Back to the neverending topic of weight loss and exercise, the NYT spotlights research that seems to come from the “well, duh” department: the secret to weight loss is to burn more calories than you consume.

The main problem today is, people have no idea what they’re consuming. As the article points out:

“The message of our work is really simple,” although not agreeable to hear, Melanson said. “It all comes down to energy balance,” or, as you might have guessed, calories in and calories out. People “are only burning 200 or 300 calories” in a typical 30-minute exercise session, Melanson points out. “You replace that with one bottle of Gatorade.”

Most people I know go through 4-5 cans of soda per day. I personally have felt a lot better, and noticed myself getting trimmer (and wanting to exercise more regularly thereby!) when I gave myself one simple rule: don’t stock soda cans in the house. I have juice, I have milk, and that’s it. Generally, after a glass of juice or milk, I don’t feel the need for more than water afterwards; if I drink soda, I find myself thinking “hey, I want another soda.”

I switched to using smaller bowls and smaller plates, and doling out smaller portions (I have “soup bowls” that are wide but shallow but have a circular imprint in the center, so I only fill the imprint and use some whole-grain bread to sop up the gravy from whatever I cooked).

This is not to say that these are easy things. Sticking your giant-sized bowls and glasses “out of the way” and replacing them is an expense, though not that expensive ($20 at Ikea replaced pretty much what I needed for daily use). Cutting how much you eat may require “feeling hungry” for a while as your body adjusts. But the research is clear; “inability to lose weight even though exercising” is much less likely to indicate that you have some hormonal/metabolic issue, and much more likely to indicate that you’re finding some hidden source of calories and not accurately measuring your caloric input or how many calories you’re burning.

Sometimes we want things from society and the law that we cannot get. For instance, you may believe that abortion is murder or that the death penalty is wrong. However, in most places (well, all places in the former and most places in the latter), you are unable to actually do anything about it. It’s a frustrating situation to be in. Most of the time when this happens, though, we view some wrongs as being more wrong than others. I’m opposed to the death penalty, for instance, but if we’re going to have a death penalty then we ought to try to make sure that (for instance) those that are executed are not tortured in the process and that innocent people are not executed.

Despite my fundamental opposition to the death penalty, I tend to get annoyed with death penalty opponents who play a sort of cat-and-mouse with partial measures. It’s one thing not to want someone to be executed in a way that is tantamount to torture. It’s another to say that method-X is torture. But to suggest that method-X is torture is primarily to suggest, in the short term, that some non-tortuous method is used. The trouble is that when you turn around and suggest that any alternative is still killing people, you’ve undermined your case against method-X. You have revealed that your opposition was to the act and not the method involved. You’ve alienated anybody who generally supports the death penalty but was concerned about method-X. If method-X is genuinely torture, you’ve possibly consigned people to death row to a more tortuous death than would otherwise possible. If method-X is not really torture, you’ve been remarkably dishonest and people (who already disagree with you in bulk) are not unlikely to notice. On the other hand, if and when method-X is replaced by method-Y, you’ve lost a good portion of your argument if your argument was never really against method-X to begin with.

This is why the whole argument about the lethal injection formula at work in our death chambers left me somewhat cold. The fact that the point was never to switch to a more humane method left me skeptical that the fomula (method-X) was really as bad as they were saying. Supporters of the death penalty didn’t even have to say a word. I could be right about that or I could be wrong about that, but that was the impression that I got.

This sort of frustration is how I always feel about nutrition-boosters. I can’t tell you how many discussions I’ve gotten into where I’ve been tut-tutted for liking some food, been told how awful it is for me in terms of fat and lack of nutrients, then listed the nutritional information off the top of my head. Yes, for foods I eat frequently, I remember these things. Turkey pepperoni, for instance, is not appreciably worse for me fat-wise or calorie-wise than sliced turkey on a sandwich. No, it’s not completely stripped of its protein (any more than a turkey sandwich). Yes, a salad would be healthier, but the most likely alternative to a turkey pepperoni snack is not a salad but is cheese. Yes, the cheese has more calcium, but it also has a lot more fat… and wasn’t that your original complaint about the turkey pepperoni?

