Turkey and Sweet Potato Enchiladas

Turkey (without the skin) is among the healthier meats you can consume, and many of us have a lot of leftovers from Thanksgiving! I wanted to share a (somewhat) healthy recipe with you that combines wonderful on-hand ingredients to make the perfect blend of spicy and sweet!

Tonight, I made turkey & sweet potato enchiladas. Ok, so tortillas are not the healthiest addition to a meal.  Everything in moderation, right? But the rest of the ingredients are pretty good for you (did you know, for example, that sweet potatoes have a lot of important nutrients, including iron?), and I think this is a great use of ingredients that are likely already in your refrigerator after the big turkey day. I adapted this recipe from the ground turkey and yam tacos I made a few months ago (courtesy of AllRecipes.com), which I found by an online ingredient search. These Kristen-original-recipe enchiladas are super easy if you have leftovers, and even my husband, a self-proclaimed sweet potato hater, said these were delicious!

Makes 5 servings. 1 serving = 2 enchiladas.

Ingredients:

• 1/2 large white or yellow onion, chopped
• 1 - 4 diced jalapeno peppers, depending on spice preference 
• Optional: 4 oz diced canned green chilies (Note: I am not a big fan of spice, so I fearfully used one jalapeno when I made the original taco recipe last time. I was surprised at how mild it was. I actually wished I had used more. This time, I noticed we had a small can of green chili's in the cabinet, so I used 1 jalapeno plus the green chili's as an extra, and I would describe the result as medium spicy.)
• 1/2 tablespoon extra virgin olive oil
• ~3/4 lb leftover cooked turkey white meat, shredded or broken into small pieces
• ~3/4 lb leftover cooked sweet potato chunks (I made this delicious sweet potato recipe for Thanksgiving this year and simply used what I still had left from that.)
• 1/2 tablespoon chili powder
• salt to taste
• ~2 cups canned red or green enchilada sauce (or use more if you prefer your enchiladas very wet - I used medium spicy green enchilada sauce, which I find to be on the milder side of "medium spicy" when cooked in small quantities.)
• 10 flour or corn tortillas
• 1 cup low fat shredded cheddar cheese
• Optional: Top with salsa and low fat sour cream to serve.

Directions:

• Preheat the oven to 350 degrees Fahrenheit.
• In a skillet on medium-high heat, saute the onion and jalapenos until onions are translucent (about 5 minutes).
• Add the already-cooked turkey pieces, already-cooked sweet potato chunks, chili powder, and salt to the skillet. Stir for another three to five minutes, until heated through.
• Pour 1/2 the enchilada sauce into the skillet (~1 cup) and continue heating for two to three minutes, until hot throughout.
• While the turkey and sweet potato mixture is heating, put all ten tortillas in a stack on a microwave-safe plate and microwave for 30 seconds, to soften slightly.
• Grease a 9 x 13 baking pan.
• Spoon about 1/10 of the turkey/sweet potato mixture onto each tortilla, fold in the sides of the tortilla, and roll the tortilla into a small tube shape. Place the roll into the 9 x 13 pan. You will probably be able to fit about 8 tortilla rolls across the pan, lined up parallel to one another, and then the two remaining tortilla rolls can go the long-way below the other eight rolls.
• Pour the rest of the enchilada sauce into the 9 x 13 pan, over the tortilla rolls. Sprinkle the low fat cheddar cheese on top of everything.
• Bake in the 350 degree oven for about 15 minutes, until the sauce is bubbly and the cheese has melted.
• Serve two enchiladas on a plate, with salsa and/or low fat sour cream, as desired. Eat and enjoy!

I think you could make a version of this recipe work even if you have mashed sweet potatoes in your refrigerator. Rather than mixing sweet potato chunks into the turkey, instead, microwave 1-2 cups of mashed sweet potato and then spread a few tablespoons of mashed sweet potato onto each tortilla before rolling it up. Yum!

Another interesting healthy leftover idea I heard at work was to make stuffed peppers (but stuffed with turkey and cornbread dressing, rather than what you usually stuff into peppers.) This will of course not be healthy if you make your dressing/stuffing with two sticks of butter like a lot of boxed dressing calls for. But I usually use much less butter, and it still turns out very flavorful and rich. I also add lots of veggies to my dressing/stuffing, as well as extra water or broth for added moisture to compensate for the lack of butter. Thanksgiving-stuffed peppers will be my Wednesday night adventure. Hooray!

Chocolate to the Rescue

Since I love chocolate so much, I thought it would be fun to explore the health benefits! Not that I'm trying to justify my actions or anything....

As it turns out, chocolate, in moderation, has some of the same properties as red wine. Chocolate is high in flavonoids, a type of antioxidant which may combat aging and heart disease. According to an article on About.com, dark chocolate is eight times as antioxidant dense as some of our favorite fruits, like strawberries. (For more information on antioxidants, which are frequently classified as phytonutrients, check out the first blog post I ever wrote.)

The Cleveland Clinic says that the main types of flavonoids in chocolate are called flavanols, and these have been shown to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol. The About.com article mentioned above also says that the affect on LDL cholesterol may be as high as a ten percent reduction! As you may know, when LDL cholesterol oxidizes, it tends to build up and stick to your arteries. In that case, it can block the way for blood flow and increase the risk of heart attack or stroke. Some of the substances found in chocolate prevent the LDL cholesterol from oxidizing (hence the term "antioxidant"), which helps stop the build-up. According to a Huffington Post article, "Research performed at the department of nutrition at the University of California, Davis, found that chocolate thins the blood and performs the same anti-clotting activity as Aspirin." As you may be aware, Aspirin is often prescribed in low doses as a blood thinner for individuals at risk for heart disease. Harvard Medical School also reports that chocolate has been linked to lower levels of C-reactive protein, a marker for inflammation.

