don't think it is quite as straightforward as this article makes out.

My great grandmother, and my aunt used to always have full fat milk, cheese,

cream, eggs, a certain amount of meat each day. They used to drink tea

sweetened with condensed milk. They baked, and therefore ate cake most days.

My grandmother lived to be 99ish, in a healthy condition until struck down by

Asian flu. My aunt lived to her mid-80s.

I think that because they were busy all day - no labour-saving devices to do

their housework, and because they had to walk to the shops etc. they kept their

weight right, and kept fit.

I think being healthy does not just depend on one aspect of life.

Jo

, Patricia <moondreamer64_2000 wrote:

>

> Rant: On " Comfort Foods " & Related Issues

>

> IMHO, by characterizing foods as " comfort foods " we draw upon emotions rather

than intellect. Many of the food products (or, as Pollan would put it,

" food-like substances " ) we were given as children have been shown to be rather

unhealthy. They have become " unhealthy " attachments and, in many cases, taste

addictions. The topic came up in a list I belong to (fat free vegan). My

response got too long, hence this post.

>

> Plastic white Wonder Bread, Cocoa Puffs, Campbell's Soups, Pizza, McDonald's

Fries, Gummy Bears, and the list goes on and on. I remember when doctors would

SMOKE in their offices (one in particular, advising me that my being a

vegetarian was risky to my health). It's not a coincidence that food companies

spend most of their advertising dollars targeting children ( " hook 'em when

the're young, you get them for life " ). Then there's the " bond " to these

unhealthy foods that comes from the fact that it's those we trust when we are

young, (our parents and relatives) who give us that stuff.

>

> It takes determination, will, and mental discipline, to remind ourselves that

emotional attachments to unhealthy food are one of the reasons we have around 24

million diabetics in this country (6 million of those unaware of such), and lose

near half a million (not counting those deaths from other cardiovascular-related

problems) a year to heart attacks. Our public and governmental institutions

have failed completely, for the most part, in helping people understand what is

healthy and what isn't. Considering the amount of money spent on advertising

bad food products it's not surprising how screwed up the conventional views of

good nutrition are ( " Over 10 billion dollars is spent on fast food advertising

to children annually in numerous fashions. " ).

>

> I see many vegetarians and vegans gleefully substitute high fat faux cheeses

and meats, lots of sugar, excessive sodium, and/or added oil to recipes to

duplicate " comfort foods. " Large amounts of sugar and refined flour as " they

deserve a treat " on Valentine's Day. " Deserve? " Hardly. They misleadingly

believe that because they are vegan, they have removed the risk of having

cardiovascular issues or diabetes. Far from it. It might be reduced some, but

they can still get fat and saturated fat from non-animal sources that, from the

body's risks standpoint, is essentially the same as from animal sources. Added

oil fuels development of plaque that causes strokes (that's not a cholesterol

issue) and inflames your blood vessels. One fatty meal decreases your blood

vessels elasticity for several hours (that's a measured fact). Using more sugar

in a meal than recommended per day by the American Heart Association is not a

" treat. " It's

> potential long-term suicide. Over time, it's probably gonna kill ya. A la

McDougall, Esselstyn, Barnard, and Campbell: " Moderation kills. "

>

> This is why when celebrated vegan chefs like Tal repeatedly say, " Fat is

Flavor, " I believe he isn't really helping the human animals and is basically a

nutritional moron. PCRM recently praised his cookbook, " Conscious Cooking "

while dissing Julia Childs, mentioning heart disease, yadda, whereas in fact,

some of his recipes are significantly higher in added fat then hers!

>

> " Daiya Cheese, " which so many vegans worship, has more fat per serving than

WHOLE MILK mozzarella. It's essentially a nutritiously vapid food-like

substance that's mostly oil. " But it melts! " proclaim the fat-addicted vegans.

" It saves [non-human] animals! " yell the animal rights activists.

>

> Big whoop. Remember that when they put the stents in. Which reminds me: how

ironic that many articles about President Clinton's recent surgery mentioned

that his last one (quadruple bypass) was successful. Successful? That means he

didn't die from complications. If it were successful, he wouldn't need the

stents. You see, modern medicine CANNOT cure heart disease, only extend one's

life a bit. Yet, two people, independently, 20 years of peer-reviewed research,

have REVERSED IT through a no-added fat diet (one was vegetarian, one was

vegan). Both men recommend NO added oil, not even in moderation. Here's 15

documented and referenced reasons to avoid added oil to help elucidate the

problems.