The real problem, I have come to determine, is not so much that I am eating turkey pepperoni or inulin. It’s that I’m not eating what they eat. Now, if I’m asking for advice on how to lose weight, suggesting replacing turkey pepperoni with celery is some darn good advice. And maybe the turkey pepperoni really is bad for me in some way that I can’t measure. But it becomes rather obvious to me that they really don’t care if it is or not. It’s consumer food. Consumer food is evil.

That’s how I feel about a lot of the complaints about unhealthy beef. It’s not that I don’t think that there’s a problem with tainted beef. There is! I want it fixed! In fact, I think that I want it fixed a lot more than the people screaming most loudly about it. For them, it’s like method-X insofar as it is a tool to their ultimate goal of getting me to stop eating beef. As a beef eater, though, I have more of a stake in how healthy or unhealthy the beef I eat is.

I am reminded of this by a post by Marion Nestle, last seen accusing a 20oz Coca-cola drink of having 800 calories, who argues that irradiation isn’t a particularly good idea. Why is it not a good idea? Because killing bacteria lets the industry get away with selling beef without bacteria in it {cue nefarious music}. So she has now demonstrated that E. Coli is really secondary to the evilness of meat producers.

I’m not arguing that meat producers are benevolent entities nor am I denying that they are guilty of all manner of things including gross mistreatment of cattle. Maybe a law should be passed about that. But every other recommendation (mostly involving testing and handling of meat) I’ve read has come across as far less likely to actually reduce bacteria and more likely to make meat more expensive and the industry less profitable. And it becomes ever more apparent to me that the issue has little to do with bacteria at all and more to do with punishing thy enemy and forcing people to eat less beef.

On a relatively unrelated note, I find it fascinating how bacon became at some point the classy, hip meat. Would the above article have been written if the E. Coli had instead been found in bacon? Oh, probably. But there’d probably be fewer people solemnly nodding their head at the notion that Middle Class America Knows Not What It Consumes.

Clancy: I’m sorry that your tummy is hurting, though I am not sorry if it means that you’re going to be eating hot dogs in the future.

Trumwill: It’ll be a long time before I eat another convenience store hot dog.

Clancy: I can’t say that I have ever wanted to eat a convenience store hot dog.

Trumwill: You don’t know what you’re missing out on.

Clancy: Let’s see. In the last six hours you spent 45 minutes at a rest stop bathroom

Trumwill: Fifty-five. It was 45 from the first discharge to the last. Ten minutes waiting for the first discharge.

Clancy: Lovely… and since then, you haven’t wanted to eat anything…

Trumwill: I may never want to eat anything again. This could make for an innovative weight-loss program!

Clancy: Yeah, okay. Anyway, I’ve never cared much for hot dogs.

Trumwill: I go months without eating them. In fact, it’s probably an indication that my diet has gotten better than my stomach so thoroughly rejected that hot dog.

Clancy: That’s a bright side, I suppose. How long has it been since you had a hot dog?

Trumwill: Cooked? Months.

Clancy: Uncooked?

Trumwill: Well, I had a couple raw hot dogs when I was staying with Clint in Shaston last weekend.

Clancy: You eat uncooked hot dogs?!

Trumwill: They’re fantastic. I’m pretty sure that I am the one that got Clint into it, as well. an instant snack. and they’re pre-cooked, so you don’t have to worry about the bachteria of raw sausage.

Clancy: But how can they possibly taste good?

Trumwill: They just do. a nice, cold snack. Plus, I save carbs by not eating a bun!

Clancy: Fantastic. I just don’t like hot dogs. I prefer sausages. Cooked sausages.

Trumwill: The raw sausages aren’t nearly as good. Don’t ask me how I know that.

Clancy: I don’t even need to.

