|
Most women’s magazines advise the reader to use accessories to refresh a winter wardrobe or to update last year’s clothes. Given budgetary restraints, it is obviously much cheaper to buy a belt or necklace to liven up an old dress or boring sweater than to buy an entire set of work and leisure clothes every season (assuming that there are still readers out there who are even considering doing this). Perhaps we should take the same approach to perking up our meals since they can become monotonous even if we are not dieting. Although most of us have moved away from the “if it is Thursday, it must be meatloaf” approach to menu planning, many would likely admit that they rarely go beyond a limited culinary repertory. Week after week I stare at certain items in the produce section that I rarely buy, such as kale, and resolve that one of these days I will try to incorporate them into my meals. But then I go back to buying the same vegetables and fruits that I bought the previous week. Like many people I enjoy reading recipes in the newspaper and often cut them out. Then I stuff them in my recipe drawer and notice them only when the drawer becomes hard to close. I also go online to look up a recipe but sometimes the number of choices is so great that simply reading all the options takes longer than making the dish. A few days ago I was in a clothing store that also sells household items including cookbooks. A visiting relative was busy trying on clothes and, trying to mentally block out the loud music, I picked up a cookbook by a familiar author, Mollie Katzen. Years ago she made healthy vegetarian meals accessible and delicious in her Moosewood Cookbook and The Enchanted Broccoli Forest. This book, Get Cooking, includes recipes for vegetarians and omnivores with pictures that make you want to run into your kitchen and start chopping and stirring. What was so appealing about the recipes is that the methods were simple. They used familiar ingredients and included suggestions for slightly altering the recipes for the second time you made the dish. Like adding a belt to a sweater or a great necklace to a dress to make them seem new and interesting, using these recipes allows us to still eat our weekly pasta or fish or chicken but in novel and easy-to-prepare ways. Moreover, many of the recipes fit comfortably into the dinner guidelines of The Serotonin Power Diet as they feature soups with salads as the main course or main course vegetables such Greek-style stuffed eggplant, chickpea and mango curry, or Portobello faux burgers. Just as we may be leery of some new fashion accessories and unwilling to try them out unless approved by friends or family, so too some of us may be leery of trying our recipes that seem a little too novel for our family’s tastes. One way of testing the approval and acceptability of some of the recipes is to eat them as a first course (soups are an obvious example) or as side dishes. For example, you can “accessorize” a plain piece of broiled chicken with a side dish of panko (Japanese bread crumb)-coated eggplant cutlets or skillet potatoes with fried onions. And if spicy, different foods are not your family’s eating style, the cookbook will tell you how to make simple vegetables, such as winter squash, that you may think is too much trouble to prepare. And to my great delight, Katzen has two pages devoted to dark leafy greens, including how to prevent them from taking over all the space in the refrigerator. Tomorrow it is kale for dinner! | permalink | related link |    ( 3 / 389 )We have a friend who has been losing weight for the past year-and-a-half. He planned a diet and exercise program that would be compatible with the frequent trips and eating out with clients required by his work. Six months ago he was no longer fat; now he is beginning to look thin. But he is still losing weight because, as he told us, he was once thin and sees no reason why he can’t be again. “I don’t care how long it takes,” he said. “Eating healthy and exercising every day is such a part of my life that I cannot imagine not doing it.” His attitude is so sensible it is surprising more people do not share it. However, it isn’t. Years ago, when I was developing a weight-loss program for a hospital-based weight-loss clinic, our staff discussed the length of the program. We agreed, based in part by published reports, that weight-loss clients would not stay on a program for longer than 12 weeks and that estimate was optimistic. Ten weeks was probably more realistic. We discovered during the years of the clinic’s operation that we were right. Around the l0th week, clients would stop showing up for appointments, and even though they were given the opportunity to continue beyond 12 weeks with no extra charge, only a few did. Many said that they could diet on their own and this was indeed the case. But others, we knew, just didn’t want to be bothered dieting even though they had not reached their goal. They felt they had lost enough weight to improve their blood pressure or cholesterol or dress size and that was enough for them, even though they were not anywhere near their goal weight. Dieting for more than several weeks can be extremely hard. In our book, The Serotonin Power Diet, we use the analogy of a long road trip to describe what it is like to have one’s eating limited by a food plan and leisure time used up with exercise. Often a car trip is marked by long periods of boredom as the scenery of one interstate merges into another and even the rest stops become predictable and unexciting. Sometime it feels as if the destination will never be reached and due to speed limits, there is no way to race ahead and get there sooner. So too with a diet. The novelty of the first few weeks vanishes and the dieter settles into a routine of eating and (one hopes) exercise that is like driving with cruise control. The pounds drop off (like the miles going by) but the weight-goal destination still seems quite far away. Few people would give up a car trip before reaching their