Seeing God & Satan in Nutritional Labels

MURIKA.

Democracy only works if the populace is informed, educated and empowered. The less popular and/or less ethical seek to misinform (Fox News), devalue education (the dismissal of the "educated liberal elite" and the triumph of "belief" over science) and depower (so-called "voter protection" laws that push minorities, elderly, students and the poor off the voter rolls) so they can achieve power, despite the protection of democracy from tyranny.

Get out and vote. Unless your drivers license is expired, then F@CK YOU.

To paraphrase those of faith, the greatest trick the Devil ever performed is convincing us he doesn't exist. Eating is political, and anyone who says otherwise is performing a trick. Your purchasing power at the grocery store is your vote. But how can you vote for what is best for you if you are not educated on what that is?  God knows "home economics" being taught in schools has been relegated to the dustbin of history.  Home-Ec was a catch-all place to teach cooking & nutrition, personal finance and basic good citizenship beyond "RA RA MURIKA!" McDonalds and the like has always insisted their essentially terrible products are part of a "well balanced diet",  but how do we balance? Our educational system has abandoned that responsibility. Your on your own, as the truth isn't profitable for corporations.

Old school school.

Well, not completely on your own. You gotta read the labels. And I do read the labels. And it's annoying as hell when you pick up a small bag of chips, read that it's 100 calories per serving, think, "Oh, that's cool" then find out the bag is four servings. It's a good thing our left-of-Republican-crazy-pants executive branch of government has spurred the Food & Drug Administration to recently announced a redesign of the labels to account for exactly this kind of trickery.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is hoping that its newly proposed updates to the Nutrition Facts Label for packaged foods and beverages will enable Americans to make more informed dietary choices in their daily routines.
Based on current scientific information as well as changes in the way Americans typically eat and drink, the FDA is recommending that the label should emphasize total calories, added sugars and such nutrients as potassium and Vitamin D.
The agency also believes that serving-size requirements for foods and beverages need to be revamped to align better with current consumption trends.
First Lady and nutrition advocate Michelle Obama voiced support for the proposed changes, saying, "You as a parent and a consumer should be able to walk into your local grocery store, pick up an item off the shelf, and be able to tell whether it's good for your family. So this is a big deal..."

I like that "calories from fat" are going away -- a remnant of the go-go Susan Powter 90s.  The two big stars are that portion size will now reflect reality rather than wishful thinking (a packet of M&Ms bought for $1 is usually not two servings) and 1950s scale (a burger today is typically 12oz of meat versus the 50's 4oz that still define a burger serving today.)

Why? Follow the politics....which follows the money.....

The real big star is breaking out sugars into an "Added Sugars" subcategory. It is in this little line where an educated consumer can ask, "Is this real food, or junk?" and this line will pretty much unequivocally answer it. Beware any politician, special interest group or pundit who thinks this line should go away -- they are part of the unpopular group in a democracy who want to misinform you, keep you uneducated, and take away your empowerment for the benefit of the industries that profit from selling that which hurts us.

The problems are clear, but grouping these industries gives us a better way to look at the struggle of consumers, of ordinary people, to regain the upper hand. The issues of auto and gun safety, of drug, alcohol and tobacco addiction, and of hyperconsumption of unhealthy food are not as distinct as we’ve long believed; really, they’re quite similar. For example, the argument for protecting people against marketers of junk food relies in part on the fact that antismoking regulations and seatbelt laws were initially attacked as robbing us of choice; now we know they’re lifesavers.
Redefining the argument may help us find strategies that can actually bring about change. The turning point in the tobacco wars was when the question changed from the industry’s — “Do people have the right to smoke?” — to that of public health: “Do people have the right to breathe clean air?” Note that both questions are legitimate, but if you address the first (to which the answer is of course “yes”) without asking the second (to which the answer is of course also “yes”) you miss an opportunity to convert the answer from one that leads to greater industry profits to one that has literally cut smoking rates in half.

