Companion Planting

Photo courtesy of Stephanie Stein.
The green onions are about twice as
tall as the photo shows and very thick.

A while ago, I wrote a post about our patio garden. In that post, I shared one of my biggest learnings: a successful small container garden is like an ecosystem. Many edible plants do best when they have flowers and other plants supporting them, acting as repellants for undesirable bugs and as attractions for good critters.

While pest control is certainly one important aspect of the ecosystem, I have since learned that plants can be compatible for a host of reasons. A friend tipped me off that she planted her green onion and chili pepper plants together in the same pot, because she had read they support one another. The peppers had a good yield, and the onions got huge!

I started reading more about it and learned that this is called “companion planting.” Companion plants may help each other by producing higher yields, better flavor, disease resistance, and/or pest control.

Conversely, some plants may actually stunt growth when planted together. For example, while garlic and onions may work great with pepper plants, they are known to stunt the growth of beans and peas. Tomatoes and potatoes are also not a good match, as they can be negatively affected by the same blight and may spread this to each other. Corn, mature dill, and kohirabi are also poor companions for tomatoes.

Seasoned gardeners have compiled extensive lists of plants that make great companions and sorry enemies. To read more about the relationships between specific plants that interest you (and to find companion planting charts), see here and here.

As we start our next garden, I hope to put this companion planting knowledge to work, as well as learn new skills and information, in order to grow a successful, healthy, and delicious crop!

California Gold

I seem to be on a media kick with my blog posts lately. Here is another such post!

I have noticed on my Bart rides home that there is a new ad campaign in Berkeley encouraging residents to use their "green bins" to recycle food scraps, as well as soiled paper/cardboard. These can then be composted to enrich the soil, aka "California gold."

Image source: http://www.readysetrecycle.org

Did you know that California produces about half of the nation's fruits and vegetables in our central valley region? For some items, such as artichokes and walnuts, it is as much as 99%! That's why we care about soil.

The ads are produced by Ready Set Recycle, a campaign in Alameda County to help people learn how to properly sort their refuse. They even offer prizes, like gift cards, gardening compost, and fresh  food boxes from local farmers, for engaging in certain activities that support learning to recycle.

Image source: http://www.readysetrecycle.org

One tricky thing is that businesses in Alameda County can contract with private recycling companies, which may not follow the same rules as the curbside program. For example, where I work, a Starbucks coffee cup can be composted (green bin) and the lid can be recycled (blue bin). In other places, the lid may not be recyclable and would go to landfill.

So what does recycling and composting have to do with public health?

As it turns out, the environment affects our health! Things we do to and for the environment can have lasting impacts on our health. For example, according to the EPA, recycling can play a role in reducing GHC emissions, which are associated with chronic illnesses like asthma. For more information on waste disposal and public health, see here, here, and here.

Image source: http://www.readysetrecycle.org

Does your town, county, or region offer large scale composting? How has it changed your thoughts about waste or the environment?

BART Food Waste Advertisements

Recently, I have been noticing these advertisements on my morning and evening BART (Bay Area Mass Transit) commutes.

Food Shift, the organization responsible for these ads, is on a mission to eliminate food waste. Since California is currently experiencing a serious drought, these ads definitely caught my attention. That's a lot of water wasted! As I checked out Food Shift's website, I learned that wasting food has environmental, social, and financial impacts.

According to Food Shift's website, that average American family of four throws out $1,600 of food each year, or 20 pounds of food per person per month.

This got me thinking about how we can waste less food. Of course, Food Shift is interested in making changes at the systemic level of food supply chains, which has the potential to make a huge impact. At the same time, I think we can and should recognize that a lot of individuals making small changes can also make a difference.

One thing we do in our household is to freeze items before they go bad. For example, when our fruit is getting on the over-ripe side, we freeze it for use in future smoothies. We also freeze a portion of our leftovers when we cook large batches of food, so that it does not go bad before we finish enough of it (or get bored of it).

Food Shift has a list of recommendations on their site, such as planning ahead, keeping stock of your pantry (and using what you already have), and learning about proper food storage.

What systemic changes do you think would decrease food waste? What personal steps do you take to waste less food?

Does Wealthy = Healthy When It Comes To Buying Food?