destination because of boredom and driving fatigue. But often their arrival is delayed by events over which they have no control such as accidents, detours, car trouble or bad weather. Occasionally a trip is lengthened because of a planned stop along the way for a few days of sightseeing. Eventually the destination is reached. People who must be on a diet for a very long period of time would do well to regard it as a long trip with built-in and/or unexpected delays along the way. Sometimes a diet gets sidetracked because of work, social or family obligations. Stress, holidays, mood changes or sickness can make the diet take a detour so that it takes much longer than anticipated to lose the weight. But a delay is not justification for a permanent stop to weight loss. It is like being stuck in traffic; you never think you will move again because eventually the car moves again. The same thing will happen with your weight loss. You may even find yourself gaining a couple of pounds but go back to the diet plan and the pounds will start to come off again. If you have a considerable amount of weight to lose, it might be useful to consider going on a diet rest stop. Pausing the diet for a few days or even a few weeks but with a definite date to return might increase your enthusiasm and commitment for staying on the program longer. Knowing that you are able to eat foods that are not on the diet (although portion-controlled) may be enough to increase your willingness to get back on the program a few days later. It is like leaving the highway to visit some tourist attraction. The respite may be enough to make you willing to go back to the boring highway again. The only caveat for going on a diet rest stop is to promise yourself you will start back on the diet at a specific time. This is crucial. After all, if you leave the highway to do some sightseeing, you don’t decide to stop your trip and live in the town you are visiting. So too, stopping the diet and even the exercise for a few days should not mean taking up residence in a non-weight-loss lifestyle. And just as the highway signs indicate that you are finally approaching your destination, you will be able to tell from your slimmer body, increased energy and fitness and improved health that you too are at the end of your weight-loss journey. You will have come far but the goal will be worth it. | permalink | related link | ( 3 / 374 )This winter has seen the typical array of gimmicky diets ranging from cookies to drinking green tea and puréed grass (the last just overheard in the gym). Thus, it was refreshing to come across some sensible advice about eating in a magazine devoted to physical fitness. In the January 2010 issue of Runner’s World, an article titled “Not Guilty” by Ashley Gartland looks at several foods that dieters and runners alike have been avoiding because of their bad nutritional reputation. Since runners, particularly those who tend to race, are extremely concerned about maintaining their nutritional health and fitness, it is worth looking at what they are being told they can eat. Eggs in their entirety, not just the whites, are promoted as a rich source of nutrients. We have been told to avoid the yolk for so long it is hard to remember that the yellow center of the egg contains essential vitamins like A and D and the minerals zinc and iron. The protein quality of an egg is just about perfect for humans since the amino acids that make up the egg protein are very close to our amino acids needs. Eggs have been on the forbidden food list for years because of their cholesterol content; certainly people who have a genetic disposition to high cholesterol should avoid them and no one should eat them excessively. But if your cholesterol is normal and you do not consume more than three eggs a week, you can eat the entire egg without worry. Just stay away from desserts, like soufflés, that are extremely high in egg yolks. Also, don’t assume that because eggs are good for you, the sides that come with it, such as sausage or bacon, are also healthful. Next to eggs, red meat ranks on the “I don’t eat list.” To be sure, the expensive cuts of red meat are very high in fat. However, according to the article in Runner’s World, the leaner, less tender cuts—that are also the cheapest—contain about the same amount of saturated fat as a skinless chicken thigh. A friend who grew up during the Second World War when meat was rationed told me, “ I never knew that red meat could be tender until I was in my twenties. The only meat we were served had to be pounded into submission or stewed for hours so it could be chewed. On the other hand, we never had to worry about cholesterol.” Red meat is very high in iron and unlike the iron in vegetables it is absorbed rapidly and readily into the bloodstream. But be cautious about how much you eat. A three-ounce portion will give you 22 grams of protein, which is about half of a woman’s daily requirement and about a third of a man’s. Eight or 10 ounces of a tender, expensive filet or sirloin cut will be too high in fat and needlessly high in protein to make it a healthy choice. Then there are nuts and cheese, two favorite snack foods that many of us avoid because of their fat contents. The fat in nuts is unsaturated and thus good for your heart and the minerals such as manganese and potassium are food for muscle function. Do avoid nuts that are salted because they can make you retain water and be mindful of how many you are eating. A handful is fine (unless your hand resembles a baseball mitt). Cheese is also high in fat, which not heart friendly as it is saturated. On the other hand, cheese is rich in calcium, magnesium and good protein. Cheeses also contain a lot of flavor so sprinkling a small amount on pasta or finely shaving some aged Parmesan or Gruyere on a salad can turn an ordinary dish into a gourmet one. Keep quantities to one ounce and they will add flavor and nutrients without adding weight. White potatoes, like the other foods listed here, are considered toxic