Trumwill: I’m talking about the precooked sausages. Not the really raw hot dogs. I probably shouldn’t say “raw” so much as “unheated.” actual raw sausage doesn’t taste good at all. at least, if it’s anything like raw bacon.

Clancy: You eat raw bacon?!

Trumwill: Only once. I figured if raw hot dogs were so good, raw bacon would be even better. Since I liked cooked bacon more than I like cooked sausages. I was wrong.

Clancy: Yes. Yes, you were.

Trumwill: You’ve tried it?

Clancy: Normal people don’t have to try it.

Trumwill: Yeah, but a normal person wouldn’t have discovered the glory that is uncooked hot dogs.

Clancy: Eck. I guess I like hot dogs okay if they’re grilled. But when they’re boiled, not so much.

Trumwill: I don’t like them boiled, either.

Clancy: You like them uncooked but not boiled?

Trumwill: I like them in the following order: uncooked, grilled, microwaved, then boiled.

Clancy: Microwave tastes different?

Trumwill: Not really. They’re mostly like boiled. The thing is, though, that the skin cracks. It creates a crevace that you can stick american cheese into. Kinda like those cheesedogs – which are really good uncooked, by the way – except cheesier.

Clancy: Throw in Easy Cheese and I think you’ve just about hit all of the low points of the american Diet.

Trumwill: Easy Cheese. Hmmm….

I’m not quite the cook that my wife is, but one thing I do like to make is Breakfast Burritos. In an effort not to gain (more) weight while unemployed, I’ve reduced the portion size to what I affectionately call my TTBB (Teeny Tiny Breakfast Burrito). I decided this evening to compare the health content of my product with that of the McDonald’s Sausage Burrito which seems to be about the same size.

TTBB Ingredients:
1 High-fiber burrito
1 slice reduced fat cheddar cheese
2/3-3/4 helping of Lite Spam
2 “Large” eggs

You can imagine my shock when I calculated up the calories and fat grams and discovered that my TTBB’s are worse than McDonald’s. Holy cow, I wondered, if I’m using lower-badstuffs and higher-goodstuffs ingredients and I am worse than McDonald’s, what in the world are they using?! Where do they get their low-calorie, low-fat sausage and eggs?! Do they have some sort of Superfarm? They should totally advertise that!

So I guess I come out ahead.

Charles Homans think that ketchup packets are the worst idea ever:

I think that’s wrong. Very wrong. They’re not even the worst condiment packet ever!

Ever since my decision to make common cause with our president by putting mustard on my burger, I have been fumbling ridiculously over mustard packets. Mustard gets everywhere except on my bun. Unlike mayo and ketchup, mustard doesn’t come off the fingers with a lick. It’s like toothpaste on shirts. It has staying power until you break out the soap.

That aside, the mustard experiment has gone over well. Not only does it replace mayo, but combine it with some Sriracha or Tabasco sauce and it overwhelms any cheese you might put on it and you can replace that, too.

There was a flap a couple weeks back when Barack Obama ordered dijon mustard at a historic burger joint in Virginia. This was considered indicative of Obama’s elitism because he can’t eat ketchup on his burger like reg’lar folks. “What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup, but Dijon mustard?” Laura Ingraham asks. The answer, David Frum unearths, are those effete coastal elites in Texas. Actually, the Texans prefer regular mustard, but no ketchup.

So how ridiculous is it that these right-wing blowhards are trying to mock Obama for liking Dijon mustard? Republicans have indeed made an art out of criticizing the culinary choice of Democratic politicians. Remember John Kerry’s infamous preference for swiss cheese on his Philly Cheesesteak instead of Cheez Whiz. Yet as much as we might want to chalk this up to the intellectual bankrupcy of conservatism, does anyone doubt for a moment that certain corners on the left would take swipes at a Republican candidate with a soft spot for Spam or, for that matter, Cheez Whiz? In fact, in a post ridiculing Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and others, Jason Linkins goes out of his way to denigrate people that eat ketchup:

What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup? Uhm, how about a FULL GROWN ONE? Ketchup, and it’s cousin “catsup,” doesn’t come near my food, because I am no longer a small child.