>

> How can anyone intelligently argue against this? Added oil/fat, salt, and

sugar is killing us in huge numbers. It's not just a meat or dairy issue. To

argue against no added fat and limiting sugar and salt in your diet is like

arguing against evolution, gravity, and the Earth revolving around the Sun.

We're talking facts here people, not theory, conjecture, or educated guesses.

>

> My " take no prisoners " approach stems from Dr. Esselsytn telling me in that

interview I did with him three years ago this week. He didn't want to just

reduce the numbers (a la Mediterranean Diet as he pointed out in someone else's

interview), he wanted to crush it (different phraseology). By thinking of such

fatty, salty, and or sugary foods as " comforting, " it's too easy for many people

to justify consumption of same, and continued addiction. Making a fatty vegan

mac'n'cheese for your kids is not loving, it's potentially killing. Creating

future fat addicts.

>

> Re-training your taste buds to not crave excess salt, sugar, and fat, is

doable (around 14 wks.), but, imho, like an alcoholic, it's usually an " all or

nothing " situation for most of us. Fortunately, many of the so-called " comfort "

foods can be duplicated, to varying degree, without the fat, sugar, salt, and

unpronounceable chemicals. Perhaps, though, the best strategy, is to create new

and healthier comfort foods. We can then break with the unhealthy past and

establish new rituals based upon new knowledge.

>

> For those interested, Jonathan Foer goes into the issue a lot in his book,

" Eating Animals. " His work surprised me in depth of thought and overall

approach. The issue of family rituals and eating was one of the book's arcs

that he was wrestling with in his eventual decision that eating factory farmed

meat was wrong. There would be new family rituals regarding food, they would be

healthy, and they would not involve meat. In effect, " healthy " comfort foods

would be emphasized, and his child would have a better chance of living longer

and healthier as a result.

>

> Optimally, the healthiest comfort food is no-added oil, minimal sugar, minimal

salt, and vegan. The evidence is in, and if one can eliminate the emotional

attachments and taste addictions, one can drastically increase opportunities for

a longer and healthier life.

>

> For me, that's a comforting thought, and, the real treat.

>

> Patricia

>

February 26, 2010

Um, what are they smoking on Daiya cheese? I've read the ingredients. Do they know what a serving is that they list on the back of my bag? 28g!!!!!!!!!! 90 calories for 28g, and the fat ain't bad, either. And I go through several uses of that bag.

Someone needs to learn numbers....On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Patricia <moondreamer64_2000 wrote:

Rant: On " Comfort Foods " & Related IssuesIMHO, by characterizing foods as " comfort foods " we draw upon emotions rather than intellect. Many of the food products (or, as Pollan would put it, " food-like substances " ) we were given as children have been shown to be rather unhealthy. They have become " unhealthy " attachments and, in many cases, taste addictions. The topic came up in a list I belong to (fat free vegan). My response got too long, hence this post.

Plastic white Wonder Bread, Cocoa Puffs, Campbell's Soups, Pizza, McDonald's Fries, Gummy Bears, and the list goes on and on. I remember when doctors would SMOKE in their offices (one in particular, advising me that my being a vegetarian was risky to my health). It's not a coincidence that food companies spend most of their advertising dollars targeting

children ( " hook 'em when the're young, you get them for life " ). Then there's the " bond " to these unhealthy foods that comes from the fact that it's those we trust when we are young, (our parents and relatives) who give us that stuff.

It takes determination, will, and mental discipline, to remind ourselves that emotional attachments to unhealthy food are one of the reasons we have around 24 million diabetics in this country (6 million of those unaware of such), and lose near half a million (not counting those deaths from other cardiovascular-related problems) a year to heart attacks. Our public and governmental institutions have failed completely, for the most part, in helping people understand what is healthy and what isn't. Considering the amount of money spent on advertising bad food products it's not surprising how screwed up the conventional views of good nutrition are ( " Over 10 billion dollars is spent on fast food

advertising to children annually in numerous fashions. " ).I see many vegetarians and vegans gleefully substitute high fat faux cheeses and meats, lots of sugar, excessive sodium, and/or added oil to recipes to duplicate " comfort foods. " Large amounts of sugar and refined flour as " they deserve a treat " on Valentine's Day. " Deserve? " Hardly. They misleadingly believe that because they are vegan, they have removed the risk of having cardiovascular issues or diabetes. Far from it. It might be reduced some, but they can still get fat and saturated fat from non-animal sources that, from the body's risks standpoint, is essentially the same as from animal sources. Added oil fuels development of plaque that causes strokes (that's not a cholesterol issue) and inflames your blood vessels. One fatty meal decreases your blood vessels elasticity for several hours (that's a measured fact). Using more sugar

in a meal than recommended per day by the American Heart Association is not a " treat. " It's potential long-term suicide. Over time, it's probably gonna kill ya. A la McDougall, Esselstyn, Barnard, and Campbell: " Moderation kills. "