Not only does chocolate affect blood flow, but it has also been shown to elevate mood! Chocolate stimulates the production of endorphins, the same chemicals that make us feel happy when we exercise. Chocolate also contains serotonin, which acts as an anti-depressant, in addition to a variety of stimulants, such as theobromine and caffeine. In fact, the Huffington Post article stipulates that the serotonin in chocolate may be a partial explanation for why women crave chocolate during PMS and menstruation, since their natural serotonin levels are typically down on those days.

Despite these health effects, the research comes with a caution! According to the Cleveland Clinic, not all forms of chocolate provide equal benefit. The flavanols naturally found in cocoa are also largely responsible for the bitter taste of unsweetened chocolate. The more cocoa is processed to make the palatable goodies we enjoy, the more the flavanols are depleted. While nearly all of the websites I found agree that dark chocolate contains the most flavanols, the Cleveland Clinic states that recent research shows the level of flavanols is not universally consistent in dark chocolate, as it depends on how the dark chocolate was processed (fermentation, alkalizing, roasting, etc.) Nevertheless, dark chocolate or non-Dutch processed cocoa are typically much better bets than milk chocolate. (So I guess all those years of loving dark chocolate weren't just a result of strange taste in flavors; I was being healthy!)

Many people may worry about the high fat content in chocolate. Interestingly enough, there are three main types of fat in chocolate, each found in about equal proportions, and they are not all considered harmful. According to both About.com and the Cleveland Clinic, one of the fats is called oleic acid, which is a healthy monounsaturated fat that is also found in olive oil. The second is stearic acid, which is a saturated fat, but research has shown this particular fat does not adversely affect cholesterol. The third type is palmitic acid, which is one type of saturated fat known to contribute to higher cholesterol. So the good news is, only about 1/3 of the naturally occurring fat in chocolate is bad for you!

A lot of the problems come in with the ingredients we add to cocoa. Milk chocolate, in particular, typically has added butterfat and significantly more sugar, both of which are linked to a variety of health concerns. And even dark chocolate can be made significantly less healthy by adding caramel, nougat, marshmallow, and other ingredients. These unhealthy additions typically outweigh the benefits of the chocolate itself. Furthermore, consuming a king-sized candy bar is not going to help your heart health. The ideal serving size to maximize the benefit of chocolate is one to three ounces a few times per week. And remember that even healthy chocolate has calories. If you add chocolate to your diet regularly, you may need to exercise more or cut out an equal number of calories from another meal or snack to maintain a consistent body weight.

So the lessons seem to be: enjoy chocolate for the healthy benefits it provides, savor each bite for the delicious flavor, and consume in moderation. Mmmm, chocolate!


Photo credit: http://experiencechocolate.com/

Fotoshop

As a follow-up to my post on obesity and physical appearance, I wanted to share a video that sheds a humorous bit of light on the beauty expectations of our culture. It made me laugh and think! I hope it will do the same for you.

I came across this video while reading a very interesting article on CNN about activists who are challenging popular notions of beauty. A similar theme to the above satire pervades a short film, made by Dove, to show the transformation from natural beauty to makeup model.

As I discussed in my commentary on childhood obesity and appearance, I do believe that the media shapes our sense of what is desirable, and even our concept of what is "normal." Children are especially vulnerable to having their expectations and opinions shaped. Even subtle advertising can make a difference when we consider how often we see the same message day after day. After a lifetime of exposure, it would be naive to assume we don't soak in anything from what we see, hear, and read.

For those who are skeptics, consider this passage from "Cinderella Ate My Daughter," by Peggy Orenstein (pg 17). "...Even can-do girls can be derailed - and surprisingly quickly - by exposure to stereotypes. Take the female college students, all good at math, all enrolled in advanced calculus, who were asked to view a series of television commercials: four neutral ads (showing, say, cell phones or animals) were interspersed with two depicting cliches (a girl in raptures over acne medicine; a woman drooling over brownie mix). Afterward they completed a survey and - bing! - the group who'd seen the streotyped ads expressed less interest and math- and science-related careers than classmates who had seen only the neutral ones. Let me repeat: the effect was demonstrable after watching two ads. And guess who performed better on a math test, coeds who took it after being asked to try on a bathing suit or those who had been asked to try on a sweater? (Hint: the latter group; interestingly, male students showed no such disparity.)"

I encourage you to read the CNN article that led me to this video and other pieces about similar topics. Consider how advertising is affecting our lives, from one math test (per the studies mentioned above) to career opportunities in general, from distorted self-image to unhealthy dieting, from peer relationships in the classroom to expectations in our dating and spousal relationships. All of these aspects of life are profoundly related to our mental, emotional, and physical health.

I hope that being even slightly more aware of how these messages affect us will change both our decisions about the images we choose to allow into our minds and the way we interpret the advertising we do take in. If enough people react against the practices of our media culture, the advertisers will have no choice but to take notice!


