And, in some cases, they are relatively inexpensive foods, too. From the NY Times wellness section:
Eat These Eleven
To be honest, I don't eat beets. But, I'm willing to shred them and try them as a salad base. I'll let you know how that goes.
Showing posts with label diet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diet. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Shaq Attack on Fat
Behold! An NBA superstar does something to be admired: he is attempting to change the lives of several kids who have been diagnosed as "morbidly obese" and at severe risk for health problems. In the previews for Shaq's Big Challenge on ABC's Good Morning America today, it appears that much of the problem lies with parents who are unable to say "no" to their kids requests for food.
Shaq is doing his part to turn around some disturbing trends in American health.
1. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, American children born in 2007 may have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. This is attributed mainly to lack of exercise, poor dietary habits, and subsequent complications from this lifestyle including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and many other other ailments.
2. Americans are shorter in stature than their their European counterparts. This was not always the case. Economist Paul Krugman writes,
Why is this so? The changing ethnic mix you say? Nope, says Krugman.
Americans are a wealthy lot compared to just about any country, but many other countries are growing taller than we are.
3. The U.S., with our immense wealth, top-notch medical facilities, access to education, and being the world's superpower, should have the highest life expectancy of any country, right? Well, that's asking a lot. But, top 10 for sure...right? No. Top 20? Top 30? Top 40? No, no, and no. We checked in at #45 according to the 2007 World Fact Book, behind nearly every country that most folks consider "highly developed." Japan, Switzerland, Australia, France, Iceland, Canada, Italy, Spain, Norway, Israel, Greece, Austria, Netherlands, New Zealand, Germany, Belgium, Finland, Jordan, Puerto Rico, and Bosnia and Herzegovenia all rank ahead of the U.S. among many other smaller countries. Why?
As an aside, most of these countries have a lower infant mortality rate, too. Again, I ask, why?
Do these countries have better health care? Better access to it? Better genetics? I doubt that any of those are true. I would hypothesize that they have healthier lifestyles. When visiting Spain a couple of years ago, an older Spanish lady told me that the secrets to their long lives and healthy bodies were "olive oil and lots of walking."
So, I will tune in at 8 pm central to see Shaq's "tough love" approach with these kids. I generally hate reality TV and since Lost is in reruns, there is not a single TV show that I watch on a weekly basis. I will watch tonight mostly out of sheer curiosity.
It is significant that a person weighing 335 pounds is doing this. He has just 14% body fat, which is in the low-normal range for a man. It would not be nearly as effective if some 150-lb fitness trainer was doing this show. Shaq is literally and figuratively larger than life for these kids. For all of my blogging against our weight trends in the U.S., a healthy body has little to do with how thin a person appears. There are plenty of healthy people who are viewed as "bigger" or "heavy."
God gave us all a body. Some of us are better designed for marathoning. Others are better suited for basketball. Still others have the build for swimming, power-lifting, football, or some other activity. An individual's ideal body is not found on the Gap Iconostasis, or on the pages of fashion magazines. Shaq's ideal body weight is 335, give or take. Serena Williams will never be small, but she is quite fit and an amazing athlete. Charles Barkley, while a bit pudgy these days, was known as the "Round Mound of Rebound" in his playing days, but he was a brick house. He was just wide. The U.S. Women's soccer team has done wonders for projecting an image of healthy bodies over just thin ones. (A longer "body image" post will have to wait until another day.)
We all will not and should not look the same, but we can all strive for health whether our ideal weight is 120, 150, 200, or 335. Hopefully, Shaq can help turn the tide for kids in this country.
He has been a collegiate All-American, an MVP, an NBA Finals Champ, a clothing/shoe mogul, a rapper, and an actor. This health thing should be a piece of cake...rice cake, that is.
Shaq is doing his part to turn around some disturbing trends in American health.
1. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, American children born in 2007 may have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. This is attributed mainly to lack of exercise, poor dietary habits, and subsequent complications from this lifestyle including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and many other other ailments.
2. Americans are shorter in stature than their their European counterparts. This was not always the case. Economist Paul Krugman writes,
There is normally a strong association between per capita income and ...
average height. By that standard, Americans should be taller than Europeans:...
But ... something has caused Americans to grow richer without growing
significantly taller.