My husband and I have been living on a food budget of approximately $350 per month for the last few years. That's $175 per person per month, a little over $40 per person per week, and just under $6 per person per day. Since we both eat 3 good meals a day, plus snacks, I figure on average, we are spending under $2 per person per meal. But we aren't eating McDonald's. We are eating pot roast with veggies, tuna noodle casserole (and a host of other casseroles), fresh salads, fresh fruit with yogurt, baked chicken, homemade pizza, tacos, tomatoes with basil, lasagna, and so much more.

The reason I really got to thinking about this is that I viewed a few episodes of the television show "Secret Millionaire." The premise of the show is that a wealthy person moves into a poor neighborhood for a week, disguising himself or herself as a new member in the community, and searches for non-profit organizations deserving of large donations. One of the things the participant has to do is buy his or her own food for that week with a handful of cash, representing the amount of money that a typical person on food stamps would receive in the area in which they are staying. Depending on the locale, my experience from a few episodes is that they receive anywhere from $30 to $60 to eat for the week. Of course, they then go grocery shopping and bemoan their need to check prices and inability to eat well. And I'm not talking about not buying more expensive organic or grass-fed options here. I mean the choice to cook any kind of actual meat and produce versus the choice to buy processed or calorie-dense/nutrition-light options.

To be clear, I am not totally sure how I feel about the premise of the show. I mean, giving generously to hard working organizations serving those in need is great (highly recommend it), and even walking in someone else's shoes for a period could certainly be valuable in many situations. But the whole 'flying in from out of town and disguising yourself as an impoverished individual only to suddenly throw money at your new friends and fly right back out of town' thing is a little off to me. Regardless of how I ultimately view the show, however, I still find it interesting to see that these wealthy people typically eat pretty poorly for the week on their cash budget, when my husband and I eat much better for the same weekly amount. And so I got to wondering why? 

Then it dawned on me that to some degree, it is easier to eat healthy for less when you have some capital to begin with. (I am not talking about being extremely wealthy by U.S. standards, but more about being solidly in the middle class and being able to build some savings, rather than living paycheck to paycheck.) How ironic, really, that we can spend less money on food because we have more money. But when I started thinking about how we eat so inexpensively, it really made sense. This is subtly different than the post I wrote about Food Insecurity and Obesity in Children, where I discussed some of the reasons that the poorest in our nation are also more likely to be the heaviest, as I really want to focus in this post on where each dollar goes, rather than taking on overarching systemic issues of hunger. Therefore, I thought it might be helpful to do a thought experiment detailing some of the tools we use to meet our food budget and whether we would have those same tools if the rest of our budget was lower. So here goes:

Our pantry affords us good storage space.

• Buying in bulk. - This is one of the most common strategies for smart shoppers. Yes, we have a Costco membership that we use for certain items. But that's not really what I am talking about here. What I mean more generally is that when I go to buy canned tomatoes, I purchase a 10-pack at Safeway, because it costs less per can than purchasing them all separately. When we buy potatoes, we usually buy the 10-pound bag and use it in multiple meals. When we buy salsa, we buy enormous containers of it, because the price per ounce is less. And then we eat it all over time. So if we have to pay $9 today to buy a huge jar of salsa, that's better than paying $6 for one half the size and then coming back next week and buying another small one for $6. Buying the smaller size twice means paying $12 for the same amount of salsa as you can get for $9 if you just bought the big one once.
• The reason this might not work for someone living paycheck to paycheck is that when you only go into the store with $6 to spend, you have no choice but to buy the smaller can today and come back next week with your next $6 to buy another smaller can. This also translates to the "Secret Millionaire" television show experience, since the individuals participating are only buying food for one week and do not have the option to buy in bulk to cover the following week.
• This method of purchasing food does also require an ability to transport heavy items home and to store them safely. I am thankful to own a car and to have an extra closet that we use as a pantry. It might limit our ability to buy in bulk if we did not have this kind of transportation or storage space.
• The freezer. - I think this is likely our biggest money saver. When our fruit is about to go bad, we cut it up and put it in the freezer to use for smoothies or muffins or pancakes. When I buy fresh herbs at the store, I freeze whatever I don't need immediately. When I buy certain items with oils that break down quickly (such as flax-seed), I store them in the freezer. But by far the most important thing we put in the freezer is MEAT. We keep chicken in the freezer at all times, which is our most common meat eaten. Occasionally, we buy ground beef at Costco and freeze it in sections. All other meats, such as ground turkey, whole cuts of beef, pork, sausage, bacon, even hot dogs, I purchase almost exclusively when they are "buy one get one free" at Safeway. And I purchase a LOT when these sales happen, which means there is too much for us to eat right away. Therefore, I have to freeze the meats immediately when I get home. So that $20 hunk of pot roast that we ate for 5 days in a row only cost me $10 when you consider that I got the second one free (which comes out to $1 of meat per person per meal, plus the cost of vegetables to finish the meal), and the other one that also cost $10 is in the freezer right now. Both may have been in the freezer for a time before I used either. Sometimes, there are 3 or 4 meats on sale in a given week, and I buy them all and freeze them. Here is why that might be difficult if I were living paycheck to paycheck:

