Balance of Food

Using the Winter Olympics to inspire you to eat better

The Olympics are perhaps the best example of exercise on display. Hundreds of people from around the world in tremendous shape (well, maybe not the curling team) on display in our homes, most of which is in HD.

But the Winter Olympics, because they happen in the winter, doesn't inspire you to go out right away and do what they do on television. And watching sports on television can lead to increased eating.

When you combine the two, you get strong competitors for the olympics — the couch potato olympics.

So keep in mind that while you don't have international judges scoring you on how you eat and exercise during the Olympics, you still want to perform well, maybe even at olympian status.

The temptations flow in the lighter features as well. since the Olympics are in Canada, the spotlight has been on Canadian culture. For anyone who saw the segment on "Today" on poutine, and the multiple variations on poutine, resisting the Quebec treat would have been difficult.

Poutine, for those who don't know, is French fries covered in cheese curds and then smothered in brown gravy.

While you may try the Canadian dish at some point — to feel like you are in the Olympic spirit, just balance it out with some exercise. It could be jumping up and down when your country does well. Or taking time in the early part of the curling match to walk around the block, knowing you won't be missing much. You could DVR the NBC highlights and fast forward to the parts you want, leaving you time to move around more. If you sit for 4 hours straight watching highlights, you probably aren't moving around too much.

And if you do decide to visit Vancouver as a result of watching the Olympics, you will find a city where people move around in all types of ways, from great bicycle lanes to rollerblading to kayaking to swimming to hiking to skiing to snowboarding. Plus Stanley Park is an amazing place to walk around or spend the day hiking.

Capturing the Olympic spirit is wonderful, but don't forget the spirit to not slip up. The judges are waiting...

Balance of Oprah?

Leave it to Jon Stewart to show us contrast in extremes:

February 4

"Today is an emergency wakeup call for all of us. Diabetes is a ticking time bomb, it's a silent killer."

February 22

"This is a feat that's never been done before. Our set today is made out of 100% pure Godiva chocolate."

The same person said both statements. Who?

Oprah Winfrey.

Just 18 days apart, but amusingly in the wrong order, Winfrey noted the dangers of increased diabetes levels, and then celebrated a set made entirely of chocolate.

Oprah has been known for her yo-yo dieting, so maybe she is showing off her extremes, patterning herself with what women out there are dealing with.

But if you take it on the surface of the argument, it's pretty funny.

You can do chocolate and still eat better. But the darker the chocolate, the easier it is. And again, it's all about finding a balance.

Both sides have to deal with 'fat element' in airline seat battle

Those who are fat, larger than they want to be, say that fat is the last group you can still discriminate against and get away with it.

People may have little to say on major political issues of the day, but everyone seemed to have an opinion of the Kevin Smith-Southwest Airlines battle over fitting into a seat.

Kevin Smith did something very smart that has drawn little attention. The saga was presented as Smith getting removed from a flight on Southwest Airlines for being "too fat."

But Smith had purchased two seats on a later flight, and if he had been in that flight, there would be no story.

Kevin Smith was smart because he knew that in order to have a discussion out in the open, there had to be a controversy. Smith triggered the event to draw attention to this policy.

This is an emotional topic: some weighed in (pun intended) saying the airline did the right thing, and others said the policy was discriminatory especially since Smith was apparently able to put down the armrests (the mitigating factor in establishing size).

When you are trying to lose weight, when you've lost 15-20 pounds and complete strangers roll their eyes when you say that because, well, there is still a long way to go, having to deal with public reactions can be tough and demoralizing.

Even if you have discovered a better way to go in terms of eating better, you can't snap your fingers and become un-fat. And you won't get the benefit of the doubt, as you say you are eating better, since the stereotype is that people try, fail, and try again, only to fail again.

If you took you a long time to gain the weight, it will likely take you longer to lose the weight. And you still have to travel in the meantime.

Keeping from being discouraged can be almost as crucial as eating better or cutting down on portion sizes. Airline seats are in vogue, but buses, trains, and other public transportation sources can be difficult. Nobody wants to sit down next to you because you exceed the room in your seat. And those standing might resent you for taking up too much space.