Why is this so? The changing ethnic mix you say? Nope, says Krugman.
It’s not the population’s changing ethnic mix...: the stagnation ... is clear even ...[for] native-born whites.
Americans are a wealthy lot compared to just about any country, but many other countries are growing taller than we are.
3. The U.S., with our immense wealth, top-notch medical facilities, access to education, and being the world's superpower, should have the highest life expectancy of any country, right? Well, that's asking a lot. But, top 10 for sure...right? No. Top 20? Top 30? Top 40? No, no, and no. We checked in at #45 according to the 2007 World Fact Book, behind nearly every country that most folks consider "highly developed." Japan, Switzerland, Australia, France, Iceland, Canada, Italy, Spain, Norway, Israel, Greece, Austria, Netherlands, New Zealand, Germany, Belgium, Finland, Jordan, Puerto Rico, and Bosnia and Herzegovenia all rank ahead of the U.S. among many other smaller countries. Why?
As an aside, most of these countries have a lower infant mortality rate, too. Again, I ask, why?
Do these countries have better health care? Better access to it? Better genetics? I doubt that any of those are true. I would hypothesize that they have healthier lifestyles. When visiting Spain a couple of years ago, an older Spanish lady told me that the secrets to their long lives and healthy bodies were "olive oil and lots of walking."
So, I will tune in at 8 pm central to see Shaq's "tough love" approach with these kids. I generally hate reality TV and since Lost is in reruns, there is not a single TV show that I watch on a weekly basis. I will watch tonight mostly out of sheer curiosity.
It is significant that a person weighing 335 pounds is doing this. He has just 14% body fat, which is in the low-normal range for a man. It would not be nearly as effective if some 150-lb fitness trainer was doing this show. Shaq is literally and figuratively larger than life for these kids. For all of my blogging against our weight trends in the U.S., a healthy body has little to do with how thin a person appears. There are plenty of healthy people who are viewed as "bigger" or "heavy."
God gave us all a body. Some of us are better designed for marathoning. Others are better suited for basketball. Still others have the build for swimming, power-lifting, football, or some other activity. An individual's ideal body is not found on the Gap Iconostasis, or on the pages of fashion magazines. Shaq's ideal body weight is 335, give or take. Serena Williams will never be small, but she is quite fit and an amazing athlete. Charles Barkley, while a bit pudgy these days, was known as the "Round Mound of Rebound" in his playing days, but he was a brick house. He was just wide. The U.S. Women's soccer team has done wonders for projecting an image of healthy bodies over just thin ones. (A longer "body image" post will have to wait until another day.)
We all will not and should not look the same, but we can all strive for health whether our ideal weight is 120, 150, 200, or 335. Hopefully, Shaq can help turn the tide for kids in this country.
He has been a collegiate All-American, an MVP, an NBA Finals Champ, a clothing/shoe mogul, a rapper, and an actor. This health thing should be a piece of cake...rice cake, that is.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Dream Away
As Americans battle their bulging waistlines with pills, Ab Lounges, crash diets, hours in the gym, Joggin' in a Jug, or some other program or drug (or even surgery), they may be ignoring a simple but effective ally in maintaining their health: sleep. Research on how sleep affects weight and general health is still in its infancy, but there are already important academic studies that link sleep to obesity and decreased life expectancy among many other health problems (increased stress, digestive disorders, high blood pressure, increased risk of stroke/heart attack, it's a long list).
How much sleep is enough? Well, everyone is different, but it seems the greatest health risks occur primarily among those who sleep less than seven hours per night, those who have frequently interrupted sleep, and those with sleep disorders. Most people have an "ideal" sleep time of 7-9 hours of quality, uninterrupted sleep.
Many Americans seem to take pride in "getting by" on less sleep, linking their lack of rest with good work ethic and a willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve their goals. That simply feeds the "faster" culture that has been discussed here before. Like poor dietary habits, the cumulative effects will not be felt for years or maybe decades, so the current consequences of just "feeling bad" or tired are tolerated. Sleep is sometimes viewed as "wasted" time, and people even go as far as to avoid it or fight it off by staying up too late, then relying on caffeine to jump start them in the morning and keep them awake in the afternoons and evenings. We have more important things to do than, say, give our body its biologically required time to rest, heal, and keep us healthy.