by many people trying to eat healthily. “I never eat white potatoes; they are poison,” my hairdresser told me. I said nothing because annoying someone cutting your hair is very dangerous but I did mention this article to her (after she was done). Potatoes, as we have been saying all along in The Serotonin Power Diet, are a wonderful food and this article confirms it. According to the sports nutrition writer Nancy Clark, one medium potato contains 4 grams of fiber, more than 25% of vitamin C needs, and 30% of daily requirement for potassium. Moreover, runners rapidly utilize the digested stored carbohydrate as fuel. What she did not say, but readers of our book know, is that potatoes, eaten as the main course for dinner, will soothe away stress and comfort you into a good night’s sleep. This happens because when potatoes are digested, serotonin is made. Runners are also given the good news that they should eat sugary breakfast cereal to satisfy their sweet cravings. Of course they should; we have been telling people to do this for more than 25 years. The very low-fat breakfast cereals will be easily digested and when that happens, the brain’s new store of serotonin, made as a result of eating these carbs, will take away the sugar craving. One caveat: This advice came from a magazine read by people who spend a great deal of time running. Their daily or almost daily running makes them fit with lower cholesterol and probably lower insulin levels than people who do not exercise. Following the nutritional advice in this article will not make you as healthy and fit as a runner unless you exercise, too. Brisk walking, biking, working out in the gym, dancing to a DVD, yoga, Pilates, swimming—anything that gets you moving several times week is good. And just think of what you can eat, without guilt, after your workout. | permalink | related link | ( 3 / 39 )My dog-walking circuit takes me past several restaurants. Often, in the late afternoon or early evening, I will see people scanning the menus posted on doors or windows. If the dog has stopped to sniff something, I watch the menu readers and wonder what will make them decide to go inside or walk away. It is tempting to go up to a couple and ask, “So, what do you think? Anything on the menu appeal to you?” Since I am usually propelled down the street by the dog before I can ask these questions, I decided to ask my friends and relatives instead. I sent an e-mail to a random assortment of friends and neighbors asking them what goes through their minds when they scan a menu and decide on the dishes they will order. The people who responded tend to eat out two or three times a week because work obligations or social schedules make it more convenient to do so then eating at home. But the restaurants they go to are likely to be modest neighborhood places rather than expensive restaurants one goes to for a special occasion. The answers were not likely to lift the spirits of chefs or restaurant owners as the respondents focused less on the unique qualities of the dishes than on whether the menu options met their criteria for portion size, healthy ingredients and absence of ingredients likely to cause indigestion or taste bud distress (like very hot spices). One respondent said that she always ordered one of the specials described by the waitperson but then admitted it was because she hated to put on her reading glasses in order to read the menu. Here is what they think when they pick up the menu: 1. I always assume that the entrée will be too large so I look for an appetizer and a salad that looks interesting. 2. Seasonal and local foods are apt to be fresher so I look for those dishes first. 3. I never eat red meat so I look for fish or poultry dishes. 4. Fried, creamy and spicy foods are on my “don’t order” list so I never even look at those items. 5. The desserts appeal to me more than the main course. If I see a dessert I want to eat, then I will order a small appetizer and save my calories so I can eat dessert without guilt. 6. I love to cook so I search for new dishes and try to reproduce them later on at home. 7. I try to remember what I ate the day before so I don’t repeat myself. 8. It depends on the type of restaurant. I won’t order steak in a seafood restaurant or pasta in steak house. 9. It depends on who is paying. When I go out with my friends, we all order inexpensive items because we split the bill. 10. If I haven’t eaten lunch, and if I have exercised that day, I allow myself to order something that may be high in calories. Otherwise I will eat fish and a salad without dressing. The answers reflected in large measure the lifestyles of many of the respondents who took eating healthily and exercising frequently very seriously. Price was mentioned only once but that may be because the restaurants they tended to eat in were moderately priced. Those who said they avoided creamy, high-fat foods or ate appetizer-size portions referred to calories only indirectly. Several mentioned that what they ate out reflected in large measure what they tended to eat at home. In other words, restaurant eating was not an opportunity for culinary indulgence; rather it was simply a convenient way to eat without having to prepare the food oneself. Watching as I do a Food Network program called Diners, Drive-ins and Dives, I suspect that my respondents are not at all typical in their thinking when they look at a menu. This program has the host traveling around the country tasting dining specialties and going into the kitchens to see how they are made. Often the program will focus on the biggest hamburger or the most decadent French toast or highest deli sandwich. The patrons are interviewed as they sink their teeth into food dripping with calories and in such large portions that it is hard for some to get their mouths around the fork or sandwich. It would be interesting to get the two groups to switch places when it comes to reading menus and ordering. I suspect that my group would go into the diners, drive-ins or dives and