Fiber (aka ruffage, or as my mom calls it, "cardboard") is a component of food that, although not actually a nutrient, bears equal weight as vitamins and minerals in the promotion of health...especially for preventing colon cancer and heart disease. Americans under-consume fiber so much that just 13g more per day across the nation would reduce the colorectal cancer rate by 31%.
Our bodies actually do not derive energy from fiber; it is any material in plants for which we lack the enzymes to digest (but other animals such as cows successfully get energy from fiber such as grass). The not-so-pretty reality is that fiber is an essential fuel for the bacteria residing in our colons. It's a natural and necessary partnership that we have with these little guys, and they do a lot of work that they don't get enough credit for (and get wiped out when people "cleanse" their colons). Resident bacteria are able to use fiber for food, promoting their proliferation. Here's why we want them to succeed:
1) the good bacteria scavenge our intestines for toxins and carry the toxins out when they exit our better end, 2) their colonization prevents pathogenic microbes from taking hold and causing illness, such as E. coli or salmonella, 3) certain bacteria inhibit growth of tumor cells, 4) their eating habits (fermentation) produces an acidic environment that prevents our good bile from being converted to cancer-causing secondary bile acids, 5) Lactobacillus acidophilus bacteria prevents the conversion of pro-carcinogens to actual carcinogens 6) they produce fatty acids which serve as fuel for new colon cells, denying toxins or carcinogens the chance to take root. Basically, they do a lot of good work in there, which is why we should feed them.
You'll see fiber in two forms- soluble and insoluble -under the category "dietary fiber" on your food labels. Both are functional and necessary, and a good balance of the two keeps things moving. Together they provide many benefits:
-Fibers increase our feeling of fullness so can help in controlling hunger and weightloss.
-They slow down digestion of a meal, which leads to a more controlled release of nutrients for more
stable blood sugar levels.
-Fiber acts like a sponge, sopping up fats and cholesterol in its path and reducing their presence in the
bloodstream (read: heart and artery health, and lower LDL levels). This property is also why it is
essential, though, to drink enough water to keep high-fiber foods from clogging the pipes.
As you can see, consuming higher amounts of fiber benefits not only our downstairs tenants, but many other aspects of bodily health. The current daily recommendation is 25g for women and 38g for men. But I don't advocate an increase in fiber supplements, which are usually nutrient deficient. Instead you can find fiber in the following DELICIOUS foods, and many others:
Raw: Cooked:
Blueberries - 3.5 g per cup Beans - 11-19 g per cup
Pears - 5.1 g each Oranges - 3.4 g each
Almonds - 3.3g per ounce Broccoli - 5.1g per cup
Raisin bran - 5.0 g per cup Brown rice - 3.5 g per cup
Oats - 5.7 g per cup
So do your part for colon and heart health - and appreciate all the dirty work that gets done while you go about your day - by incorporating more fiber into YOUR diet!
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Oh so sweet
The amount of fat consumed by Americans has decreased by about 10% over the past 50 years... from 42% of total calories in the 1960s to 33% of total calories today. The rate of obesity in the US has tripled - increased by 300% - in that same time period....
It appears that other factors are the major contributors to our nation's struggle with overweight. And it is really a global epidemic...as I have posted before there are now more overweight people in the world than starving people, and the rapid rise in obesity is no longer reserved just for wealthy nations. India, China, Russia, the Phillipines, and Mexico are now seeing an increase in obesity and overweight. My current read "The World is Fat" is a fascinating examination of these global trends by researcher/professor Barry Popkin. While describing how agricultural efficiencies + sedentary lives + manufactured foods + human genes for preventing starvation = a recipe for disaster, Popkin makes a bold claim. He argues that caloric beverages are the largest contributor to obesity worldwide. Drinking our calories is a relatively recent phenomenon - for the first 200,000 years of our species' existance the only liquids we consumed were water and breast milk. About two thousand years B.C. we find records of milk, wine, beer, and juice being consumed. And then in the past one-thousand years is where we see an explosion of caloric beverages: coffee and tea (with milk and sugar), liquor, juice concentrates, soda pop, and "energy" drinks. Popkin theorizes that our human genetics have not yet adapted to these new consumption habits: they were designed for the hunter-gatherer's survival when food was more scarce, and are no match for our appetites in this world of plenty.