This past fall, I took a tour of Fenway Park in Boston, my first trip ever to Major League Baseball's oldest park. Fenway Park opened in 1912. And you can tell by sitting in the seats in the lower grandstand that people were thinner in 1912 than they are 98 years later.

And airline seats were suited for the era of "Mad Men" rather than the time of "Men of a Certain Age."

But people are getting larger, especially in gaining the weight in the spots (stomach, hips, love handles) likely to affect others trying to sit right by them.

Whether you are in the "don't block my seat" camp or the "leave them alone" faction, we need to agree that changing food policies and exercise traditions are the best ways to reduce the number of fat people and literally the fat they have.

The seats aren't getting any smaller, so the people have to adjust.

And the adjustment needs to work both ways. We don't have to love the idea of sitting next to fat people, but we do need to try and accept that they are people.

Those who are thinner who don't accept fat people want those who are fat to try harder; those who are fat just want to be accepted. If you are large, understand people's reluctance to sit next to you, and make things more comfortable for them. And if you are fortunate not to be large, smile at a fat person to make them feel comfortable.

It can be fun to get emotional over the issues of girth, but being logical helps all of us to come to a better understanding, an understanding from all sides.

The obesity epidemic has a lot of layers, and will take a lot of time and work to make things better. A sprinkle of understanding is a well-timed ingredient.

Roger Ebert shows us that we should appreciate the art of eating

Do you know what your last meal was? Likely, you can. Roger Ebert can't.

Ebert lives in a world few of us can imagine: not eating. We find this out in Chris Jones' look at Ebert in Esquire magazine.

Roger Ebert can’t remember the last thing he ate. He can't remember the last thing he drank, either, or the last thing he said. Of course, those things existed; those lasts happened. They just didn't happen with enough warning for him to have bothered committing them to memory — it wasn't as though he sat down, knowingly, to his last supper or last cup of coffee or to whisper a last word into Chaz's ear. The doctors told him they were going to give him back his ability to eat, drink, and talk. But the doctors were wrong, weren't they? On some morning or afternoon or evening, sometime in 2006, Ebert took his last bite and sip, and he spoke his last word.

Ebert's lasts almost certainly took place in a hospital. That much he can guess. His last food was probably nothing special, except that it was: hot soup in a brown plastic bowl; maybe some oatmeal; perhaps a saltine or some canned peaches. His last drink? Water, most likely, but maybe juice, again slurped out of plastic with the tinfoil lid peeled back.

We worry so much about what we eat, how we eat, and how much we eat. But in the obsessions over food — good and bad, sometimes it's nice to appreciate that we can eat. And maybe we can reflect that sometimes, food is just about energy to keep us going on a daily basis.

As Michelle Obama fights childhood obesity, the fight is tougher than it looks

_{Though Eric Cartman is a fictional character, his background and attitude are more typical of the issues behind the true battle to reduce childhood obesity.}

A mother gets word from her doctor that her child is not at the ideal weight based on the child's BMI, or body mass index.

From that, we have a push from First Lady Michelle Obama to fight back against childhood obesity.

Attacking childhood obesity is the kind of topic that I wrote about for my previous day job on what the Obamas should do if they reach the White House. On that level, I am thrilled beyond belief that Michelle Obama is taking on that topic.

I do wish, though, that the reasoning had anything to do with the over-rated, non-scientific BMI. The extensiveness of the BMI is your height and your weight, about as much science involved as the classic 5 feet for every 100 pounds and 5 pounds for every inch scale used on women.

However, doctors and insurance companies use BMI to hide behind to justify treating people for weight control. Using BMI as a guide isn't a bad idea, but using this index as conclusive medical evidence leaves much to be desired.

And when the adjustments were made on what numbers constituted what categories (overweight vs. obese), overnight, a number of people with OK BMIs became "overweight" and overweight people magically became "obese" without touching a calorie.

In other words, who gets to decide if you are overweight or obese based on the BMI.