Two views of our freezer. No, that's not cereal in there.
My husband likes to organize by packing items into old cereal boxes.

• First of all, large cuts of meat are an investment and may require a person to have $20 on hand. That $20 may be able to purchase 20 servings of meat at the good price, but if you don't have $20, you are left unable to purchase the good stuff at all. It's the same issue of capital as the buying-in-bulk mentioned above. In addition, I often find that 3 or 4 meats are on sale BOGO the same week, and I will buy all of them to freeze at once, which requires an even greater capital investment in a single week. For me, I am willing to spend this, because I know we will be eating that meat all month (or longer), but I have to have the $100 with me in the first place to make this choice for my family. Since we are not living paycheck to paycheck, I can theoretically "borrow" from our savings account to spend our entire $350 food budget on one day (and then "reimburse" our savings account when we receive a paycheck), or I can space my purchases out over each week. As long as I plan ahead so that whatever food I buy will cover us for the month and so that I stop purchasing once I hit the $350 limit, I am free to use any part of our food budget whenever the deals are out. Without some savings money available, we would not have this flexibility, which would limit us to purchasing foods (especially something as expensive as meat) when we have the cash, rather than when the food is on sale. Relating this back to the "Secret Millionaire" show, it does not make sense for the individual to purchase such huge portions of meat for just one week, and they don't really have the cash on hand to do so anyway. 
• When I have visited the poorest parts of San Francisco, such as the Tenderloin, I noticed that many people I met were living in long-term "hotels" that resembled renting a dorm room. None of these rooms had their own kitchen. Some of these hotels had a shared kitchen at the end of the hall. Given this living situation, a person would not own a freezer at all and would be lucky to have a mini-refrigerator in his or her rented room. That would make buying meat and certain vegetables in any substantial portion very difficult, and freezing meat would be out of the question.
• Coupons. - Personally, I do not go too crazy scouring every last corner for coupons, as I have often found that coupons for name-brand items still leave me paying more than just buying the store brand. I find it is easier to get to know one store's system intimately well and to work that system as much as possible, including the use of coupons when helpful. So I look at the weekly circular sales to purchase fruits, veggies, and staple items that are on sale at the store, and I also add all of Safeway's online coupons directly to my Safeway card, which enables me to take advantage of special deals. It usually takes me 30 minutes to add all of the coupons to my card, but a lot of them are very helpful. For example, we get "Just For You" deals that give us discounts on foods that we specifically have a history of purchasing, so instead of paying $0.50 for kiwi's, we get them for $0.25 if I add the coupon to my card.
• This activity requires us to have access to the internet and 30 minutes of free time. This is by no means impossible for someone who does not have internet at home and is very dedicated to getting it done, as they can take advantage of the library's free internet. But it would certainly be a bigger hassle. And it would be made much more difficult by having to work during the hours of library operation or by having children at home with no other caregiver, which is the situation for many families. I also believe that the Safeway discount card itself requires at least a phone number, which could be a problem if we did not own a phone of any sort.

The kitchen space in our apartment.