Several recent research studies have demonstrated that intake of beverages does not off-set food intake. If we drink a 200-calorie soft drink at a meal, we do not eat 200 calories LESS of food. Drinks are additional calories on top of the calories we eat based on our hunger cues, and our appetites do not compensate for them. The liquids may give us a short-lived feeling of fullness from the expanding of our stomachs, but it then empties much quicker than for solid foods and so we feel hungry very shortly. Other times sweetened beverages actually increase our appetite for food: think of how the sweetness of coke drives us to eat more salty french fries (which the food industry takes full advantage of).
Pensive if this phenomenon, I converted the grams of sugar to teaspoons in the 6 common beverages pictured below for a presentation in school. The amount per serving of 8 ounces was listed on the label of each bottle, but every single one of these contained atleast 2 servings. In our over-sized American minds we feel good about "getting more" for our money and then consume the entire portion available to us, rather than rationing it out to make it last twice as long. The following are the amounts of sugar in the entire bottle of each product:
Sunkist orange soda: 18 tsp sugar
Coca Cola: 14 tsp sugar
Red Bull: 11 tsp sugar
Snapple: 10 tsp sugar
Starbucks Frappuccino: 9.5 tsp sugar
Vitamin Water: 5 tsp sugar
For each beverage, the first ingredient listed is water, and the second ingredient is some form of sugar (cane sugar, crystalline fructose, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, glucose, maltodextrin): they are literally sugar-water. I ask you all: would you find it appetizing to pour one of those cups of solid sugar into your mouth? Probably not. When dissolved in water, the caloric part -the sugar- is hidden, and our brain is partially tricked, although it does register that pleasant sweet taste which we instinctively enjoy. With beverages we also do not benefit from the mouth-feel of the amount of calories consumed as we would with a muffin or a candy bar (both full of sugar), which is a significant way that our body gauges the energy we have taken in.
Caloric beverages can be very useful for periods of prolonged physical activity in which energy stores need to be replenished more frequently to sustain that exertion. In these cases solid food is less efficient than liquid calories: the sugar is the simplest form of energy that our body can use immediately for energy without needing to do much digestion, and it is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream. Protein, fat, and more complex carbs spend more time in our digestive tract while enyzmes break them down and then need to be converted by our liver into glucose (the only molecule that our body can use to get energy!). So pure glucose is fantastic for athletes and mountain-climbers, but not so appropriate for those of us who barely manage to get to the gym a couple times a week.
Even so, it has become increasingly common world-wide for a person to have a latte with breakfast, a lemonade at lunch, a coke or red bull mid-afternoon for a pick-me-up, and a beer or glass of wine with dinner. These add up to a lot of extra calories that the world consumes every day, in a time when extra calories are more and more unnecessary. I think Popkin has drawn some very insightful conclusions from his breadth of research, and I would highly recommend the read. I know that this knowledge has changed the way I look at a soda or latte or glass of juice...just picture all those heaping teaspoons of pure, sweet sugar.
It appears that other factors are the major contributors to our nation's struggle with overweight. And it is really a global epidemic...as I have posted before there are now more overweight people in the world than starving people, and the rapid rise in obesity is no longer reserved just for wealthy nations. India, China, Russia, the Phillipines, and Mexico are now seeing an increase in obesity and overweight. My current read "The World is Fat" is a fascinating examination of these global trends by researcher/professor Barry Popkin. While describing how agricultural efficiencies + sedentary lives + manufactured foods + human genes for preventing starvation = a recipe for disaster, Popkin makes a bold claim. He argues that caloric beverages are the largest contributor to obesity worldwide. Drinking our calories is a relatively recent phenomenon - for the first 200,000 years of our species' existance the only liquids we consumed were water and breast milk. About two thousand years B.C. we find records of milk, wine, beer, and juice being consumed. And then in the past one-thousand years is where we see an explosion of caloric beverages: coffee and tea (with milk and sugar), liquor, juice concentrates, soda pop, and "energy" drinks. Popkin theorizes that our human genetics have not yet adapted to these new consumption habits: they were designed for the hunter-gatherer's survival when food was more scarce, and are no match for our appetites in this world of plenty.