Ahhh, so ludicrous as it is to ridicule a mustard-eater as an elitist, calling ketchup lovers immature is just calling a spade a spade, I guess.

One funny aspect in all this is that in Obama’s second book, a guy named Aaron reminds us that his preference for Dijon mustard makes an appearance in his second book:

He was at a restaurant with his campaign consultant who had been coaching him on how to behave in rural Illinois. He asked the waitress for Dijon mustard, and the consultant waved him off: “He doesn’t want Dijon.” The consultant then shook at him a bottle of French’s already on the table. “Here’s some mustard right here.”

The moral of the story was that the waitress, an actual Real American, was puzzled by the consultant’s Old Politics assumptions, not Obama’s mustard preference. The suggestion, seemingly, was that our nation is not as sharply divided over mustard as pundits would have you believe, and as a result it is possible to solve real problems. Story on p 49.

Everyone’s mileage on this varies. I come from a pretty red part of the country but it wouldn’t occur to me to mock someone for wanting Dijon mustard on a burger. Maybe it’s cause I was raised all wealthy and stuff. Nor would it occur to me to denigrate someone that likes ketchup (or, for that matter, Swiss cheese or Cheez Whiz).

For my part, I am not a big fan of ketchup. Whatever appreciation for it I once had I lost when I had a roommate (a Republican… ooooooh) that put gobs of the stuff on everything. It made me so sick of the smell I avoid it whenever I can. In Deseret they have this stuff called Fry Sauce that is a mixture of ketchup and mayo that tastes pretty good. And I’ll put ketchup on black-eyed peas because God intended ketchup to go there. But that’s about the extent of it. I eat Dijon mustard on Subway sandwiches, but that’s about it. I used to eat regular mustard on burgers, but I didn’t like the way it mixed with the cheese and so I stopped. Now I put mayo or salad dressing, if anything. In solidarity with our president, though, as well as a desire to consume less fatty mayo, I will start putting mustard on my burger. I may even go all coastal and go with Dijon.

In case you were wondering, this stuff is downright frightening in person.

As in to say: the grease literally drips right off it in front of you, and the smell is nauseating.

I read here and there that one of the dangers of drinks with sugar is that they give you calories without actually filling you up. So they’re as empty as empty calories can be. I don’t doubt that much. Refined sugar and corn syrup and all that are definitely among the worst ways to spend one’s calories.

The claim, though, isn’t that they consume too many calories for too little in return. It’s that they do not satisfy hunger at all. That doesn’t seem to be true in my experience.

Whenever I’ve given up soft drinks in the past, one thing that I’ve noticed is that there is usually an uptick in my hunger. I don’t mean substituting sugar for sugar. That would make sense. Stop drinking coke, want candy bar. But stop drinking cokes, want any food you can get your hands on? I thought that maybe it had something to do with oral activity (the weight gain that often comes after quitting smoking gets attributed to that), but the hunger seems to come more from the stomach rather than the mouth. I do know the difference. Then I thought maybe it was psychosomatic, and maybe that’s part of it, but it’s usually something I notice in retrospect. I notice that I’ve been hungry for the last few days… then I look back and notice the soft drinks. False attribution, maybe. I also thought that it might be that I substitute soft drinks for diet soft drinks which contain antacids with can make you feel more hungry. Maybe that’s the case, though I’ve never noticed any difference based on whether or not I’m replacing the soft drinks with diet soft drinks or otherwise.

Then there was today. Today at around 6:30 or so I started getting hungry. I had half a Subway sandwich in the fridge, but I didn’t want to spoil my planned dinner for the night. So I decided to go to the vending machine and get a bit of beef jerky to tide me over. Except inexplicably there was a line at the vending machine six people long. So, realizing that I hadn’t consumed my daily quota of soft drinks for the day, I decided to go ahead and get a Mountain Dew and come back to the vending machine later.