For more information on this video, check out Jesse Rosten's website: http://jesserosten.com/2012/fotoshop-by-adobe

The Obesity Epidemic and Physical Appearance: The Heart of the Matter

"The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." ~1 Samuel 16:7b

You may have heard about the Georgia campaign against childhood obesity that has started a major conversation around the country. Many bloggers seem to have opinions about the controversial ads. Since I have written several posts related to childhood obesity, I thought I should chime in, as well.

To put it bluntly, I don't like the ads. I find them offensive and unhelpful.

The ads feature pictures of overweight children with captions like, "It's hard to be a little girl if you're not." They were intended to grab the attention of passers-by and to get a conversation started. As I mentioned in my post on Childhood Obesity and Food Insecurity, the organization that ran this campaign, Strong4Life, conducted a study which showed that 75% of parents of obese children in Georgia do not think their child has a problem. So start the conversation they did, by thrusting all the negative stereotypes of obesity even more directly in the faces of the public.

My main gripe with this ad campaign is that it fuels the negativity about physical appearance with which overweight children are almost certainly already bombarded on a regular basis.

Now don't get me wrong. I do think childhood obesity is a serious problem. I think doctors need to be straight with parents. I think parents need to come to grips with reality. And I even think it's ok to discuss your child's weight problem with him or her under most circumstances. But I do NOT think it is ok to make this an issue of physical appearance.

While the ads may have aimed to show many effects of obesity through their captions, the message they sent loudest of all was, "See the image of this body? It is not acceptable. And you need to fix it."

I believe the appropriate way to address the issue of childhood obesity is from the perspective of the health and lifestyle effects of carrying excess weight. This focus shows concern for a person's well-being, not critical or self-righteous judgment.

The Health Consequences

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in a study of five to seventeen year olds, 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Obese adolescents are more likely to develop prediabetes, a condition of elevated blood glucose that can lead to type II diabetes. According to the Mayo Clinic, type II diabetes itself, which used to be called "adult onset diabetes," is growing in prevalence among children, largely due to the obesity epidemic.

The CDC also states, "One study showed that children who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be obese as adults....and are therefore more at risk for adult health problems, such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer, and osteoarthritis."

The Lifestyle Consequences

Not only does a high Body Mass Index put children at risk for chronic disease, but it may inhibit them from participating in activities they do (or would) enjoy, such as sports, dance, music, and theater, which often require stamina and endurance that may be limited by excess weight. For a young adult, obesity may even affect his or her stamina or self-confidence in sex. (Now that's a good reason to get fit, right?)

Where The Ads Went Wrong

Unfortunately, the negative effects of obesity don't end there. Obese children are more likely to be bullied or to experience depression. Obese adults are more likely to experience discrimination on the job (as often as racial discrimination, according to one study, and possibly more often than age or gender discrimination).

And this is where I think the Georgia ads get the issue wrong. While I think we should be campaigning to "change" obese people for the benefit of their physical health, longevity, and a better lifestyle, I think we should be campaigning to change ourselves for the problems that result from discrimination based on physical appearance. Judging anyone by physical appearance is not a problem with the person being judged; it is a problem in our own hearts and minds. Sure, some people's appearances may be a clue as to what is going on inside their heads or hearts, but this is not a universal truth. No person's worth is based on his or her appearance, and we should not perpetuate that myth ever.

To tell our children that we agree with the world's judgement that worth can be based on appearance is a tremendous mistake. To love someone despite their imperfections is not the same as tacit approval of their every choice. It is the nature of love itself.

Some will say that obesity is lethal, so we should go to extremes to curb or prevent it, even if it means hurting someone's feelings. I would agree that a little hurt feeling in the context of an intentional and caring conversation about health is well worth it. But in my view, to bring appearance into the conversation is not simply about a little hurt feeling; it may impose long-lasting damage. It is beyond a mere temporary pain when we tell a person, with a mind and heart, that our love is contingent on a particular physique. Appealing to a child's vanity may provide short term success, but it ultimately sets the child up for long term problems. To shame a child into losing weight is putting a skewed view of personal worth on a pedestal and sacrificing the ultimate mental health of the child in order to serve the false god of physical perfection.

The Media Has The "Judgment" Thing Covered

Children are already besieged by an unending stream of messages about their physical appearance.

I recently read a book called, "Cinderella Ate My Daughter," by Peggy Orenstein. While I lamented the disorganized and desultory nature of the book to my book club friends and thought the author made some grand leaps of logic, the overarching theme of the work stuck with me. Children are exposed, almost from birth, to a plethora of marketing images that tell them they need to fit into a specific mold. For girls, this mold largely leads to the conclusion that to be cool and accepted is to be "hot." A woman's worth comes from her physical appearance.

Anyone who watched the Superbowl ads will likely recall the GoDaddy segments featuring scantily clad women enticing the watcher to go to GoDaddy.com to "see more." I would not have known that this is a domain name registration site had my husband not told me. Photographers secretly take pictures of every inch of cellulite on an actress at the beach and enlarge the images for the covers of the magazines we see in the grocery store. We even grow up watching soap and deodorant commercials that tell us if we buy the product, we can look like the model.

I am pretty sure I get the point already. My cellulite is not acceptable, my breasts aren't perky enough, and I would never be called beautiful by a major news outlet.

For a kid being exposed to this constant marketing, the idea that certain body types are more valuable may become deeply ingrained. This can lead to bullying (by the kid who thinks others are unacceptable) or a sense of shame (for the kid who thinks he or she is the unacceptable one). In some cases, both lines of thinking may be at work in the same child.