Our body regulates certain bodily functions while we sleep. In regards to weight control, two very important hormones are regulated primarily during sleep. Leptin and ghrelin may sound like Tolkien characters, but in actuality they are hormones that regulate our appetite and our "full" mechanism.
Depriving our bodies of sleep disrupts our ability to identify real hunger or when we feel full. Obviously, this contributes to overreating and late-night snacking which leads to excess caloric intake.
Apart from weight gain, our bodies do important repair work while we rest. When engaging in physical training, increased strength, endurance, and speed all come from a simple formula: stress+recovery. Too many rely on a stress+stress pattern. When a goal is achieved, they immediately push to the next goal. In my training, I do no more than 3-4 "hard" runs per week. The other days are strictly easy, pleasurable runs or off days. Doing 6-7 hard workouts per week does not make me faster (trust me, I've tried this). It wears me down and sets me up for injury and burnout. I think the formula for daily life is similar: work hard, play hard, rest hard...well, that does not quite work, but you get the idea.
If you are a Navy Seal, maybe you have to condition yourself to survive on four hours of sleep per week during Hell Week (first week of training). But, for those of us living our daily lives without the immediate threat of extreme sleep deprivation or "sleep torture," we should make sure that we are getting adequate shut-eye. It helps us recover, repair tissue, "reset" our brains, control our appetites and hunger mechanisms, maintain a healthy body weight, and lowers our risk for myriad health problems.
There is an old saying that the sleep-deprived often trumpet in their defense: "I'll sleep when I'm dead." C'est vrai, but perhaps we can prolong the coming of the Big Sleep by taking getting (roughly) eight hours nightly in the present time. Adequate sleep can improve one's quality of life simply by giving a biological need it's proper place in our list of priorities.
CEREAL UPDATE
I knew that there had to be a reason I had missed out on the Kroger 100% Natural love fest. When I picked up a box in the store this week, I remembered why: 2 g of Trans Fat per serving. I calmly put it back on the shelf. This "100% Natural" is a farce.
(1) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0224_050224_sleep_2.html
(2) http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_1039.cfm
How much sleep is enough? Well, everyone is different, but it seems the greatest health risks occur primarily among those who sleep less than seven hours per night, those who have frequently interrupted sleep, and those with sleep disorders. Most people have an "ideal" sleep time of 7-9 hours of quality, uninterrupted sleep.
Many Americans seem to take pride in "getting by" on less sleep, linking their lack of rest with good work ethic and a willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve their goals. That simply feeds the "faster" culture that has been discussed here before. Like poor dietary habits, the cumulative effects will not be felt for years or maybe decades, so the current consequences of just "feeling bad" or tired are tolerated. Sleep is sometimes viewed as "wasted" time, and people even go as far as to avoid it or fight it off by staying up too late, then relying on caffeine to jump start them in the morning and keep them awake in the afternoons and evenings. We have more important things to do than, say, give our body its biologically required time to rest, heal, and keep us healthy.
Our body regulates certain bodily functions while we sleep. In regards to weight control, two very important hormones are regulated primarily during sleep. Leptin and ghrelin may sound like Tolkien characters, but in actuality they are hormones that regulate our appetite and our "full" mechanism.
One hormone, ghrelin, which triggers appetite in humans, was found at higher
levels in people who regularly underslept. Another hormone, leptin, which lets
the body know when it is full and should stop eating, was found at much lower
levels in people who did not get enough sleep.(1)
Depriving our bodies of sleep disrupts our ability to identify real hunger or when we feel full. Obviously, this contributes to overreating and late-night snacking which leads to excess caloric intake.
Apart from weight gain, our bodies do important repair work while we rest. When engaging in physical training, increased strength, endurance, and speed all come from a simple formula: stress+recovery. Too many rely on a stress+stress pattern. When a goal is achieved, they immediately push to the next goal. In my training, I do no more than 3-4 "hard" runs per week. The other days are strictly easy, pleasurable runs or off days. Doing 6-7 hard workouts per week does not make me faster (trust me, I've tried this). It wears me down and sets me up for injury and burnout. I think the formula for daily life is similar: work hard, play hard, rest hard...well, that does not quite work, but you get the idea.
