http://www.thealternativedaily.com/
[…]
http://www.thekitchn.com/feedburnermain
(Image credit: Kimberley Hasselbrink)
Pork chops and tenderloin are favorites among many, but these mild-flavored, lean cuts come with a higher price tag to match. Look inside the meat case and you’ll find a selection of options to get your fill of pork without killing your food budget for the week — you just have to know what to look for and what to do with it when you get home. Here are our five favorite budget buys and how to cook them to perfection.
http://www.thekitchn.com/feedburnermain
(Image credit: Rachel Joy Baransi)
The best thing you can give to new parents (aside from sleep, which is surprisingly hard to gift wrap)? It’s not toys, baby clothes, or anything that makes noise. It’s food. And some celebratory bubbles.
Chances are, these new proud parents put a ton of work into getting themselves and their nursery ready for the new arrival, but they probably forgot about the fact that they’ll need to eat almost as often as the baby. This is where you come in.
Even if you’ve not yet been invited over to meet the bundle of joy (do not take it personally! The baby is busy!), be a good friend and drop off a dinner box to help the parents’ nights go a little smoother.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/
In 2002, Gary Taubes penned a New York Times piece that questioned the legitimacy of the presiding low-fat dogma. His article made a persuasive case for the safety—and metabolic urgency—of eating more animal fat and fewer carbs. It shifted the national conversation on healthy eating and paved the way for the rise of the ancestral health community. If the experts were that wrong about a healthy diet, what else were they getting wrong?
He expounded the arguments in the Times piece in his next two books, Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat. The first, which utterly demolished the conventional wisdom about saturated fat, was deeply influential for me.
In this latest book, The Case Against Sugar, Taubes lays out a convincing case for sugar as the primary cause of obesity, diabetes, and other degenerative diseases “of civilization.”
Many Taubes critics make a mistake. They take him too literally, quibbling on details while missing the big picture: The way he recommends people eat helps them lose weight. It just works.
When he blames the governmental push against saturated fat and cholesterol for their purported crimes against the heart and waistline, he’s not saying the USDA literally said sugar was fantastic to eat (although bureaucrats did recommend “hard candy, gum drops, sugar, syrup, honey, jam, jelly, marmalade” and other high-sugar foods as good low-fat snack options). He’s saying that the full-throated demonization of fat overshadowed everything else they were saying, and that their advice against eating too much sugar was tepid and ineffectual. The result was that average people focused on avoiding fat and cholesterol. What’s left over after fat and cholesterol and all the wonderful foods that contain both nutrients have been removed from the diet? Carbs. Protein is mostly out because it often comes attached with fat. Even eggs have that little poisonous nucleus lurking inside.
And to make low-fat foods palatable, what do you add? Sugar.
The Case Against Sugar will leave you white-knuckled in frustration at the egregious mistakes (honest or not) the powers-that-be made along the way.
I’m sympathetic to the argument that Taubes has overlooked some other factors. I’d argue that sugar isn’t the only issue, but I’d agree that it’s one of the primary ones. He isn’t setting out to write an MDA post that considers such arcane influences on health as blue light at night, PUFA-laden vegetable oils, and job-related stress. But not everyone needs that. If your grandma reads it on a whim and stops drinking those two Dr. Peppers each day, she’ll probably extend her life. If your dad reads it and becomes an anti-sugar zealot, he’ll probably drop a few notches on the belt and impress his doctor. Maybe they’re losing weight and improving their health for additional reasons other than Taubes lays out in his book. But does it matter if it works?
Taubes even acknowledges the shortcomings of the book and his argument. He relies mainly on animal trials and observational studies of humans because, well, those are all that’s available. The kind of randomized controlled trial on sugar intake he’d like to see performed in humans doesn’t really exist. It arguably can’t exist.
As Dr. Eades explains, it’d take a truly revolutionary team of researchers with a ton of money at their disposal to do the “definitive” (if such a thing exists) study on sugar and obesity/diabetes/etc:
To truly nail this down, scientists would have to randomize people into two groups, the subjects in one of which would be expected to eat 100 pounds of sugar per year, while the subjects in the other group would eat almost no sugar (or a significantly lesser amount). The study would have to last for years to realize a significant outcome. Ethical issues aside, a study like this would be enormously expensive and would be impossible to accurately monitor. It’s one thing to randomize people into a study and have them not eat sugar for a month or six weeks – it’s entirely another to get them to forsake it or gorge on it for six years (or however long it would take for meaningful data to emerge).