Several recent research studies have demonstrated that intake of beverages does not off-set food intake. If we drink a 200-calorie soft drink at a meal, we do not eat 200 calories LESS of food. Drinks are additional calories on top of the calories we eat based on our hunger cues, and our appetites do not compensate for them. The liquids may give us a short-lived feeling of fullness from the expanding of our stomachs, but it then empties much quicker than for solid foods and so we feel hungry very shortly. Other times sweetened beverages actually increase our appetite for food: think of how the sweetness of coke drives us to eat more salty french fries (which the food industry takes full advantage of).
Pensive if this phenomenon, I converted the grams of sugar to teaspoons in the 6 common beverages pictured below for a presentation in school. The amount per serving of 8 ounces was listed on the label of each bottle, but every single one of these contained atleast 2 servings. In our over-sized American minds we feel good about "getting more" for our money and then consume the entire portion available to us, rather than rationing it out to make it last twice as long. The following are the amounts of sugar in the entire bottle of each product:
Sunkist orange soda: 18 tsp sugar
Coca Cola: 14 tsp sugar
Red Bull: 11 tsp sugar
Snapple: 10 tsp sugar
Starbucks Frappuccino: 9.5 tsp sugar
Vitamin Water: 5 tsp sugar
For each beverage, the first ingredient listed is water, and the second ingredient is some form of sugar (cane sugar, crystalline fructose, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, glucose, maltodextrin): they are literally sugar-water. I ask you all: would you find it appetizing to pour one of those cups of solid sugar into your mouth? Probably not. When dissolved in water, the caloric part -the sugar- is hidden, and our brain is partially tricked, although it does register that pleasant sweet taste which we instinctively enjoy. With beverages we also do not benefit from the mouth-feel of the amount of calories consumed as we would with a muffin or a candy bar (both full of sugar), which is a significant way that our body gauges the energy we have taken in.
Caloric beverages can be very useful for periods of prolonged physical activity in which energy stores need to be replenished more frequently to sustain that exertion. In these cases solid food is less efficient than liquid calories: the sugar is the simplest form of energy that our body can use immediately for energy without needing to do much digestion, and it is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream. Protein, fat, and more complex carbs spend more time in our digestive tract while enyzmes break them down and then need to be converted by our liver into glucose (the only molecule that our body can use to get energy!). So pure glucose is fantastic for athletes and mountain-climbers, but not so appropriate for those of us who barely manage to get to the gym a couple times a week.
Even so, it has become increasingly common world-wide for a person to have a latte with breakfast, a lemonade at lunch, a coke or red bull mid-afternoon for a pick-me-up, and a beer or glass of wine with dinner. These add up to a lot of extra calories that the world consumes every day, in a time when extra calories are more and more unnecessary. I think Popkin has drawn some very insightful conclusions from his breadth of research, and I would highly recommend the read. I know that this knowledge has changed the way I look at a soda or latte or glass of juice...just picture all those heaping teaspoons of pure, sweet sugar.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Step 1...
step 1: Eat Food
step 2: Eat Enough Food
step 3: Eat Good Food
step 4: Eat Better Food
It used to be that step 1 was a challenge for me; I would often forego eating as the best coping mechanism I had for the stress involved in adjusting to my new restrictive diet. Right now I'd say I'm somewhere between steps 2 and 3... realizing what it is to consume enough calories to support me taking a yoga class, spending 6 hours in lecture, or working an entire serving shift without feeling starving, faint, or nauseous. Believe it or not I had gotten so used to ignoring my hunger signals that I had forgotten what food's function was in my body: to nourish me! It feels empowering to plan a hearty, nutritious meal specifically because I want to be able to hold that back bend or hand-stand and not feel like my muscles are going to collapse. As much as our society focuses on everything we shouldn't eat, we often miss the point that food is what keeps our bodies alive...nearly every mineral, vitamin, protein, and fat molecule involved in the actions of our cells and organs HAVE to be consumed from the food we eat! That brings me to the difference between step 3 and step 4, since the quality of the food we eat can have monumental effects on how we feel. Not only do excess fat and refined, nutrient-empty foods slow us down, make us heavy (literally and figuratively), and cause a state of disease in our bodies, a diverse diet rich in all of the nutrients that we need is energizing, invigorating, and enlightening. With each nutritious meal I make for myself, as the stress of preparing them is diminishing, I feel my body connecting the dots inside and just working more effortlessly.