This is why when celebrated vegan chefs like Tal repeatedly say, " Fat is Flavor, " I believe he isn't really helping the human animals and is basically a nutritional moron. PCRM recently praised his cookbook, " Conscious Cooking " while dissing Julia Childs, mentioning heart disease, yadda, whereas in fact, some of his recipes are significantly higher in added fat then hers!

" Daiya Cheese, " which so many vegans worship, has more fat per serving than WHOLE MILK mozzarella. It's essentially a nutritiously vapid food-like substance that's mostly oil. " But it melts! " proclaim the fat-addicted vegans. " It saves [non-human] animals! " yell the animal rights

activists.Big whoop. Remember that when they put the stents in. Which reminds me: how ironic that many articles about President Clinton's recent surgery mentioned that his last one (quadruple bypass) was successful. Successful? That means he didn't die from complications. If it were successful, he wouldn't need the stents. You see, modern medicine CANNOT cure heart disease, only extend one's life a bit. Yet, two people, independently, 20 years of peer-reviewed research, have REVERSED IT through a no-added fat diet (one was vegetarian, one was vegan). Both men recommend NO added oil, not even in moderation. Here's 15 documented and referenced reasons to avoid added oil to help elucidate the problems.

How can anyone intelligently argue against this? Added oil/fat, salt, and sugar is killing us in huge numbers. It's not just a meat or dairy issue. To argue against

no added fat and limiting sugar and salt in your diet is like arguing against evolution, gravity, and the Earth revolving around the Sun. We're talking facts here people, not theory, conjecture, or educated guesses.

My " take no prisoners " approach stems from Dr. Esselsytn telling me in that interview I did with him three years ago this week. He didn't want to just reduce the numbers (a la Mediterranean Diet as he pointed out in someone else's interview), he wanted to crush it (different phraseology). By thinking of such fatty, salty, and or sugary foods as " comforting, " it's too easy for many people to justify consumption of same, and continued addiction. Making a fatty vegan mac'n'cheese for your kids is not loving, it's potentially killing. Creating future fat addicts.

Re-training your taste buds to not crave excess salt, sugar, and fat, is doable (around 14 wks.), but, imho, like an alcoholic, it's usually

an " all or nothing " situation for most of us. Fortunately, many of the so-called " comfort " foods can be duplicated, to varying degree, without the fat, sugar, salt, and unpronounceable chemicals. Perhaps, though, the best strategy, is to create new and healthier comfort foods. We can then break with the unhealthy past and establish new rituals based upon new knowledge.

For those interested, Jonathan Foer goes into the issue a lot in his book, " Eating Animals. " His work surprised me in depth of thought and overall approach. The issue of family rituals and eating was one of the book's arcs that he was wrestling with in his eventual decision that eating factory farmed meat was wrong. There would be new family rituals regarding food, they would be healthy, and they would not involve meat. In effect, " healthy " comfort foods would be emphasized, and his child would have a better chance of living longer

and healthier as a result.Optimally, the healthiest comfort food is no-added oil, minimal sugar, minimal salt, and vegan. The evidence is in, and if one can eliminate the emotional attachments and taste addictions, one can drastically increase opportunities for a longer and healthier life.

For me, that's a comforting thought, and, the real treat.Patricia

-- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.comhttp://timeladydesigns.etsy.com

~Boston_GothicBoston_MysticBoston-Pagans

February 26, 2010

Strangely enough, the following item was on the BBC website today:

Slimming sixties not a myth

Home cooked food and plenty of housework was the 1960s

model Despite fewer visits to gyms and a love of high-fat foods, people in the

1960s were slimmer simply because they were more active, the government says.

Rates of obesity in English adults have risen from 1-2%

in the 1960s to around 26% today, figures show.