If you are a Navy Seal, maybe you have to condition yourself to survive on four hours of sleep per week during Hell Week (first week of training). But, for those of us living our daily lives without the immediate threat of extreme sleep deprivation or "sleep torture," we should make sure that we are getting adequate shut-eye. It helps us recover, repair tissue, "reset" our brains, control our appetites and hunger mechanisms, maintain a healthy body weight, and lowers our risk for myriad health problems.
There is an old saying that the sleep-deprived often trumpet in their defense: "I'll sleep when I'm dead." C'est vrai, but perhaps we can prolong the coming of the Big Sleep by taking getting (roughly) eight hours nightly in the present time. Adequate sleep can improve one's quality of life simply by giving a biological need it's proper place in our list of priorities.
CEREAL UPDATE
I knew that there had to be a reason I had missed out on the Kroger 100% Natural love fest. When I picked up a box in the store this week, I remembered why: 2 g of Trans Fat per serving. I calmly put it back on the shelf. This "100% Natural" is a farce.
"Kroger, the nation's biggest food retailer after Wal-Mart, sells a store-brandShame on you, Kroger. The "100% Natural" title is incredibly misleading. It's like "All Natural" 7UP. It still has high fructose corn syrup. I'll stick with Kashi.
granola, '100% Natural Cereal,' that contains partially hydrogenated cottonseed and soybean oil. But none of its natural-category products include high-fructose corn syrup, Kroger spokesman Gary Huddleston says."(2)
(1) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0224_050224_sleep_2.html
(2) http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_1039.cfm
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Not Lovin' It
Anyone who knows me well has to be utterly shocked that I have waited this long to post about fast food. With the other blogs that I read are currently filled with heavy (and quality) discussions on church and faith, I figure it might be a good time for me to indulge in one of my far-too-frequent tirades against those who would control our taste buds, wallets, wastelines, and children if at all possible.
What triggered this was an event in my office yesterday. I dropped by to do a little work with my 5-month-old son in tow. I happened to mention that we were going to a birthday party tonight for a little friend who is turning one year old. The first question from our departmental office associate: "Are you going to McDonald's?" This is not solely about how bad the food is for us. It touches many parts of our lives and serves as an indicator of larger cultural trends.
The long arm of fast food extends FAR past the drive-thru window. Unlike other aspects of popular culture like music, fashion, film, or sports, food culture becomes a part of us physically. We ingest it and it goes into our bloodstream and organs. Listening to Flock of Seagulls in the 1980s may have prompted you to get a weird hair cut and now serve as the butt of jokes at current family reunions or when old pictures are reviewed, but it did not affect your cholesterol, clog your arteries, or make you obese. Overindulgence in fast food culture may have done (and may do) just that.
So, here are some reasons to limit your trips to the drive-thru.
1. It's bad for you. Have you ever cooked a hamburger at home on a grill? Does it look, taste, or feel like a McDonald's hamburger? How does Mickey D's get their burgers to taste the same in Miami, Florida, as in Seattle, Washington? How come they do not shrink when cooked? It is mainly because what you are tasting is not a hamburger at all. What you are tasting are chemicals. Leftover meatish parts from hundreds of slaughtered cattle thrown into a hopper, ground up, and fashioned into a uniform, bun-sized patty. The flavor largely comes from IFF (International Flavors and Fragrances). Eric Schlosser has this to say in his 2002 book Fast Food Nation:
The taste does not come from just the food. So, not only is it high in calories, fat, trans fat (in some cases), salt, and mostly devoid of nutrition, but the taste comes from the same folks who give Pert Plus it's smell.
2. It hurts local businesses. It's tough enough for small sandwich and coffee shop owners to make it. It's nigh impossible when a fast food restaurant sets up shop across the street or next door. Is Subway cheaper than Bread and Bagels (a local sandwich shop in Bowling Green, KY)? Yes, it is. Which one has higher quality food with better ingredients, an infinitely better atmosphere, works with local farmers, and has a vested interest in Bowling Green? B&B. All that for a dollar more at lunch time! What a bargain!
Do you enjoy drinking coffee and seeing bands at Spencer's? Do you like the excellent sandwiches at B&B? Support them.
Some argue that dollar menus appeal to those with little money. I would argue that they should not be eating at a restaurant at all, and even if they do...
