Showing posts with label dad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dad. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Clean Cooking Crusade

This is the third in a series of articles about the food industry and its impact on our lives.

For most of my life I’ve been trying to eat healthy, and I think I’ve done a good job of avoiding certain pitfalls. In food pyramid order, I mostly stick to whole grains instead of refined flour, I eat fresh fruits and vegetables daily, my portions of meat tend to be small, I aim for low-fat dairy, and my family rarely consumes fast food or sweets. But, there’s always room for improvement, especially when it comes to minimizing processed foods. In eschewing traditional “diets” as a recipe for deprivation, one of the experts in Hungry for Change advises simply to begin adding good foods to your diet, since doing so “eventually crowds the bad stuff out.”

For me, this has equated to using up the “bad stuff” in my refrigerator and pantry, and figuring out what to replace them with.

  • No more canned soups, with their high sodium content and long list of chemical preservatives. I actually like making my own soup; the challenge will be finding more recipes and time to make large batches.
  • Goodbye, condiments. Mayonnaise, mustard, ketchup, and Asian-style marinating sauce all contain various cocktails of hydrogenated oils, chemical preservatives, HFCS, et al. Hummus is probably safe, but I’m wondering if it’s okay to stick with store-bought or if I should try making my own.
  • Replacing meat on weekdays with beans and nuts. Hummus and nuts are just as tasty on salad as chicken (please tell me hummus is safe).  
  • Replacing mass-produced meat on weekends with cage-free, grass-fed, sustainable choices. This honestly might be a matter of budget, and researching which brands are truly an improvement when it comes to health and sustainability.
  • Snack foods. It’s enough that I have to choose quinoa over processed pasta. The idea of never having a cookie or cracker again feels excruciating. Finding healthy alternatives for snack foods may simply consist of eating even more fruits and vegetables as snacks.
  • Caffeine, my first love (sorry, Hubs). The struggle to eliminate caffeinated beverages from my life is ongoing (and probably deserves its own article).

Of course, I need to reconcile my own eating goals with my family’s. My lovely husband is lucky enough to have the same metabolism he did when we first began dating – at age 17. This has enabled him to keep eating ice cream sandwiches, chips, and soda as we enter our thirties.  He is also blessed with self-control, chiefly when it comes to portioning less healthy foods. Whereas I still eat walnuts directly out of the bag until I’m full (or bored), he places a handful of chips onto a plate and puts the bag away. Years before my healthier-eating experiment began, he’d banned gallon-tub ice cream in the home because he realized how easy it was to eat too much at once. Buying individually wrapped ice cream sandwiches (Klondike Oreos are his favorite) has done the trick as far as allowing him to eat one per day. It also prevents me from eating any at all, since I can’t fudge the nutritional info of exactly one serving anymore. (One cup of ice cream? That’s like two scoops, right?) Hubs also abhors condiments, the use of which has been shown to encourage overeating (i.e. we keep eating chips until the dip runs out). This has made him amenable to some of the changes – namely the switch from Asian marinades to a lemon or lime juice-based garlic rub for chicken. The incorporation of quinoa into some meals has also gone over well ever since I figured out the perfect combination of garlic, onion, and herbs to sauté it in.

I do realize I’m lucky to have a few advantages in this endeavor: 1) I’ve always enjoyed cooking my own meals, and 2) right now, my schedule and budget allow me to go to the grocery store and prepare said meals. After last week’s visit to our local produce market, I realized I had bought enough fruits and vegetables for a week for the same price as one restaurant meal. That alone is reason to celebrate taking a step in the healthiest direction.

Once home from the store, I happened upon this article. (The lovely reporter went to college with my husband). The story features Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and her own quest for healthier cooking and eating. The well-known Congress member and Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman describes how her breast cancer diagnosis and treatment forced her to examine her subpar eating habits and to replace them with a more conscientious “clean cooking” diet. She acknowledges that doing so entailed a big commitment, calling it “a lifestyle” unto itself and admitting that she’s stayed up into the wee hours of the night in order to prepare her healthy meals.