One Piece of Evidence: Eating Disorders

It's all well and good for me to say that this is having a negative impact on obese children (and on all children, really), but what is the evidence?

I submit that one important signal of the impact is the growing prevalence of eating disorders among youth. According to a study published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, as cited by the National Eating Disorder Information Center (NEDIC), girls who reported body-based teasing by family members were 1.5 times more likely to engage in binge eating and extreme dieting behaviors five years later. A Canadian study also cited on the NEDIC site showed that 37% of girls in grade nine and 40% of girls in grade ten wished they were thinner. Even among those considered a healthy weight based on BMI, 19% believed they were too fat and 12% reported attempting to lose weight.

According to the National Eating Disorders Association, the number of young women aged 15 - 19 diagnosed with eating disorders has risen every decade since 1930. But it is not only teenagers who are affected. Psychotherapist Abigail Natenshon was cited in a recent Parenting magazine article as saying that "the average age for the onset of anorexia used to be 13 to 17. Now it's 9 to 12, and children as young as 7 have been diagnosed." In this same article, I learned that 10% of adults with eating disorders showed clear symptoms before the age of ten, and more than 60% of elementary and middle school teachers report that eating disorders are a problem in their classroom. Did you read that? Elementary school! In a 2010 article from Health Day, I learned that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that hospitalizations for eating disorders jumped 119% for kids under age 12 between 1999 and 2006. 

 Not only that, but anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. The South Carolina Department of Mental Health website cites a study conducted by the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders, which reported that 5 - 10% of anorexics die within ten years of contracting the disease, 18 - 20% within twenty years, and only 30-40% ever fully recover. Other sources show lower numbers - the ANAD website itself now says that the American Journal of Psychiatry (2009) concluded that the ultimate mortality due to eating disorders is 4% for anorexia nervosa, 3.9% for bulimia nervosa, and 5.2% for eating disorders not otherwise specified. One of the reasons the statistics may vary between sources is that deaths related to eating disorders may be recorded under other causes, such as heart failure. Regardless, anorexia still stands at the top of mental illness mortality.

My Take

While it is important for us to recognize and address the growing obesity epidemic in our country, it is also worthwhile to pay attention to the unintended consequences of the strong rhetoric around the issue. At the same time obesity rates are growing, so are those of eating disorders and unnecessary dieting among youth. And this is only one of the potential problems that arise with such a strong focus on physical appearance. There are undoubtedly countless other emotional, relational, and even physical effects.

By not telling obese kids that they look "different," we are not hiding the truth from them. Many children who are overweight, and even many who are not, are already keenly aware of how their bodies are being scrutinized. The magazines they read, the television ads they see, the kids who bully them, the employers who don't promote them, are all sending them that message already. It's true that some parents and kids need a wake up call from a medical professional telling them they are on an unhealthy path. But the message we need to send is to take care of your body, for your own health's benefit, for the enjoyment of life, and for the sake of the work that God has for you in your time here.

Who you are and your personal worth as a human being are not based on how you look. 

Period.

Food Insecurity and Obesity in Children

After my posts on Jamie Oliver and McDonald's, a doctor I know asked me why so many of her young patients from lower income families are obese. "Many of these families struggle to provide three square meals a day," she said, "so where are the calories coming from?"

According to a 2010 Los Angeles Times article, which summarized a study from the journal Health Affairs, nearly one in three children currently has a body mass index above what is considered healthy. The study also found significant discrepancies between children of different racial groups, socioeconomic groups, and regions of the country. According to the article, these factors are not necessarily independent. For example, the article says, "In Alaska, poor children were only 1.2 times more likely to be overweight or obese than better-off children. But in Arizona, the difference in rates was 3.8. Why would it be different to be poor in Alaska than Arizona? That's basically what it amounts to - it's not the same being poor in one state as it is in another."

According to the Food and Research Action Center's (FRAC) page on poverty and obesity, "obesity rates increased ten percent for all U.S. Children ten to seventeen years old between 2003 and 2007, but by twenty-three percent during the same time period for low-income children."

One thing that is important to note is that the stereotype that virtually all low-income people are obese is not true. The Food and Research Action Center (FRAC) also shows that the link between income and obesity has actually been weakening over the past few decades. But the question still remains, why do the statistics show a link at all?

For answers, I turned to the FRAC page on food insecurity and obesity. Most of the information I am going to mention below is from this website, and the authors of the studies are specifically mentioned there. For me to put a citation after every sentence would make this post very long, so please refer to the FRAC food insecurity and obesity link for the authors of the studies and facts mentioned.

One of my friends, Sara, commented on my McDonald's post that many families live in "food deserts," which is actually one of the main points FRAC makes, as well. According to multiple studies, low-income neighborhoods often lack a full service grocery store where families can purchase fresh produce, whole grains, and low-fat dairy. Instead, many residents rely on small convenience stores, which do not carry the variety of healthy and low-fat options available in larger establishments. Low income communities, especially areas near schools, are also more likely to have fast food restaurants. Frequently eating fast food has been linked to high-calorie, low-nutrition diets, which may lead to weight gain.