Viewing food in this progressive step-wise fashion, rather than in absolutes, reminds me that eating habits are on a continuum of "goodness" based on what the goal is to be achieved. A year ago the idea of jumping from step 1 to step 4 was debilitating...if others would advise me to eat very "healthy" meals I was overwhelmed rather than motivated. Similarly, expecting oneself to eat a PERFECT, nutritious diet, always!, is not constructive...it is in the small choices and steps that movement is achieved, and that the benefits of eating "good" food, or "better" food can be felt. And of course, we can't expect any of that if we don't eat "enough" food to give our body the energy to make these choices.
step 2: Eat Enough Food
step 3: Eat Good Food
step 4: Eat Better Food
It used to be that step 1 was a challenge for me; I would often forego eating as the best coping mechanism I had for the stress involved in adjusting to my new restrictive diet. Right now I'd say I'm somewhere between steps 2 and 3... realizing what it is to consume enough calories to support me taking a yoga class, spending 6 hours in lecture, or working an entire serving shift without feeling starving, faint, or nauseous. Believe it or not I had gotten so used to ignoring my hunger signals that I had forgotten what food's function was in my body: to nourish me! It feels empowering to plan a hearty, nutritious meal specifically because I want to be able to hold that back bend or hand-stand and not feel like my muscles are going to collapse. As much as our society focuses on everything we shouldn't eat, we often miss the point that food is what keeps our bodies alive...nearly every mineral, vitamin, protein, and fat molecule involved in the actions of our cells and organs HAVE to be consumed from the food we eat! That brings me to the difference between step 3 and step 4, since the quality of the food we eat can have monumental effects on how we feel. Not only do excess fat and refined, nutrient-empty foods slow us down, make us heavy (literally and figuratively), and cause a state of disease in our bodies, a diverse diet rich in all of the nutrients that we need is energizing, invigorating, and enlightening. With each nutritious meal I make for myself, as the stress of preparing them is diminishing, I feel my body connecting the dots inside and just working more effortlessly.
Viewing food in this progressive step-wise fashion, rather than in absolutes, reminds me that eating habits are on a continuum of "goodness" based on what the goal is to be achieved. A year ago the idea of jumping from step 1 to step 4 was debilitating...if others would advise me to eat very "healthy" meals I was overwhelmed rather than motivated. Similarly, expecting oneself to eat a PERFECT, nutritious diet, always!, is not constructive...it is in the small choices and steps that movement is achieved, and that the benefits of eating "good" food, or "better" food can be felt. And of course, we can't expect any of that if we don't eat "enough" food to give our body the energy to make these choices.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
As Seen on TV
I recently read a very interesting research study that analyzes the American diet as it is portrayed on TV. The study argues that food advertisements offer a "set of dietary endorsements" which "encourage viewers to eat the foods promoted for sale". Given that the average American household watches over 6 hours of TV each day, and all Americans together view 250 billion hours anually, I can agree with the authors that food advertising has to have a significant impact on the foods people desire and choose to eat. Working in a restaurant, I know very well how just the sight or smell of food can entice the guest's appetite and help us sell our dishes.
The researchers of this study watched 84 hours of prime-time television (in 2004) on the major networks that 99% of Americans have access to. They recorded all of the foods advertised by sponsors and commericals in their suggested portion sizes, then tallied the nutrient results.
If a person ate a standard 2,000 calorie diet composed of ONLY these advertised items, the researchers found that person would consume: 25 times more sugar, 20 times more fat, and 1.5 times more protein than recommended daily servings, as well as less that half the recommended servings of fruits and vegetables. The amount of sodium and cholesterol consumed would be off the charts, and daily vitamin needs not even close to met.