3. It is expensive. One of the greatest tricks of the fast food industry is proclaiming it's economic value, especially through "value menus" or "dollar menus." A sandwich, fries and a drink from the dollar menu will still cost you $3.15 in Kentucky. That works out to a cost of $9.45 per day or roughly $70 per week. I can buy high-quality, organic food for two people with $70 per week. Further, a pound of turkey ($5), 1/2 pound of cheese ($2.50), a loaf of bread ($2), six or seven bananas ($2) and drinking water costs about $11.50--and I'm talking about the good stuff here. One could make at least six meals from these groceries. That's less than $2 per meal.
Fast food is not cheap. I understand that some folks in dire financial straits without a stove at home can enjoy a hot meal at a fast food restaurant for $3-4, and that is understandable. But, if you are reading this blog, this probably does not apply to you.
4. It is not faster. Time yourself. Make a sandwich at home and eat it. Then, one day, drive to a fast food restaurant at lunch time, order, get the food, and eat it. I'll go 10-1 that the homemade lunch is faster. If you have leftovers from dinner the night before, that's even better!
5. It is aimed at kids. "Brand imprinting for later actuation in life." That is what McDonald's brass calls it according to Morgan Spurlock's documentary, Supersize Me. In other words, a seven-year-old has more lifelong buying power than a 70-year-old. So, it's clowns, playgrounds, birthday parties, coloring and legos. It's happy meals gift-wrapped in colorful boxes and pseudo-hamburgers wrapped in fun paper, and it all comes with the latest California Raisin figurine (1980s), beanie baby (1990s), Incredibles (2000s), or (insert new Disney movie here) toy. The nation decried Joe Camel and had him axed, yet Ronald McDonald is something of a hero and more first-graders can correctly identify Ronald than they can common portrayals of Jesus in a picture lineup. To me, Joe Camel and Ronald are two sides of the same coin; they get the hooks of addiction in into kids at an early age. That may sound strong, but no six-year-old brain is a match for the salty, cheesy, sugary, caffeine-laced concoction of the standard McDonald's meal. Heck, it hooks adults fairly easily. Couple that with the toys, parties, playgrounds, and general good-feelings, and the psychological impact is massive.
6. It reduces small-town character. Most people probably care less about this than I do, but it pains me to drive through the South and see that the interstate exits at all of the small towns look the same: Cracker Barrel, McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, Subway. Lather, rinse, repeat. I enjoy an occasional blueberry pancake overload at Cracker Barrel as much as the next guy, but basically what CB has done is taken the idea of the hometown country store/restaurant and replicated it on a massive scale. The irony would be funny if not so sad. It is an imitation of the real thing (like say, Teresa's or Judy's Castle or Murray's...).
And that is ultimately the crux of the matter. The continuing explosion of fast food serves as an indicator of a larger trend. It's megachurch for our diets. It's Duke and North Carolina on ESPN, replacing attendance at a local, real, live college basketball game with a slick, marketed product of hype. It's Wal-Mart for our restaurants, enormous and replicating at an alarming rate...actually McDonald's IS inside many Wal-Marts. It's "convenient" and "time-saving" so that we can get on to more important things like hurrying home to watch hours of television so that they can market more fast food to us during the commercial breaks. Eating meals is what sustains our physical body. I think that is pretty important stuff.
The worst of it is that we say that we value education in this country, but the food that is available in schools is some of the worst out there. We spend resources on education and preach the value of it to kids while sending them to a lunchroom filled with low-grade food. Many college campuses' food courts are dominated by fast-food chains. Why are we not educating students on the value of taking care of their bodies? Our intellectual capacity and knowledge suffer if the body that houses them is compromised.
We often cannot see the cumulative effects of what we do to our bodies during our youth until a little later in life. Before we get older or get sick, our time, convenience, and tastes drive our actions. Eventually, when we get sick or break down, THEN we make changes to control our cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes, weight, etc. How about a little preventative maintenance? Do we want to reform health care in this country? Start at the front end and taking care of ourselves by eating well and exercising. Of course, all of us are going to break down and need medicine at some point and some of us are predisposed to certain ailments, but Americans as a whole can certainly do more on the front end.