According to other studies cited by FRAC, fruits and vegetables in low income neighborhoods are often of poorer quality, thus making it less likely that residents will be prone to purchase them. Furthermore, healthy food, such as fresh produce, whole grains, and low-fat options are often more expensive compared to more processed fats and sugars. Many families trying to stave off hunger look to purchase the maximum calories per dollar by buying energy-dense foods, which provide the calories a family needs, but not necessarily the other nutritional components of a healthy diet. "Feeling full" may be the priority for a family who is unsure when the next meal will be available, especially when it comes to preventing feelings of hunger in children. Carbonated beverages, such as soda, for example, will make a child "feel full," even if they do not provide any other nutritional value.

In addition, chronic ups and downs in the availability of food may encourage people to eat more when it is available. This can lead to general over-consumption or even metabolic changes that affect fat retention.

According to FRAC, the problem is not just about food consumption. Low income communities also have fewer resources for physical activity, such as parks and recreation centers. Even in communities that do have open space areas, they may be less attractive due to trash, noise, traffic, and criminal activity. It makes sense that parents would not want their children to play at the park in a particularly dirty or high-crime neighborhood. This puts children at a higher risk for staying indoors and living a sedentary lifestyle. According to other studies, lower income children are less likely to participate in organized sports or to have access to/participate in physical education classes and recess.

Additionally, the financial and emotional pressures of poverty may have a serious impact on both adults and children. Stress can contribute to unhealthful eating behaviors, hormonal/metabolic changes, and even chronic anxiety or depression, which have all been associated with adult and childhood obesity.

Many low income families also lack access to quality, affordable health care. Chronic illnesses that are related to obesity may not be diagnosed. Furthermore, families may not realize their child is overweight. For example, according to Strong4Life, an organization fighting childhood obesity in Georgia, 75% of parents of overweight or obese children in the state did not believe their child had a problem. I recently read an article saying that even among families who do have access to health care, less than 25% of parents of overweight or obese children recall a doctor telling them their child is overweight. If even medical professionals are unwilling to confront or acknowledge the issue, how can we expect households who have less access to health education and basic health care to recognize obesity and take action steps to prevent or correct it?

To me, the fact that obesity is inversely related to income is further support that the socioeconomic disparity in our society is not just a matter of money, but is linked to a complex set of dynamics that affect all aspects of life.

So what can be done to stave off the obesity epidemic in lower income communities in particular? I would suggest communities can start with the specific issues mentioned above, by bringing farmers markets to lower income neighborhoods, investing in community recreational centers and low/no-cost sports leagues, requiring schools to provide more hours of physical education, providing free health education for parents and kids, offering free classes on how to manage a tight food budget, focusing efforts on preventive health services (including attention given to decreasing stress), among other actions.

I have tried to lay out some of the reasons for the weight disparity, but I think it will take a lot of people with a lot of brain power to improve the health future of all our nation's children. If you have other ideas, please share!

Photo credits:

• http://www.knowabouthealth.com/common-cold-virus-ad-36-may-make-kids-fat/6527/
• http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2011/08/04/3540/

To Me, That's Beautiful

A friend sent me this brief YouTube clip from the show "Parks and Recreation." I'm a sucker for a good laugh. Freeedommmm!

Chili Cheese Corn Dog Casserole Supreme!

This isn't exactly the "healthiest" posting, but I am so overjoyed that one of my best friends, Sara, actually tried a recipe I sent her, then forwarded it to one of my other best friends, Pam, who also made it! And I think they even liked it.

I happened upon this highly-rated recipe on the internet when I was trying to find a way to get rid of the turkey and chicken hot dogs that had been in our freezer for months. I originally bought them on sale as a potential alternative to regular hot dogs, but they didn't actually taste so great on their own. This casserole experiment worked well, however - neither my husband nor I could really tell the difference from your run-of-the-mill quality beef franks when the hot dogs were mixed in with the other ingredients.

I am delighted to report that after I shared the somewhat unhealthy (but oh so delicious) recipe with Sara, she found a way to make it healthier for her diet! I had made some substitutions of my own when I tried it by using low-fat chili, excluding the sugar in the original recipe, and substituting the above-mentioned turkey/chicken hot dogs.

And as it turns out, both Sara and I discovered that all the added fat and sugar were not really necessary to make this a flavorful and delectable dish.

For anyone who likes corn dogs and chili dogs, you will LOVE this casserole. This recipe also has some serious child-pleasing potential. And with a few substitutions, it's really not that bad for you!

Check out Sara's blog for the recipe and other tasty details!

For more information on how to make your favorite recipes a bit healthier, check out some of these great resources:

• Mayo Clinic's Guide to Ingredient Substitutions
• Substitutions for Flours, Sweeteners, Dairy, and Fats in Baking from Chef in You
• The American Heart Association's Healthy Substitutions List
• Ideas for Remaking Old Favorites from Food Renegade

Original Recipe and Photo Credit: Taste of Home

Happy Meal Turns "Crappy Meal" in SF

I have been writing a lot about healthy foods lately, including the provision of more healthy lunches in schools. But it has also occurred to me that I ought to qualify my fervor by stating that in general, I don't think the government should be telling us what to eat. It may be for our own good to consume healthier foods, and it may even be better for society as a whole. But in my opinion, individuals should be free to make their own priorities on something of this nature. So while I support healthy choices, I would like to keep those things as choices.

School lunches (about which I wrote in my last post) are a very specific subset of food. Since the government largely subsidizes public school food and even offers free lunch for those who qualify, what is served in school cafeterias could be broadly classified as the government providing the food for our nation's children, not just allowing it to be served. In that case, I think the government and schools should do what they can to provide nutritious meals rather than junk. Parents still have the option to send their kids to school with something different, so I don't really see this as a mandate on our behavior.