Really no surprise when you think about it...what do food commercials consist of? Domino's and Pizza Hut deals for family-size pasta dishes with free sides of cheese bread or cinnamon rolls...energy drinks...sugary cereals...manufactured diet products...water with no calories or nutrients but plenty of artificial ingredients...perhaps a more wholesome Ralph's grocery commercial thrown in now and then. But sitting down and noticing how much space these nutrient-empty foods occupy in the world of food sales is incredible...I mean, have you ever seen a commercial for asparagus? Food manufacturing is a HUGE business...I've often thought about this when walking through a grocery store and noticing that the majority of aisles are dedicated to foods that come in boxes and bags. We tend not to think of grocery shopping as a bombardment of advertisements, but really the food there is a PRODUCT to be SOLD.
For better or for worse, the influence of prepared and manufactured food products must be acknowledged. The researchers argue that "the pattern of nutritional imbalance found in advertised foods mimics the pattern of imbalance in the common American diet". The study observed zero public service announcements for balanced meals or fruits and veggies during these PRIME-TIME hours, although they do exist in other slots. They also included Saturday morning cartoon hours in their data, to capture the nutritional value of the foods children are influenced to desire...and in turn ask their parents to purchase.
"Nutritional Imbalance Endorsed by Televised Food Advertisements." Journal of the American Dietetic Association, June 2010.
The researchers of this study watched 84 hours of prime-time television (in 2004) on the major networks that 99% of Americans have access to. They recorded all of the foods advertised by sponsors and commericals in their suggested portion sizes, then tallied the nutrient results.
If a person ate a standard 2,000 calorie diet composed of ONLY these advertised items, the researchers found that person would consume: 25 times more sugar, 20 times more fat, and 1.5 times more protein than recommended daily servings, as well as less that half the recommended servings of fruits and vegetables. The amount of sodium and cholesterol consumed would be off the charts, and daily vitamin needs not even close to met.
Really no surprise when you think about it...what do food commercials consist of? Domino's and Pizza Hut deals for family-size pasta dishes with free sides of cheese bread or cinnamon rolls...energy drinks...sugary cereals...manufactured diet products...water with no calories or nutrients but plenty of artificial ingredients...perhaps a more wholesome Ralph's grocery commercial thrown in now and then. But sitting down and noticing how much space these nutrient-empty foods occupy in the world of food sales is incredible...I mean, have you ever seen a commercial for asparagus? Food manufacturing is a HUGE business...I've often thought about this when walking through a grocery store and noticing that the majority of aisles are dedicated to foods that come in boxes and bags. We tend not to think of grocery shopping as a bombardment of advertisements, but really the food there is a PRODUCT to be SOLD.
For better or for worse, the influence of prepared and manufactured food products must be acknowledged. The researchers argue that "the pattern of nutritional imbalance found in advertised foods mimics the pattern of imbalance in the common American diet". The study observed zero public service announcements for balanced meals or fruits and veggies during these PRIME-TIME hours, although they do exist in other slots. They also included Saturday morning cartoon hours in their data, to capture the nutritional value of the foods children are influenced to desire...and in turn ask their parents to purchase.
"Nutritional Imbalance Endorsed by Televised Food Advertisements." Journal of the American Dietetic Association, June 2010.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Some things in life don't get to take a vacation
The past week I have been vacationing with my family at a beach house in Laguna Beach, which is an absolutely enjoyable get-away even though it is only 20 minutes from the house I grew up in. The town, the beach, the whole environment is not new to me, but what is new is that this is my first family vacation with celiac disease. Any travels with friends over the past two years felt manageable...I guess because it was just me and one other person. And I do dine out with my family about once a month just to get together and catch up, but I don't mind going-without at that sporadic frequency. Eating with my family for two to three meals a day, five to seven days in a row is a much different experience.
The discussion of what sounds good to eat, the excess of choices available to everyone but me, the appetite-inducing conversation that occurs around every meal, and the communal sharing of appetizers and tasting of each others' plates really wore down the defense mechanisms that I routinely put in place so that I am not constantly disappointed by my eating experience.
What this week made me realize is how valuable it has been to figure out my diet on my own, without the need to plan seperate or modified meals for a group of people as would be the case if I lived in a family household. I can figure out what I have an appetite for, prepare it without worries of cross-contamination, and eat it without feeling envious of what others are enjoying. Like I said to my family to try to depict how I was feeling, normally I can get excited about a simple bowl of cereal and be completely satisfied from eating it. That kind of mentality is not so easy to maintain when there's an entire table full of delicious-looking-and-smelling, untouchable food right in front of me. For better or for worse, this vacation reminded me how this part of my life continues to challenge me in new situations no matter how well I think I have been coping.