I could cite a number of professional athletes whose BMI scales would read overweight when they are in better shape than most of us. Their insurance policies aren't likely to be canceled or downgraded due to a bad BMI result, but regular people do suffer that danger.

Using the BMI scale on children, especially a 9-year-old girl, seems unusually cruel. The word "diet" is a fearful one, especially when children can grow at any point.

Our children are suffering from the obesity epidemic. And there has to be a way to determine what obese really means, and have it be a mark where there is credible evidence.

The actress who starred in "Precious" would qualify as part of the childhood obesity problem. But a chubby 9-year-old girl might be on the borderline, and is only a small part of a much bigger issue.

Eric Cartman, a fictional character on "South Park," explains that he isn't fat, he's "big-boned." There is a rationalization that already exists among children and adults who don't see themselves as the problem. If you were to look at Malia or Sasha, you wouldn't think either of them was the problem.

Michelle Obama took the advice of the doctor based on her children's BMI and made small adjustments in their diet and lifestyle. She didn't put her children on calorie restrictions or made them run on a kiddie treadmill. She made some practical, smart choices to tweak her children's growth rates.

On that level, Michelle Obama can do a lot of good for those who fall on that borderline. Sometimes the best reaction on parents' part is not to overreact.

But Michelle Obama's work on behalf of childhood obesity will take her to levels she won't know first-hand. There is a growing cycle of obesity in some families, where a major cause can be seen as close as seeing the parents in action.

Though Cartman is a fictional character, the creators show why he is fat. Eric is raised by a single mother who indulges him rather than standing up to him. She treats him more like a friend than a son.

Then in real life, we have children who are clearly obese whose parents also suffer from obesity. Though clearly not all obese children have parents who suffer from this. The factors are too numerous to list here.

In an ideal situation, children would learn how to eat better and spread the word to their parents, family, friends, and those in the community. But we do have to realize that in a number of homes, children are at the mercy of those in charge of them who don't always know or care how best to raise children to eat healthier and exercise more.

A bit of chubbiness that can easily be outgrown isn't what is troubling this country. Significantly obese children have a lot to overcome: a 1 in 3 chance of getting Type 2 diabetes to those born in 2000 and beyond; a screwed-up government food policy; school lunches that are still horribly unhealthy; porous marketing regulations toward children; cutbacks in recess; organized sports for children that limit, not increase, exercise; a flood of deceptive products such as juice cocktails and foods smothered in high-fructose corn syrup dominating grocery store shelves; and a video game mentality that rewards children that it's better to shoot bad guys while eating on the couch rather than chasing each other in the quest to "kick the can."

If these kids don't learn soon, "kick the can" might turn into "kick the bucket."

Mrs. Obama, I wish you great success in your venture to reduce childhood obesity. We are absolutely rooting for you to do well. But like your husband, you have inherited a lot of problems that are deeply ingrained in our society. Good luck.

Gaining food management when losing a job

Circumstances — notably financial — can change how we perceive food. Have a nice job, and a $25 steak doesn't seem so bad. Sans job, that $25 steak sounds daunting.

But when you lose your job or take a pay cut or become underemployed, you can still eat well and not have to make significant financial sacrifices.

The most obvious place to cut is eating out. And when you struggle just after losing a job, you might not want to go out. But whether you are networking or out there otherwise, rely on snacks that you bring along. A small baggie of cereal or granola can fill up hunger without a huge cost.

-- You can downshift in certain food categories: hamburger, not steak. Find store brands instead of major brand names.
-- Eat more fruits and vegetables. Rely on eggs, beans, lentils. Cook stews.
-- Consume cereals and real oatmeal. There are foods that can fill you up without being too expensive.
-- Drink more water. After all, based on cost, water has it all.
-- Cook more for yourself. You might just be surprised what you come up with for dinner when you actually have time, ingredients, and patience.
-- Buy less food more often. Food will be fresher, and you will be less likely to waste it. Those extra trips to the store can result in more exercise.
-- Offer to cook for a fellow unemployed person. Have them cook for you, so it feels like eating out without the cost.