• Cooking. - We cook almost all of our own meals. Very rarely do we buy pre-prepared food at the store, although we do keep a couple of these items in the freezer for busier days, or we may splurge on a special occasion. I try to limit myself mostly to meals which take 30 minutes or less of direct effort to prep and cook (special occasions excluded). If it takes 20 minutes of prep and then goes in the oven for an hour, that's ok, because I do not have to stand watch over the oven for that hour. But if it requires me to stand at the stove-top to get it done, it better cook quickly.
• Cooking at home usually requires us to have a kitchen in the first place, which may not work for someone renting a room in a long-term "hotel." We usually use our stove, oven, microwave, crock pot, etc. to prepare food. Cooking also requires us to own pots and pans, casserole dishes, a refrigerator and tupper-ware for storing leftovers. I imagine cooking our own meals would be difficult if we did not own such items. We even have a bread-maker that was a present from my husband's parents, which we use to make our own sandwich bread and pizza dough, so that we save money by paying only for the flour, water, yeast, etc. (which is a lot less than buying a loaf at the store). All of these cooking items required an initial investment to purchase, but pay off in the savings they enable us over the long term.
• Then there is the sheer time it takes to cook (about 30 minutes for a given meal, which often lasts us a few days and will certainly not last as long once we have more mouths to feed). The time it takes to grocery shop can also add up. Although this does not seem like an overwhelming amount of time to me right now, with my one career, I imagine that if I were working two jobs, it would probably sound like a lot more time. And if I had children that I had to supervise while cooking or bring to the store with me, that would be another aspect to arrange.
• Our garden. - Ok, so this really hasn't been such a big help this year, as most of our plants got eaten by squirrels, rats, and aphids. Beginner's luck? Not in this house. But in theory, if we can do better next year, this may save us some money on produce. It did save us on some herbs, because our basil, thyme, and rosemary all thrived (eventually).
• The garden requires space. We live in an apartment, but we have a decent sized first floor patio with moderate sun that we were able to utilize. This type of space can be a luxury, especially in an urban setting. In addition, the garden did require an initial investment in pots and potting soil, some of which we can reuse next year and some of which we will need to purchase again.

  

  From left to right, I have two red pots of arugula that got eaten by rats or squirrels, a rosemary plant that lived,  two rectangular containers in which I am attempting to re-grow lettuce under wiring to protect it from the vermin, and a round tub of carrots, most of which has been eaten by animals or died from lack of sun light.

  

  The square containers are growing bell peppers (sadly aphid infested), and on the ground, we have a hibiscus plant, surrounded by thyme (herb) ground cover.

These are just some of the initial things that came to mind as I conducted this thought experiment about what really enables us to live within our food budget. I am sure there are many other issues I have not mentioned and also many creative ways to save money that I have not considered. (For an example of a systemic issue, one that jumps to mind is that some people live in "food deserts," where they may not even have full service grocery stores nearby, but they are surrounded by fast food chains and convenience stores filled with snack food. This issue tends to disproportionately affect the poor, such as residents of certain inner city communities.)

I am not saying that it would be impossible to eat healthy outside of having middle class resources, like a stove top and a savings account, but our situation certainly makes it a lot more feasible for us. When circumstances change, creative people can often make a way. But thought experiments like this help me to empathize a little more with families who eat pre-prepared frozen meals or fast food on a regular basis. At less than $2 per meal in the generally expensive San Francisco Bay Area, if you were to add in the assistance cost of free school lunches and other similar programs, I think my husband and I are not spending much more on daily food expenses than some lower income families in this area. But many of the less healthy food options that cost about the same overall do save precious cooking time and allow a person to spend their food budget day to day instead of in bulk.

Since I have only just started this thought experiment, and I am certain that my ideas are incomplete, I am interested to hear what others think. What holes do you see in my initial thoughts? What other factors can you think of that enable you to eat healthy for less? What have you done when you were living paycheck to paycheck? Are there tools that people of any location or socioeconomic situation can utilize? What could be done to make it easier for people in all situations to take advantage of lower cost items, store sales, cooking at home, etc?

Exercise....BACON!

Sometimes I like to mix things up a little with a funny post. Life can't be all about health! This picture on cheezburger.com made me laugh, and I can totally relate. I love a good piece of bacon....or three pieces....or five.

http://cheezburger.com/6962356480

Genius!

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!

Sleep is Important to Maintaining a Healthy Body Weight....Again

You may recall that I recently wrote about a study showing that sleep may affect the expression of "obesity genes." Today, I read about two other recent studies once again highlighting the link between sleep and overall health/weight.