In the accompanying video, Schultz lauds the clean cooking community of Instagram for inspiring and supporting her efforts. I find it amusing that someone who works alongside 534 other elected representatives (not to mention support staff and other Congressional personnel) had to cultivate like-minded foodie comrades online. Since then, she has shared photos of her culinary creations with the world and attempted to spread the word on clean cooking among her colleagues.

Unfortunately, her predicament as a healthy food pioneer is a reflection of American society at large. Most adults in this country give in to the ease of take-out meals and prepared foods while juggling busy work and family schedules. Life can be a whirlwind of stress no matter one’s circumstances, and a lot of folks feel it is impossible to go out and buy groceries and then turn them into healthy meals. But the tradeoff of time-saving foods often comes back to haunt us in the form of chronic disease requiring medical intervention. I hope that more people follow the Congresswoman’s lead, sacrificing at least a little bit of their week to shop for groceries and cook at home. If she can manage it, we can all at least give it a try, can't we?



Friday, April 4, 2014

C-sections, freedom, gender... and how none of it is anyone's business, really.

As a new mom and New York Mets' fan (hold your boos, please), my ear's perked up when I heard Boomer Esiason's suggestion that Daniel Murphy's wife should have scheduled a C-section to better accommodate the team's schedule. I don't want to repeat what's been said in the numerous insightful, well-reasoned articles covering this topic, especially now that the former NFL quarterback has apologized, but I do have a few thoughts to share.

We're fortunate to live in a time and place where numerous life-saving medical procedures are available and performed every day. The important aspect of this issue is that all health-related decisions are a matter to be adjudicated between an individual, his/her family members, and his/her doctor. Some women give birth at home in their bathtubs under the supervision of a midwife with no pharmaceutical assistance; others go in fully expecting to be hooked up to an epidural catheter. Personal preferences and ideals aside, no one way is "better" than another. And I'm willing to bet that there are people (wives of professional athletes included) who have scheduled C-sections or labor inductions for the sake of convenience. Other women not in the public eye may elect to push or delay a C-section or induction so as not to interfere with their partners' work obligations or other commitments. A friend of mine was due to give birth at the end of August. When she remained pregnant on September 8th her doctor scheduled her for an induction the next day... then bumped it to the following day because the labor and delivery ward was full - too many women scheduling their C-section/induced births for the 9th, to avoid delivering on September 11th.

The point, which both Murphy and Esiason espoused in their comments subsequent to the initial discussion, is that the approach to childbirth and decisions about subsequent care are matters of individual choice. As long as someone with medical training approves of and can provide or arrange for any subsequent care, the patient's decision is what governs.

By the way, the same argument can be made for the availability of abortion and the use of stem cells. If these medical interventions violate someone's religious beliefs or personally-held moral ideals, he or she needn't utilize them. But calling for the elimination of the procedures altogether, depriving other people of autonomy in deciding whether or not to pursue those treatments, misapplies the First Amendment's clause protecting the free exercise of religion. In this arena, as in many others, "freedom" means that we get to believe in and practice the principles we choose, but it does not extend so far as to allow the imposition of one group's beliefs on outsiders.

Another angle to the paternity leave issue involves gender itself. Lots of people on Twitter shared the sentiment that, as a man, Esiason was somehow not equipped to make an informed assessment of the situation nor entitled to have an opinion at all because he himself cannot give birth. Nonetheless, I believe that despite being a man, he had every right to formulate an opinion and voice it accordingly... with the understanding that the world would view his opinion with the appropriate grain of salt and react critically. The notion that Esiason's sex makes him ill-equipped to form a reasoned opinion on the subject of birth is insulting to all men, and thereby undermines any attempt at "feminist" argument by being unnecessarily antagonistic toward an entire gender.

What do you all think? Where do we draw the line about who can say what about others' medical procedures? Is this whole ordeal being overblown? Will the Mets ever win a game?! I eagerly await your comments.