At the same time, indulge yourself a little bit. For example, in my recent venture into being vastly unemployed, I went to a place that charges reduced prices for lunch for the same food. Got a deal, and a treat. Maybe you would treat yourself to good chocolate. Losing your job is stressful.

Once you have made these moves, consider one more move. Eat less. Oh, and exercise more. But specifically, eat less.

When we are working, we eat more due to stress or expended energy. If you aren't using as much energy, consider consuming less food.

I am following most of these recommendations. I may have been eating out a little too much lately. The initial stress did produce a not-so-great scenario, but for the most part, I have done well, especially under the circumstances.

Once you get over the initial stress, you can find that adjusting your diet while being unemployed can actually have a positive impact on your well being and health. Have fun with the food part because being unemployed isn't all that much fun.

No soft drink tax, for now

Those hoping for a tax on soft drinks to help pay for health care reform are going to have to put that on hold. The powers that be put a stop to that effort.

While it seems like a good idea, and we could use income sources to pay for health care reform, taxes at that level aren't always the best idea, and can hurt low-income consumers.

At the same time, if the government money going toward large corn companies went to fixing health care, the cost of soft drinks with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) would rise, which would encourage less consumption of HFCS and/or reduced consumption of soft drinks in general. And low-income consumers wouldn't have to pay the lion's share of the impact.

Food, Inc. nominated for Oscar for Best Documentary Feature

Food, Inc. was good enough to get a nomination for Best Documentary Feature at this year's Academy Awards. Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein are listed as producers of the film.

The movie was stirring, even for those of us who knew a lot of the issues involved. Combining expert interviews with Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, there were individual stories from all different parts of the food spectrum.

The chicken farmers who agreed to go on camera. The Hispanic family debating about the cost and convenience of food. The farmer in Virginia trying a better way.

Besides rooting for the film to win an Oscar for the sake of the award, there is the potential speech, allowing the word of finding a better food supply to reach a massive worldwide audience.

To refresh your memory of the film, here is my review from last summer.

The other documentaries nominated for an Oscar are Burma VJ, The Cove, The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, and Which Way Home.

The Oscars air Sunday, March 7 at 8 pm Eastern on ABC.

Food apps a new tool to solve an old problem

Food apps (applications) are a hot phenomenon in maintaining the balance. But are food apps something truly unique or just a modern technological variation on keeping a food journal?

People are using food apps to keep better track of what they put into their mouths.

For example, the Restaurant Nutrition app allows you to access nutritional information from a series of chain restaurants from fast food to casual dining. There are calories counter apps to keep track of the input.

The drawback is obvious; sounds great if you are eating at a chain, but maybe you shouldn't spend that much time at one to justify the purchase.

You could use it as a guesstimate; a serving of French fries might not vary that much from restaurant to restaurant.

This Web site compares two foods and gives basic nutritional information, such as calories, carbohydrates, fat, and protein.

The better question is how people use the technology, and is it enough to make a difference in consumption habits. If you are debating about whether food apps are right for you, here is what you should consider:

Food apps allow you to know what you can have, and have more confidence to adjust accordingly. The food apps are also good for the math-challenged, since it likely can do the math better than you.

And keeping things electronically can be more useful than carrying around a journal.

But with food apps, you have to slow down and input numbers. Could be socially awkward to be glued to your smart phone. And unless you are eating the exact food, you have a guess.

If you desperately need to keep track, food apps can be seen as having a journal without worrying about finding a pen, and be less conspicuous as well.

You could rely on it too much and feel you have to eat at those places instead of mom/pop places, where the food is less processed and likely healthier for you.

Food apps can be relied upon too much, as a psychological crutch. What if your service is bad just as you are about to order?

If you use food apps already, you likely fall into categories where some information is better than none, and a ballpark figure helps you get some idea in your brain where you are. And if you think food apps make a positive difference, then they likely work for you.

Having an overall sense can do wonders. Knowing mustard is healthier than ketchup in the world of condiments is better than any food app.

If you know the order of winning hands in a poker game or know the order of the planets, you can memorize which condiments are healthier for you than others. You don't even need a smart phone to figure that out.