Recently, however, my dad mentioned that San Francisco passed a law forbidding McDonald's and other such establishments from providing free toys in their Happy Meals. I checked it out, and CNN says it's a legitimate story! The law took effect December 1, 2011, and requires that a meal which includes a toy must be below a certain calorie limit and provide a particular threshold of fruits and vegetables, among other conditions. Proponents of the law argue that these toys are marketed to kids to entice them into purchasing unhealthy meals (or to put it more accurately, into begging their parents to buy them unhealthy meals.)

I actually do believe that fast food is a significant contributor to the obesity epidemic in this country. I am all in favor of healthier menu options, and I think parents should be careful to provide their children with a healthy, well-balance diet.

But the truth is, ever since the invention of sugar and trans fats, kids have been begging their parents to buy unhealthy foods. I used to eat Snickers ice cream bars at my friend's houses, cookies at my aunt's house, Fruit by the Foot at my grandma's house, and sugar cereal at the houses of those for whom I babysat. But when I went to the grocery store with my parents, did they then feel obligated to purchase sweets and fatty snacks at my every whim? Absolutely not! Why? My parents were the parents of our household, and while they allowed me to indulge in the occasional treat with a friend or family member, they knew the power of "no!"

I understand why we ban advertisements that make dangerous substances look cool to teenagers. Teenagers sometimes have cars, jobs, and a fair amount of freedom. So I am totally on board with banning cigarette advertisements aimed at young people, who are legally too young to consume them, but may have the will and the means to buy them.

Happy Meal toys, on the other hand, are typically designed for very young children. The last time I checked, six-year-olds don't have cars, jobs, or any significant freedoms. So whether or not McDonald's advertises a free toy on television, I am pretty sure it is parents who are driving their kids to McDonald's, forking over the money, and acquiescing to their child's desires.

My parents were not scrooges. They occasionally took us to McDonald's growing up, mainly when we were on a road trip, and sometimes just as a special treat. And we were allowed to have desserts on weekends or, as mentioned above, at another family's house. But my sister and I understood not to even ask most other days, because we already knew what the answer would be. No. The same answer my parents would give when we asked for quarters to play every game in a store. The same answer my parents would give when we asked to buy a toy when it was not our birthday. The same answer my parents would give when we asked to sleep over at a friend's house with no parental supervision.

Despite the television commercials, peer pressure, flashy signs, and twinkling music that constantly bombarded our family, my parents were able to use their discretion to say no.

In my opinion, mandating what a restaurant should and should not serve, beyond what is considered safe for consumption by the FDA, crosses the line in overbearing governance. If you don't want to eat the food, don't go there! There are plenty of other choices. California chain restaurants are already required to post the calorie counts of their offerings, and after that, consumers make their own decisions.

It seems to me that if parents are not already using common sense to moderate the amount of fast food their children consume, taking away the free toy is not going to change much. It is parents who drive the vehicles, earn the money, and ultimately make the choices. And it is parents who must ultimately take responsibility for the willpower to say no.

If the lure of a cheap trinket is enough to sway parents away from consistently doing what is best for their children, I don't think the trinket is really the issue.

Oh, and I wouldn't want to neglect mentioning the best part!

The outcome of all this law-making nonsense? The San Francisco McDonalds' now charge 10 cents to customers who want to purchase the toy separately, with all proceeds going to the Ronald McDonald House charity.

Photo credit: http://www.therightperspective.org/2011/09/12/mcdonalds-rolls-out-healthy-happy-meal/

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution Lives On!

Since I mentioned Jamie Oliver briefly in my last post, I thought it would be a good idea to explain. Basically, he is a spunky English dude who had a great show on ABC called "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution." I am sad to see that the show is no longer on the ABC website, as it was one of my favorites.

The basic premise was that in order to fight the obesity epidemic, Jamie wanted to change the minds of Americans about how to cook fresh, healthy, and delicious food. For the television show, he went into public schools to reveal the junk being served and to re-teach the cafeteria workers to cook using fresh, healthy ingredients. In addition, he engaged the community by opening a kitchen that offered free healthy cooking classes, holding public demonstrations, hosting cooking competitions, and more. (He is also the one who first alerted me to how much sugar is in a typical serving of chocolate milk. It is truly astounding!)

In the first season, Jamie tackled the town of Huntington, West Virginia, dubbed the "fattest city in America." I was surprised by how much resistance he met along the way, not just from the school board, but also from families who opted to send their kids with home-made lunches after they saw the healthy changes Jamie had made in the cafeterias. Why parents would allow their children to buy pizza and french fries every day, but then actively switch to home-packed lunches once healthier options were implemented, just defies explanation. Jamie even created the recipes specifically with kids in mind, such as healthier nachos. It wasn't as if the schools were serving bland, boring meals.

One day, after he had begun making changes to the school lunch menu, he did a survey of the home-packed lunches in the cafeteria. He found only one child with a sandwich and fruit. Most of the rest, whose parents had recently decided to disallow the purchase of the healthier school lunches, did not even have what I would consider a "main meal item," but had brought only chips, candy, and juice boxes or sodas. That just shocked me, as I had never encountered a friend growing up whose parents did not even try to provide a single healthy item - imagine encountering an entire cafeteria of these lunches!