According to the first study, conducted at Columbia University, when your brain is sleep-deprived, you are more likely to crave junk food. This study used an MRI to compare brain activity in 25 volunteers after getting a good night's rest and again after a night with four hours of sleep. The researchers ran scans while showing the subjects various images of unhealthy and healthy foods. When participants were sleep-deprived, the parts of their brains associated with craving and reward were more active than when they had more sleep, particularly when looking at the images of unhealthy foods. One hypothesis is that a tired brain is looking for an energy pickup as though it were food deprived. Other recent studies may lend credence to these findings, showing that those who are sleep-deprived tend to snack more and gain more weight. Scientists are still trying to determine the possible hormonal and appetite factors that trigger these effects.

The second study, conducted at UC Berkeley, showed that higher order brain functions associated with decision-making are inhibited in those who are sleep deprived, which in turn affects the food choices a person makes. This study was similar to the above in using MRI imaging to determine 23 participants' desires for various foods after being well rested versus being awake for twenty four hours. After being awake for the extended period, participants expressed a stronger preference for unhealthy foods. However, not only were subjects' brains tested for heightened pleasure-seeking activity (as in the above study), but also for decision-making activity. The researchers found that pleasure-seeking activity was not increased, but decision-making activity was diminished, and this may have played a greater role in the ability to weigh healthy versus unhealthy choices.

It sounds like both studies say that sleep deprivation affects food choice, but one attributes this to craving/reward and the other to decision-making (but not craving/reward). So why the difference? Well, one thing to remember is that these were both fairly small studies, so more extensive work needs to be undertaken to draw definitive conclusions. Another consideration, pointed out directly in the article, is that there could be a difference depending on the amount of sleep deprivation; in the Columbia study, participants had four hours of sleep, whereas in the Berkeley study, subjects had no sleep. Perhaps both craving/reward and decision-making play a role in food choice, but decision-making impairment becomes more pronounced relative to the reward centers of the brain as sleep deprivation increases. Right now, there is no concrete information on whether this theory is correct, but it is certainly worth exploring. As mentioned above, both studies still need additional confirmation with future research.

Although we should read these results as very preliminary and wait to see what future research either confirms or disputes, we can still observe that both studies in some way support past research showing a link between sleep and weight. So once again, the lesson is, take care of your body with some rest!


Image credit: http://www.healthytimesblog.com/2011/03/5-amazing-facts-about-sleep/

Exercise and Eating Right May Matter Less if You Sleep Less

The time we spend sleeping has been linked to heart disease, longevity, interpersonal relationships, decision-making, stress and mental disorders, and a host of other health concerns.

Now, a recent study by the University of Washington Sleep Center, which appears in the journal Sleep, shows that sleeping more may counteract some genetic predisposition for weight gain. In the study of twin pairs, lifestyle choices such as diet and exercise were significantly more effective at combating weight gain among those who also got more hours of sleep per night.

Previous research has been able to show that lack of sleep contributes to excess weight. However, this study is unique, because it uses twins to specifically identify the lifestyle contribution to weight gain versus the genetic factor. According to USA Today, "For twins averaging nine hours of sleep, genetic factors accounted for about 32% of weight variations; for those sleeping less than seven hours, genetic factors accounted for 70% of weight variation. For those sleeping seven to nine hours, 60% of the variation was due to genetic factors."

Although they have not yet definitively identified why this link exists, it could involve hunger, fat storage, inflammation, or other metabolic functions. According to the same USA Today article, "Scientists have known for years that sleep deprivation increases levels of hunger hormone and decreases levels of a hormone that makes you feel full." This study, however, takes it to another level. Even if a sleep deprived individual did not eat more than a well rested person, and even if the sleep derived individual exercised the same amount, the study indicates that the sleep deprived would be less successful at maintaining a healthy weight.

Health Magazine quotes lead investigator Nathaniel F. Watson, M.D., who explains, "The less you sleep, the more important genetic factors are to how much you weigh. The longer you sleep, the greater the influence of environmental factors, like meal composition and timing." In other words, the amount of sleep you get can influence your gene expression.

One possible explanation posited by Carl Boethel, M.D., from the Sleep Institute at Scott & White Healthcare is that when an individual is consistently deprived of sleep, the body enters a state of stress. In that situation, the portion of the individual's genes that are designed to handle a stressful environment start to take over by holding calories or altering other metabolic processes.

Regardless of the mechanism for the genetic expression in this research, the message is clear from both this study and a host of others that we can help ourselves stay healthy by getting enough sleep.

Image credit: http://fivehourfitness.com/5-tips-for-better-sleep/

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/