We marvel at the soul and human mind that God created in His image. What about the human body that is also made in his image? Why do our bodies look the way that they do? We hear lots about being good stewards with what we are given. Does this not apply to our physical body as well? Or maybe it's more what kinds of abuses we will tolerate. For many Christians, drinking alcohol, even an amount that might be physically beneficial, is frowned upon, but gorging on fried foods, ice cream, or pies on a regular basis is perfectly acceptable. Why?
I am not advocating a workout regimen in order to be a "better Christian." But, maybe we should examine the motivations and reasons for the status of our health both individually and collectively in this country.
I am also not trying to suck the fun out of eating. But, do we think of food as fuel or as fun? Hopefully, it can be a bit of both, but when food becomes a hobby it also becomes a danger.
What triggered this was an event in my office yesterday. I dropped by to do a little work with my 5-month-old son in tow. I happened to mention that we were going to a birthday party tonight for a little friend who is turning one year old. The first question from our departmental office associate: "Are you going to McDonald's?" This is not solely about how bad the food is for us. It touches many parts of our lives and serves as an indicator of larger cultural trends.
The long arm of fast food extends FAR past the drive-thru window. Unlike other aspects of popular culture like music, fashion, film, or sports, food culture becomes a part of us physically. We ingest it and it goes into our bloodstream and organs. Listening to Flock of Seagulls in the 1980s may have prompted you to get a weird hair cut and now serve as the butt of jokes at current family reunions or when old pictures are reviewed, but it did not affect your cholesterol, clog your arteries, or make you obese. Overindulgence in fast food culture may have done (and may do) just that.
So, here are some reasons to limit your trips to the drive-thru.
1. It's bad for you. Have you ever cooked a hamburger at home on a grill? Does it look, taste, or feel like a McDonald's hamburger? How does Mickey D's get their burgers to taste the same in Miami, Florida, as in Seattle, Washington? How come they do not shrink when cooked? It is mainly because what you are tasting is not a hamburger at all. What you are tasting are chemicals. Leftover meatish parts from hundreds of slaughtered cattle thrown into a hopper, ground up, and fashioned into a uniform, bun-sized patty. The flavor largely comes from IFF (International Flavors and Fragrances). Eric Schlosser has this to say in his 2002 book Fast Food Nation:
In addition to being the world's largest flavor company, IFF manufactures
the smells of six of the ten best-selling fine perfumes in the United States,
including Estée Lauder's Beautiful, Clinique's Happy, Lancôme's Trésor, and
Calvin Klein's Eternity. It also makes the smells of household products such as
deodorant, dishwashing detergent, bath soap, shampoo, furniture polish, and
floor wax. All these aromas are made through essentially the same process: the
manipulation of volatile chemicals. The basic science behind the scent of your shaving cream is the same as that governing the flavor of your TV dinner.
The taste does not come from just the food. So, not only is it high in calories, fat, trans fat (in some cases), salt, and mostly devoid of nutrition, but the taste comes from the same folks who give Pert Plus it's smell.
2. It hurts local businesses. It's tough enough for small sandwich and coffee shop owners to make it. It's nigh impossible when a fast food restaurant sets up shop across the street or next door. Is Subway cheaper than Bread and Bagels (a local sandwich shop in Bowling Green, KY)? Yes, it is. Which one has higher quality food with better ingredients, an infinitely better atmosphere, works with local farmers, and has a vested interest in Bowling Green? B&B. All that for a dollar more at lunch time! What a bargain!
Do you enjoy drinking coffee and seeing bands at Spencer's? Do you like the excellent sandwiches at B&B? Support them.
Some argue that dollar menus appeal to those with little money. I would argue that they should not be eating at a restaurant at all, and even if they do...
3. It is expensive. One of the greatest tricks of the fast food industry is proclaiming it's economic value, especially through "value menus" or "dollar menus." A sandwich, fries and a drink from the dollar menu will still cost you $3.15 in Kentucky. That works out to a cost of $9.45 per day or roughly $70 per week. I can buy high-quality, organic food for two people with $70 per week. Further, a pound of turkey ($5), 1/2 pound of cheese ($2.50), a loaf of bread ($2), six or seven bananas ($2) and drinking water costs about $11.50--and I'm talking about the good stuff here. One could make at least six meals from these groceries. That's less than $2 per meal.