The discussion of what sounds good to eat, the excess of choices available to everyone but me, the appetite-inducing conversation that occurs around every meal, and the communal sharing of appetizers and tasting of each others' plates really wore down the defense mechanisms that I routinely put in place so that I am not constantly disappointed by my eating experience.
What this week made me realize is how valuable it has been to figure out my diet on my own, without the need to plan seperate or modified meals for a group of people as would be the case if I lived in a family household. I can figure out what I have an appetite for, prepare it without worries of cross-contamination, and eat it without feeling envious of what others are enjoying. Like I said to my family to try to depict how I was feeling, normally I can get excited about a simple bowl of cereal and be completely satisfied from eating it. That kind of mentality is not so easy to maintain when there's an entire table full of delicious-looking-and-smelling, untouchable food right in front of me. For better or for worse, this vacation reminded me how this part of my life continues to challenge me in new situations no matter how well I think I have been coping.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Losing It with Jillian
This is my new favorite TV show, starring the trainer Jillian Michaels from "the Biggest Loser", who spends a week at home with a family that is in dire need of losing weight. Although somewhat melodramatic (like most reality TV these days), I am willingly hooked on the cathartic breakdown of the behavioral and emotional contributions to each family's obesity, followed by the rebuilding of self-confidence and self-worth that is both the catalyst and the product of their weight loss achievements. I very much respect that the host focuses on the psychological powers at work in each member's road to their current state of unhealth, and the psychological powers that carry them through their transformation. At no point in the show are calories counted or do diet regimens take the spotlight; the mentality of restriction that begets disordered eating and feelings of failure is not promoted. Rather, Jillian instills in these people the feeling that they deserve to eat better and to feel better, that they are capable of change, and that they are going to reap the benefits of their metamorphosis with new life and new health.
I will say that I am somewhat skeptical about what happens behind the scenes: each episode culminates with Jillian returning in 6 weeks to an "unveiling" of the weightloss that the family has achieved, and in every episode I have seen so far, each member has lost 30-60 pounds...Now most of them begin at 100-200 pounds overweight, so this drastic weightloss may be appropriate. But we do not see what diet or exercise plan the families have been following in this month and a half, so I cannot know that extreme restricting of food or excessive exercise is not practiced. It is definitely possible that this kind of weightloss is not sustainable or not achievable by the viewers who are motivated by their example of quick weightloss. But again, the example is not a quick-fix method for HOW to lose the weight, it is the instillment of motivation and empowerment for positive change in life.
At the very least this is one more public venue for discussing America's obesity epidemic, alongside other big-network shows "The Biggest Loser" and "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution", as well as Michelle Obama's recent "Let's Move" campaign to reduce childhood obesity. The problem is wide-spread enough to merit such public attention, and it has only got to help the movement toward change, right?
You can watch all episodes of "Losing It" right now on Hulu.com
I will say that I am somewhat skeptical about what happens behind the scenes: each episode culminates with Jillian returning in 6 weeks to an "unveiling" of the weightloss that the family has achieved, and in every episode I have seen so far, each member has lost 30-60 pounds...Now most of them begin at 100-200 pounds overweight, so this drastic weightloss may be appropriate. But we do not see what diet or exercise plan the families have been following in this month and a half, so I cannot know that extreme restricting of food or excessive exercise is not practiced. It is definitely possible that this kind of weightloss is not sustainable or not achievable by the viewers who are motivated by their example of quick weightloss. But again, the example is not a quick-fix method for HOW to lose the weight, it is the instillment of motivation and empowerment for positive change in life.
At the very least this is one more public venue for discussing America's obesity epidemic, alongside other big-network shows "The Biggest Loser" and "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution", as well as Michelle Obama's recent "Let's Move" campaign to reduce childhood obesity. The problem is wide-spread enough to merit such public attention, and it has only got to help the movement toward change, right?