Yet in 2010, overweight adults are far less likely to try

to lose weight, a repeat of a survey done in 1967 showed.

Plus adults in the 1960s did more housework and used the

car less, the Department of Health said.

The 1967 survey of 1,900 adults found nine in ten people

had attempted to lose weight in the past year compared with 57% of 1,500 adults

questioned in 2010.

Forty years ago, only 7% of those who considered

themselves to be overweight had failed to do anything about it compared with

43% of today's adults.

And in 1967, 66% of those surveyed said they wanted to

lose up to a stone compared with 46% in 2010.

Lifestyles

The Department of Health, which carried out the survey to

promote the Change4Life campaign, said the findings were supported by

differences in the way people lived.

For example, in the 1960s there were 10.5m television

sets compared with a predicted 74m by 2020.

And people are now far less likely to walk or cycle to

work or school as seven out of ten households now have a car compared with

three out of ten in the 1960s.

In 1967, more than three-quarters of adults said that

they walked for at least half an hour every day compared with only 42% in 2010.

People spent twice as much time every week doing

household chores and hardly anyone ate takeaway meals, which appeared in the

mid-sixties.

Gyms were rarer and high fat foods like condensed milk

and cooked breakfast were popular but even though weight loss technology was

still in its infancy, 2% of people claimed to have used vibrating massage belts

for weight loss in 1967.

Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, president of the faculty of

public health, said people are probably healthier these days in terms of life

expectancy.

" But we have these problems which are problems of

affluence and we need to get back to being more physically active.

" One observation I would make is that overweight

people in the 1960s were less common so they may have been more inclined to get

back to a normal weight - it's about social norms. "

A Department of Health spokesperson said: " In the

60s our daily routines involved more exercise which helped people stay slimmer.

" Nowadays, our increasingly sedentary lives paired

with the proliferation of a wide range of unhealthy foods have combined to

create a very difficult environment for people to reach and maintain a healthy

weight. "

On Behalf Of Patricia

26 February 2010 09:29

From VegSource

February 26, 2010

Hi Patricia,

I agree with what you're saying but now it's trying to find a fix.

But, with that said, sure it's easy to say this is wrong, don't do that, you're

going to die as well if you eat these and so on, which I think we all pretty

much know, it's finding better alternatives that's the problem. Comfort foods

are comfort foods. I enjoy sitting down and having meals with friends just as

much as I like having a glass of wine with them (sugar again). Sure, I could

pretty much give up everything and go through my life eating raw vegetables but

I am TRYING to find healthier alternatives. It's coming, but I still have a ways

to go. I became a vegetarian and can't say vegan yet as every once in a while

I'll find out later (like on an earlier post) that some veggie burgers have

cheese in them. My fault again, I obviously wasn't doing a good job at reading

labels, which I will have to work on.

I have a neighbor who now has to give up salt, sugar, fats, all the things you

say and she is miserable. Yes, it's a habit like anything else, but she was the

person in the neighborhood who loved to have these big dinners and invite

everyone over. She's just one of those people that is like the stereotypical

Italian mother who wants to feed everyone. This makes her happy. She has such a

" motherly " nature.

So, my point is I understand and agree totally with what you're saying, but

perhaps, other than the one book you mentioned, which is helpful, you could make

some other suggestions on how to change our habits. I think that's what we're

all looking for is to find healthy alternatives. Saying this and that is wrong

is fine, but the only way to a solution is giving some good advice on how to

change it. Just like the conversations dealing with how meat eaters are hard on

vegetarians or vice versa, pointing fingers and just telling someone that

they're fools (just using my own word there) because they do this or that

doesn't help solve the issue. Education is the key. I'd NEVER tell a meat eater

they're an idiot, but will suggest some healthy alternatives or have them try

something that I've made. Like the person asking about other alternatives for

lunch, I LOVED how everyone stepped up with great ideas and reminders of things

to make.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts. I guess because it seems everything we do is

criticised or judged by someone, but without CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, just

writing a long post on how bad fats, sugar and salt are without a good answer

isn't that constructive either. I think we can all agree that we knew that

already.

I hope you don't take any offense in my comments as I'm not meaning them to be

that way. Just hope that if you are aware of ideas, recipes, other books, other

sites that can help us reduce those great tasting things in our lives would be

greatly appreciated. I will admit, for me, giving up stuff I like is very hard

until I can find an equal substitute.

Jackie