Maybe when we hit the Singularity and possess the capability to generate virtual universes indistinguishable from the real thing, we’ll be able to run one of these studies to completion. Probably from an iPhone app.
So when a critic points out that obesity rates have progressed despite average sugar intake dropping, it might be that enough folks are still eating over a hundred pounds. But that’s the average. Some people, like you or me, eat less than a pound of sugar in a year. To hit the national average, that means other people are eating well over a hundred pounds each—and they’re probably the ones getting sick, fat, and diabetic.
As Taubes himself concludes, we don’t know whether sugar is the primary cause of metabolic syndrome, obesity, diabetes, and all the other trappings of civilization. We can’t know for sure. But sugar is a strong candidate. It performs no essential physiological role, and when people do give it up good things happen to their health.
This case against sugar is a strong one, with lots of circumstantial evidence pointing toward it as a major culprit. A jury might not convict. But this isn’t a courtroom. Luckily for the individual, we don’t have to give sugar the benefit of the doubt. We’re allowed to presume guilt.
Go out and grab a copy of the book. It’s a good one that will only improve public health.
Did anyone else read The Case Against Sugar? What did you think?
Thanks for reading, everyone. Take care!
The post Sugar’s Day Is Done? A Review of Gary Taubes’ Latest Treatise, The Case Against Sugar appeared first on Mark’s Daily Apple.
http://www.thekitchn.com/feedburnermain
Chocolate Guinness cake isn’t your everyday chocolate cake. Nope, this cake is deep in size and flavor, thanks in no small part to the magic of stout beer, dark cocoa, and sour cream. The resulting cake is super moist and fudgy with an almost velvet-like texture that most cocoa cakes can’t beat.
Because this is a rather bold chocolate cake, it’s topped with sweet and tangy cream cheese frosting. Just pile it on top in big puffy swirls. Then take a step back and gaze at the beauty you just created. It looks like a fine pour of a pint of Guinness, doesn’t it? Good. That’s the idea.
http://www.thekitchn.com/feedburnermain
Oven-baked fries are delicious — there’s no denying that. And sure, they’re probably (definitely) healthier. But you know what’s also delicious? Super-crispy and lightly oiled fries with lots of salt. You know, like the ones you get at the best diners and restaurants. Have you ever been tempted to make them at home? Now might be the time to take the leap.
Today Amazon is highlighting a deal for the Hamilton Beach deep fryer. It’s on the smaller end (a two-liter oil capacity), but that’s probably for the best. Right now it’s on sale for $34, but it normally goes for $50. That means it’s 32 percent off.
http://www.thekitchn.com/feedburnermain
I found out I was pregnant while on vacation in Maine. Before dinner. So I didn’t order the raw steamers I was dreaming of. Or have coffee the next morning at breakfast. It was just the beginning.
The following 39 weeks and five days until my son was born was a minefield of avoiding foods and drinks I loved. My previous “devil may care” attitude was a thing of the past, especially with an OBGYN who cautioned me away from unpasteurized cheese and juices, any alcohol, and rare hamburgers.
There is a lot of information out there about what is safe when a woman is pregnant (and it seems like it’s always changing), and what the mother eats is up to her and her physician. The foods I abstained from came from discussions between me and my doctor. That could totally be different for you.
However, chances are, if you become pregnant there are some foods and drinks you will choose to abstain from or limit during your 40 weeks of stretch marks, heartburn, and pure love. And if that’s the case, you will probably find yourself dreaming of your forbidden fruit (or wine, shellfish, cheese, etc.). Here’s the lineup of what tasted best when I was finally cleared to eat and drink anything.
http://www.thekitchn.com/feedburnermain
(Image credit: Lauren Volo)
Not only is this one of the easiest Thai-inspired curries you’ll ever make, but it also delivers that deep, spiced flavor you expect with this kind of meal. The slow cooker works its magic, infusing a hearty pork shoulder with the pungent aromas of green curry paste and rich, warm coconut milk. It does all the heavy lifting, leaving you with a fragrant sauce and meat so tender it falls apart with the touch of your fork.
http://www.thekitchn.com/feedburnermain
The word “healthy” is as subjective as it gets — one man’s trash is another man’s nutritious. It’s not just salad, people! So when consumers see the word slapped on packaging, they should meet it with a level of skepticism, as current regulations for the term are relatively confusing. It’s a word that has no consistent meaning.
But the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) wants to change this. The agency is working to define and modernize the word healthy as it relates to food packaging.