In the end, I suppose parents have the right to decide what their kids eat for lunch. If parents want to send their kids into the cafeteria with only junk, well, I guess it is their prerogative to expedite the onset of type two diabetes. I am not categorically criticizing parents who either pack a lunch or who allow their children to purchase a school lunch. My own family usually did the school lunch thing growing up, and I turned out just fine. (Although after watching the show and reading a bit, I have a feeling my school district was doing a bit better than most with the lunch options.) My husband's family, on the other hand, always hand-packed a nutritious meal. Kudos for the extra effort and saving money! But what I really don't understand is if you were already sending your kid to school with $2.00 per day to purchase a bunch of cheap, greasy, over-processed food, why would you change your mind once the food had improved with no extra effort or cost on your part? Kids tastes will evolve if they are exposed to good things!

Finally, after months of work, Jamie seemed to make some progress in changing the minds of Huntington's residents and getting parents on board with the improvements he was implementing. I would be interested to see how the town is doing now.

Jamie was met with even more resistance in Los Angeles during the show's second season, mainly due to a ridiculously paranoid school board. Most people would gag to see the stuff they serve in school lunches there. Whereas Huntington's typical fare was only moderately worse than the school lunches I grew up with, Los Angeles' food is pre-made at a central location, packaged as individual servings in plastic wrap, frozen, and then microwaved/served in said plastic wrap at the schools. Every single item looked like a soggy, plastic-y mess. Gross! Alas, I can understand the stern interventions of that school board - if I were them, I would not want my disgusting food secrets exposed either! Sadly, that may have been the demise of Jamie's television show.

Although his show is no longer on the air, Jamie still maintains a very informative website, with facts about what America eats, what we serve in our school lunches, and how you can help bring about change. And of course, he has some very easy recipes to try in your own home!

One recent and interesting development in the school lunch/breakfast saga is the passage of the new USDA nutritional standards, which were released this month as part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. This act was spearheaded by First Lady Michelle Obama and initially signed into law in late 2010.

Although it is true that the nutritional standards still allow the serving of french fries every day and consider 2 TBSP pizza sauce a "vegetable," (you can thank special interest groups for lobbying to keep these wonderful rules), the legislation is a major improvement over what has been in place for the last fifteen years. It requires less sodium and trans fat, while mandating more whole grains and fruits/vegetables. Some of these changes will be phased in over several years, with intermediate targets that schools must achieve.

For example schools are expected to meet certain sodium targets for each week of meals, which represent a 25% - 50% reduction in sodium content for breakfasts and lunches. According to the USDA/Department of Agriculture report, for ages 4-18, the upper limit for sodium intake ranges from 1900 to 2300 milligrams per day. Schools are expected to meet certain intermediate targets to be checked at the two year and four year marks, achieving full compliance (averaging below the maximum daily intake recommendations) in ten years.

Many schools systems are concerned about meeting the various nutritional targets while staying within budget. While I acknowledge that this is a genuine obstacle, I tend to lean towards the stance that they should stop making excuses for contributing to the obesity epidemic and get busy creating new menus! I bet Jamie Oliver would be happy to point them to some excellent resources and recipes. And in the Bay Area, I am sure we can harness some of our innovation power to overcome these real challenges in a way that meaningfully improves our communities. Ten years should be sufficient time to plan.

Most importantly, I sincerely hope these new regulations make a real difference in the health of our nation's children!

If you want to learn more about Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, check out his website!

I also highly recommend reading the full summary of the new nutritional standards.

Photo Credits:

• http://www.starpulse.com/news/Brittany_Frederick/2011/04/13/the_return_of_jamie_olivers_food_revol
• http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-26/entertainment/27060054_1_oliver-plans-food-system-unhealthiest
• http://www.parentdish.com/2010/03/31/what-does-jamie-olivers-food-revolution-tell-about-kids-read/

Milk on the Mind

I have never been a calorie counter. This is probably in part because I was very thin throughout my childhood and even had trouble putting on weight when I wanted to. Those days are gone, but I never picked up the habit of counting my daily intake. In general, I believe in consuming a balance of healthy foods, with an occasional treat, and getting moderate exercise. I do check the labels of most processed foods before I purchase (for example, comparing sodium, overall calories, and calories from fat between two cans of soup before buying), but I don’t really go crazy about this sort of stuff. If I put on any significant amount of weight, I figure my food balance or my exercise is a little off, and I make a tweak.

So imagine my surprise recently when I actually put a number to the difference in calories between types of milk. After seeing that Lucerne brand skim milk has 40 fewer calories than 1%, I decided it was worth the switch. I drink about one glass per day with dinner, and occasionally, I have milk with my breakfast cereal. So I figured I would be saving at least 280 calories per week, likely more, for pouring my milk out of a different colored container.

I was hesitant at first, because I have tried those brands that taste more like milky sugar water, and I can understand how that would turn someone off from skim milk. But if you do make the switch to a lower fat milk and don’t like the taste, just give another brand a chance! I feel so thankful that most of the brands in our supermarket have full flavor, which is nearly indistinguishable from 1% to skim.

So now for the numbers…

From the milk containers in our refrigerator and from online searches, it looks like an 8 oz glass of Lucerne brand milk has 90 calories in skim, 130 calories in 1%, 130 calories in 2% (but more calories from fat there), and 160 calories in whole milk.