Fast food is not cheap. I understand that some folks in dire financial straits without a stove at home can enjoy a hot meal at a fast food restaurant for $3-4, and that is understandable. But, if you are reading this blog, this probably does not apply to you.
4. It is not faster. Time yourself. Make a sandwich at home and eat it. Then, one day, drive to a fast food restaurant at lunch time, order, get the food, and eat it. I'll go 10-1 that the homemade lunch is faster. If you have leftovers from dinner the night before, that's even better!
5. It is aimed at kids. "Brand imprinting for later actuation in life." That is what McDonald's brass calls it according to Morgan Spurlock's documentary, Supersize Me. In other words, a seven-year-old has more lifelong buying power than a 70-year-old. So, it's clowns, playgrounds, birthday parties, coloring and legos. It's happy meals gift-wrapped in colorful boxes and pseudo-hamburgers wrapped in fun paper, and it all comes with the latest California Raisin figurine (1980s), beanie baby (1990s), Incredibles (2000s), or (insert new Disney movie here) toy. The nation decried Joe Camel and had him axed, yet Ronald McDonald is something of a hero and more first-graders can correctly identify Ronald than they can common portrayals of Jesus in a picture lineup. To me, Joe Camel and Ronald are two sides of the same coin; they get the hooks of addiction in into kids at an early age. That may sound strong, but no six-year-old brain is a match for the salty, cheesy, sugary, caffeine-laced concoction of the standard McDonald's meal. Heck, it hooks adults fairly easily. Couple that with the toys, parties, playgrounds, and general good-feelings, and the psychological impact is massive.
6. It reduces small-town character. Most people probably care less about this than I do, but it pains me to drive through the South and see that the interstate exits at all of the small towns look the same: Cracker Barrel, McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, Subway. Lather, rinse, repeat. I enjoy an occasional blueberry pancake overload at Cracker Barrel as much as the next guy, but basically what CB has done is taken the idea of the hometown country store/restaurant and replicated it on a massive scale. The irony would be funny if not so sad. It is an imitation of the real thing (like say, Teresa's or Judy's Castle or Murray's...).
And that is ultimately the crux of the matter. The continuing explosion of fast food serves as an indicator of a larger trend. It's megachurch for our diets. It's Duke and North Carolina on ESPN, replacing attendance at a local, real, live college basketball game with a slick, marketed product of hype. It's Wal-Mart for our restaurants, enormous and replicating at an alarming rate...actually McDonald's IS inside many Wal-Marts. It's "convenient" and "time-saving" so that we can get on to more important things like hurrying home to watch hours of television so that they can market more fast food to us during the commercial breaks. Eating meals is what sustains our physical body. I think that is pretty important stuff.
The worst of it is that we say that we value education in this country, but the food that is available in schools is some of the worst out there. We spend resources on education and preach the value of it to kids while sending them to a lunchroom filled with low-grade food. Many college campuses' food courts are dominated by fast-food chains. Why are we not educating students on the value of taking care of their bodies? Our intellectual capacity and knowledge suffer if the body that houses them is compromised.
We often cannot see the cumulative effects of what we do to our bodies during our youth until a little later in life. Before we get older or get sick, our time, convenience, and tastes drive our actions. Eventually, when we get sick or break down, THEN we make changes to control our cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes, weight, etc. How about a little preventative maintenance? Do we want to reform health care in this country? Start at the front end and taking care of ourselves by eating well and exercising. Of course, all of us are going to break down and need medicine at some point and some of us are predisposed to certain ailments, but Americans as a whole can certainly do more on the front end.
We marvel at the soul and human mind that God created in His image. What about the human body that is also made in his image? Why do our bodies look the way that they do? We hear lots about being good stewards with what we are given. Does this not apply to our physical body as well? Or maybe it's more what kinds of abuses we will tolerate. For many Christians, drinking alcohol, even an amount that might be physically beneficial, is frowned upon, but gorging on fried foods, ice cream, or pies on a regular basis is perfectly acceptable. Why?
I am not advocating a workout regimen in order to be a "better Christian." But, maybe we should examine the motivations and reasons for the status of our health both individually and collectively in this country.
I am also not trying to suck the fun out of eating. But, do we think of food as fuel or as fun? Hopefully, it can be a bit of both, but when food becomes a hobby it also becomes a danger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)