Except that later I wasn’t hungry. Two hours later, I’m still not. This is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened to me. That I’ve been hungry, drank a coke, and then not been hungry anymore. That’s never happened with Diet Coke, and I didn’t drink the Mountain Dew with the expectation that it would fill me up, so it not really easy to chalk it up to my imagination.

So faced with the alleged fact that cokes do not satisfy hunger in any way, shape, or form… and faced with the alleged fact that Mountain Dew does seem to quench my hunger… I have no choice but to conclude that Mountain Dew has protein.

If you don’t have any plans for dinner, consider eating at Subway tonight. There’s apparently a movement on to get as many people as possible to eat at Subway today in an effort to save the NBC show Chuck, which just keeps getting better and better. So if you like the show or are amenable to eating there for those of us that do, I recomment it.

I meant to say something earlier. I heard about this last week. I decided that I haven’t eaten at Subway in forever and it sounded good. One of the main reasons I haven’t eaten at Subway recently is that it’s rarely convenient to. The one that exists on my drive home from work often doesn’t have any parking available.

So wouldn’t you know it, since deciding that I was going to eat at Subway today, I have had one opportunity after another to eat there thrown at me. Every chore I went on over the weekend, there’s been one right there. And the one on my drive home actually had parking available when I stopped at a nearby gas station. But each time I had to forego so that I would be sure to eat there today.

Makes me wonder if Subway isn’t losing money on the deal.

Update: I decided to get two subs. Considering that my current eating habits only allow me to eat 6″ at a time, I know what I’m going to be eating for the next couple of days. That, combined with the left-overs from the Mexican restaurant we ate on Sunday night, will prevent me from eating much in the way of ravioli and Spam for a while.

I love the cafeteria at work. It’s not only convenient, but the food is good and not too terrible for me while saving me from much greater sins elsewhere. They also have a nice variety of foods and weekly specials, so I end up eating more different meals than I otherwise would. Well, “different” usually within the context of a bun or tortilla (or occasionally a crust).

The biggest complaint I have is that they put certain foods where they don’t belong. Case and point they put green peas in rice. I don’t like rice much to begin with, but I hate green peas. There is no vegetable I hate more. There aren’t many ingredients where I practically refuse to eat anything with it in there, but green peas are right there with raisins.

You can imagine my surprise when I got a beef taco a few weeks back only to discover these little green bulbs inside of it. Having already ordered it and seeing that there weren’t many, I closed my eyes and ate the thing. I picked out the ones that were convenient, but I know one or two got through. Lesson learned. The next several times I got some other meat only to see that they didn’t put the green peas in there anywhere.

Then one day I get a burrito and I know that they’re going to put rice in there. I tell the woman to put only a little bit of rice. I do that with burritos anyway, but it was particularly important this time around. If there were only a couple I could pick them out. So I breathed a sigh of relief. Little did I see that this time they had put the green peas in the darn chicken this time.

I don’t get it. If a burrito factory offered to put beans inside their burritos, I doubt one in ten customers would ask for it. Why in the world defile glorious meat with such ugly nutrition? I understand the need for filler, but green peas are not uncontroversial. Not only would few ask for it, but I suspect a larger number would specifically want its exclusion. When I get something meaty and some potatoes were thrown in the hash, I do get the vague sensation that there are potatoes where meat ought to be and that sucks. Sort of like how they fill up your cup with glass cause that’s cheaper with cola. But it’s nothing to get excited about. Yeah, a little less meat and a little more potato, but I know few people that would actively object.

Green peas? Different story. I’m sure there are people out there that are excited about them, but there are also a lot of people that hate them. Including my wife, who is much more a veggie person than I am. I dislike carrots a good deal, too, but I understand that fewer people have the distaste for them that I do. I accept that I am alone or near alone or aligned with people of the caliber that make me wish I was alone on a lot of foods.

But green peas ain’t one of them.