You can watch all episodes of "Losing It" right now on Hulu.com
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Gluten-Free EXPLOSION
I have had almost a month hiatus from blogging...as you know life's priorities are often numerous ;) Do not think, though, that for any of those days I was not contemplative about FOOD.
One of the more recent themes occurring is the absolute EXPLOSION of gluten-free-ness everywhere I look! Almost every chain restaurant I have dined at has handed me a gluten-free menu: P.F. Chang's (as always), Claim Jumper, BJ's, Maggiano's, and Yard House, to name a few. BJ's even goes farther than just cutting out gluten-containing ingredients, they actually are making gluten-free pizzas with a designated "gluten-free" section in their kitchen! Bisquik now has GF pancake mix, and Betty Crocker offers GF cake mixes. I even recently bought GF macaroni and cheese in the frozen section of my local GAS STATION! (granted, I do live in West LA) But clearly the market for gluten-free products is taking its place in the mainstream food economy.
What's more, behind this movement I am experiencing even MORE abundance of gluten-free foods at my specialty stores. Last week at Whole Foods I bought cinnamon buns, animal-shaped "graham" crackers, and yogurt-covered pretzels...I can hardly tell you how long it has been since I've eaten any of those things! Very exciting for me. Manufacturers are finally mastering the skill of making GF food that actually tastes good.
And clearly GF consumers' buying power is rising. After all, Celiac Disease Foundation estimates that 1 in 133 Americans have celiac disease.
Along with this GF popularity is coming the trendy belief that gluten is "hard to digest", or just downright "bad for you". I do not doubt that as consumers see more and more "gluten-free" labels on products on the shelves, they increasingly wonder if this is a new ingenious health discovery that could benefit them...the bandwagon phenomenon of advertising. I am coining it the New Low-Carb diet: media taught you in the past decade that carbs make you fat...now media is telling you that carbs make you bloated, "inflamed", and ultimately are still why you're fat!
At this point I'm not very knowledgable about the digestion of gluten in a non-celiac body, nor the validity of or research behind these claims. So I am making it my personal goal to become better educated on this issue, and of course I will in turn share it all with you :) But for now...I'm just enjoying feeling like I can eat food from anywhere other than MY kitchen!
P.S. I'm still waiting for GF goldfish crackers...hint hint
One of the more recent themes occurring is the absolute EXPLOSION of gluten-free-ness everywhere I look! Almost every chain restaurant I have dined at has handed me a gluten-free menu: P.F. Chang's (as always), Claim Jumper, BJ's, Maggiano's, and Yard House, to name a few. BJ's even goes farther than just cutting out gluten-containing ingredients, they actually are making gluten-free pizzas with a designated "gluten-free" section in their kitchen! Bisquik now has GF pancake mix, and Betty Crocker offers GF cake mixes. I even recently bought GF macaroni and cheese in the frozen section of my local GAS STATION! (granted, I do live in West LA) But clearly the market for gluten-free products is taking its place in the mainstream food economy.
What's more, behind this movement I am experiencing even MORE abundance of gluten-free foods at my specialty stores. Last week at Whole Foods I bought cinnamon buns, animal-shaped "graham" crackers, and yogurt-covered pretzels...I can hardly tell you how long it has been since I've eaten any of those things! Very exciting for me. Manufacturers are finally mastering the skill of making GF food that actually tastes good.
And clearly GF consumers' buying power is rising. After all, Celiac Disease Foundation estimates that 1 in 133 Americans have celiac disease.
Along with this GF popularity is coming the trendy belief that gluten is "hard to digest", or just downright "bad for you". I do not doubt that as consumers see more and more "gluten-free" labels on products on the shelves, they increasingly wonder if this is a new ingenious health discovery that could benefit them...the bandwagon phenomenon of advertising. I am coining it the New Low-Carb diet: media taught you in the past decade that carbs make you fat...now media is telling you that carbs make you bloated, "inflamed", and ultimately are still why you're fat!
At this point I'm not very knowledgable about the digestion of gluten in a non-celiac body, nor the validity of or research behind these claims. So I am making it my personal goal to become better educated on this issue, and of course I will in turn share it all with you :) But for now...I'm just enjoying feeling like I can eat food from anywhere other than MY kitchen!
P.S. I'm still waiting for GF goldfish crackers...hint hint
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)