My favorite comparison for anything is a can of Coca Cola. I love Coca Cola (or Pepsi, any cola really), and I despise the nasty flavor of diet soda. But I have heard the lectures about how much weight people put on just from drinking soda, so I limit myself to one per week or fewer. When I am deciding whether a candy bar is worth it or not, or how many snacks I should put in a bowl, I think about it in terms of how make Cokes I could consume for the same number of calories. I call this the “Coke comparison rule of thumb.”

To put milk in perspective, consider that a 12 oz can of Coke in the United States contains 140 calories. That’s right, cola contains about the same number of calories as an 8 oz glass of 1% milk and fewer calories than a comparable glass of whole milk! Using my Coke rule, it turns out that switching to one glass of skim milk per day instead of one glass of 1% milk is the equivalent of two fewer Coca Cola’s per week. That was enough to convince me!

Now to be clear, I am not telling you to avoid milk! Milk contains protein, vitamins, and minerals, so the calories you consume from milk do a lot more for your body than the non-nutrient-filled calories you get from a Coke. Some doctors will even tell you that drinking low fat milk can help you lose weight. (I will neither espouse nor dispute this belief, as I am not a physician, but hey, you can Google it if you’re curious.) All I am really trying to say is that the Coke rule is an interesting comparison to keep in mind when you decide what type of milk is right for you and your family.

I would like to conclude with one final point that might surprise you. (This is for you, Jamie Oliver!) Many people are concerned about soda and chips sold in school vending machines. But did you know that the typical carton of chocolate milk, like those sold in public schools, contains around 225 calories per serving? (Think of the “Coke comparison rule of thumb” = 140 Calories.) Yikes!

Photo credit: http://lovelypackage.com/milk-concept/

Colorful Eating

I was thinking about where to begin this blog, and I keep coming back to a subject that has been fascinating me for months: the benefits of eating a variety of colorful fruits and vegetables. I realize this is not exactly the weighty sort of topic that gets your blood pounding. But ever since I saw a presentation on this theme at work, I have been making different choices at the grocery store, and I think the information is worth sharing.

Different colors of fruits and vegetables contain unique nutrients and chemicals that aid in body function and health. Specifically, colorful veggies contain a variety of phytonutrients (or phytochemicals).

According to the USDA website, phytonutrients are “organic components of plants…thought to promote human health… Unlike traditional nutrients (protein, fat, vitamins, minerals), phytonutrients are not ‘essential’ for life, so some people prefer the term ‘phytochemical.’”

Although these chemicals are not “essential” for day to day life, there is a plethora of research indicating that these agents play a significant role in the prevention of disease. Phytonutrients are believed to serve as antioxidants, improve the immune response, and/or detoxify carcinogens (harmful cancer-causing toxins), among other things. Some studies have even linked them to killing cancer cells or repairing DNA damaged by smoking.

For example, a study published in 2007 by the American Society for Nutrition (from UMass-Dartmouth) suggests that the phytonutrients in cranberries (ployphenols and flavenols) inhibit the growth of breast, colon, prostate, lung, and other tumors.

The Brazilian Journal of Microbiology published a study showing that extracts from clove, jambolin, thyme, and pomegranate plants were able to combat antiobiotic-resistant bacteria in a laboratory.

Now back to the point – COLORS.

These chemicals are frequently associated with specific pigments in the foods you eat.

Flavanoids (polyphenols), which are known for their strong antioxidant, anti-allergenic, and anti-inflammatory mechanisms, are typically linked to red, blue, and purple pigments, such as those found in strawberries, cranberries, grapes, and black-eyed peas.

Carotenoids (tetraterpenoids), which have been shown to improve the immune system and engage in antioxidant activity, are usually found in plants with orange pigments, such as carrots, pumpkins, oranges, tomatoes, guavas, and sweet potatoes. Beta carotene is a well-known carotenoid that aids our ability to see at night.

And these are only a few examples in the long list of phytonutrients.

These color associations are not necessarily exclusive. For example, dark leafy greens also contain carotenoids, and “greens” are obviously not orange. But the colors are a helpful way to gauge whether or not you are getting a wide variety of phytonutrients in your diet.

Nowadays, when I make a salad, I make sure to use lettuce with a nice dark green or purple hue, and I add splashes of color, such as red peppers, white mushrooms, purple beets, or blueberries. Or when I make a casserole, I try to vary the vegetable colors, with yellow squash, green beans, or orange carrots. (Better yet, did you know that carrots also come in white, yellow, and purple, as well? Check your local farmers market!)

And this colorful practice has the added benefit of making my food more pleasing to the eye.

If nothing else, remember that the color of a fruit or vegetable is usually a primary indicator of the chemicals within. Eating a wider variety of colors helps you pack more health benefits into a single meal!

For more information, see the following links:

• USDA page on phytonutrients: http://www.ars.usda.gov/aboutus/docs.htm?docid=4142
• “Cranberry and Its Phytochemicals…” http://jn.nutrition.org/content/137/1/186S.short
• “Antibacterial Activity of Plant Extracts…” http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1517-83822000000400003&script=sci_arttext
• For an extensive listing of phytochemicals contained in various foods and color pigments, you may also want to consult the ever reliable Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_phytochemicals_in_food

Photo Credits:

• http://greenermiami.com/2011/01/top-10-farmers-markets-in-miami/
• http://www.maumelle.org/whats-new/617-farmers-market-.html
• http://tonopahrob.com/2011/05/veggie-update/