those patrons go into the local restaurants where my friends eat and both would say: “There is nothing on the menu that I want.” Menus in New York now include calories if the restaurant meets certain criteria for size or number of franchises. It was assumed that knowledge of the calorie content of the menu items would keep people from ordering fattening foods but, alas, that has not happened. It seems that some people feel that they want to get their money’s worth in calories when they eat out. Clearly these people are not saying to themselves “If I eat this and gain more weight, then I may be paying more for my health insurance. Plus I just paid for an expensive weight- loss program so why am I allowing myself to gain back my weight?” Given the immense health and economic cost of obesity, is there any way that menus can direct customers to making healthy choices? Or as the results of my mini-survey suggest, is the first step to make the eater healthy and then the healthy menu choices will soon follow? | permalink | related link | ( 3 / 286 )Last Sunday morning in the dog park, people were gathered around one of the park benches. It was a dog’s first birthday and the owner brought coffee, bagels and cream cheese for the other dog owners. (The dogs had to be content with only smelling the food and each other.) I gratefully accepted a cup of coffee; it was cold and the warm liquid was really welcome. One of the guys asked me if I wanted a bagel. “They are fresh and still warm,” he said, holding out the bag. “No thanks,” I said. “ I am not hungry.” “Oh, all you women say that,” he retorted. “I bet you really are hungry but you are afraid to eat anything.” “No,” I answered, “I really am not hungry. I ate breakfast. The bagel would probably taste better than what I ate but I have no desire to eat anything now.” He looked skeptical and told me that not being hungry had never kept him from eating. This looked like an endless argument so I decided my dog needed me and walked away. As I left the dog park it occurred to me that what my fellow dog walker had said summarized what was wrong with weight-loss programs. If hunger or not being hungry was irrelevant to whether someone ate or not, what was the point of telling a dieter that a particular program would take away hunger? If a dieter was like the dog-walking bagel eater, he would eat whether he was hungry, full or somewhere in-between. None of the weight-loss programs currently available understands how to make the dieter disinterested in continuing to eat once the initial hunger as been satisfied. Many years ago, researchers in England discovered that lab animals would stop eating before they consumed their normal amount of food when injected with drugs that increased the activity of the brain chemical, serotonin. The studies suggested that serotonin acted like a thermostat that automatically turned off the heat or air conditioning when the set temperature has been reached. Serotonin seemed to be turning off eating, so even though the animals ate less than they would eat ordinarily, they lost interest in their food. If such drugs existed for the dieter, then losing weight would be easy. No will power would be needed because the brain would tell the dieter to stop before too much food was consumed. When antidepressants that prolong serotonin’s mood- regulating activity were first introduced, scientists thought that that they might also be good for weight loss. Prozac, for instance, was tested for its weight-loss potential in a national study. It failed. Not only did the volunteers not lose weight, many of them started to gain weight while taking the drug. And as each new antidepressant became available, the same disappointing effects on weight were found. Worse yet, not only were the drugs not turning off the appetite; they seemed to be doing the opposite and making people feel permanently hungry. It was as if the serotonin thermostat had been broken. There is no explanation as to how these antidepressants interfere with appetite control. What is known is that the serotonin system regulating appetite is different from the one involved in mood regulation. But that doesn’t explain how drugs that help serotonin improve mood prevent serotonin from acting as an appetite thermostat. And while we are waiting for an explanation, people are taking these drugs and getting fat. When we started treating patients whose weight gain was due to these drugs, we were not certain how to help them feel satisfied and comfortable eating normal amounts of food. But we figured that if we could get that serotonin-appetite thermostat to start working again, then the patients would lose weight. The solution turned out to be simple and natural. The dieters were given a special carbohydrate drink that promoted the manufacture of serotonin in the brain. They consumed the drink twice daily and almost instantly felt a change in their appetite. The drink was so effective in getting the serotonin-appetite thermostat to work again that one patient insisted that we had put a drug in the drink. (We showed her that it was consisted only of a combination of different carbohydrates.) Our weight-loss program turned out to be effective for everyone, not only those whose weight was gained as a result of his or her medications. Moreover, even though the carbohydrate drink was a convenient way to turn on the serotonin- appetite thermostat, we found that any non-fruit containing carbohydrate snack worked also. The key was to get tryptophan into the brain. Tryptophan is an amino acid that enters the brain only after insulin is released, and this occurs when small amounts of starchy or sweet carbohydrates are eaten. Most significantly, this effect is not gone once the diet is over. In fact, the effect of eating carbohydrates on turning off the appetite becomes more intense as weight is lost. Too bad I did not tell all of this to my fellow dog walker. But if I see him tomorrow, I will. | permalink | related link | ( 2.9 / 201 )Back Next |
|
|
Categories