Not to be shrill (but for the sake of the point, I'm goin' there), but this really is a battle between good and evil, between God & the Devil, between the populace of a democracy and corporate power which seeks to profit from them at any cost. If you still don't think eating is political, then Satan (or, in their human form, lobbyists for the Food-Industrial Complex) has won.

-----

WEEKLY AVERAGE: 2,804

High caloric intake, but also a relative uptick in bike riding. Last weekend was a total 160 miles, and the aftershocks were felt in my increased hunger the first half of the week. The last two days of the week also got 50 miles shoved in there, with another uptick in eating. Feel good, clothing still feels lose, though I suspect my thighs might be getting a little bigger...

-----

MONDAY COUNT: 2710 cal

SLEPT: 8:30pm - 4am, 7.5 hrs
Felt tired at work, due to 160 miles of cumulative riding over the weekend, but the nap room at work was totally jammed up (1st world problems!) so I somehow muddled through, poor me. The new microwave dinner to get me through this time of no gas oven was good but unsatisfying (they need to include injira with their meals!) and ended up loosening up on the stick at the end of the day while enjoying snuggling with my kids on the couch. Funny how gorging used to help when I felt sad and denied, slightly desperate, and tuned out, now it helps me when….I got hunger issues! And the reasons for those hunger issues make me very, very happy.

AM SNACK: 4:15am, iced green tea, 0 cal

BREAKFAST: 7am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 10:30am, steel cut oatmeal, 400 cal

LUNCH: 1pm, falafel, chicken mushroom soup, health salad, pickles, 530cal

PM SNACK: 3 pm, momma salad, cheezits, 310 cal

PM SNACK: 4:15pm, poppa salad with bottled Italian Lite dressing, 110 cal

DINNER: 6:45pm, Ethiopian chicken stew and lentils, 500 cal

EVENING GORGE: 7:15pm, almond butter & chocolate syrup, 2 kind bars, small portion of cheetos, small portion of corn chips, +/- 800 cal

-----

TUESDAY COUNT: 2940
SLEPT: 8:30pm-5am, 8.5 hr
Again, fell down on the budget due to....hunger, I think it was straight-up hunger, not emotional distress or numbness or need for distraction. Still, I should be measuring it and maybe not hitting the only damn source of sugar in the house, he he.

AM SNACK: 4:15am, iced green tea, 0 cal

BREAKFAST: 7:15am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 10:15am, Fage whole yogurt with honey, vanilla and almonds, 285 cal

LUNCH: 1pm, chicken meatballs, steamed string beans, Mushroom masala ,pickles, 620 cal

PM SNACK: 4 pm, momma salad, with seaweed sheets , 150 cal

PM SNACK: 4:30pm, poppa salad with bottled Italian Lite dressing, 110 cal

DINNER: 6:30pm,vegetable, shrimp and jerk chicken patties from Jamaican spot (1080)

EVENING GORGE: 7pm, peanut buter & chocolate syrup, +/- 500 cal

-----

WEDNESDAY COUNT: 2140

SLEPT: 8:30-4:30, 8 hrs
Sauteed some frozen mixed mushrooms to add to lunch, with a little sriracha, worsterchire and soy, not bad - maybe a small addition to the arsenal stemming from the gas deprivation.

AM SNACK: 4:45am, iced green tea, 0 cal

BREAKFAST: 7am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 10:15am, steel cut oatmeal, 375 cal

LUNCH: 1pm, chicken sausage, sofrito black beans, mushrooms, pickles, 680 cal

PM SNACK: 3:30 pm, momma salad, spicy crackers from Grazebox, 220 cal

PM SNACK: 4:45pm, poppa salad with bottled Italian Lite dressing, 110 cal

PM SNACK: 5:30pm, cashews, 160

DINNER: 7:45pm, Subway 6" veggie burger sub, diet coke, 435

-----

BIKE CREDIT: 620
THURSDAY COUNT: 3530

SLEPT: 9:30pm-1am, 1:30-2:30pm nap, 4.5 hr
Between stress and exhaustion, hit the food a bit hard in front of the TV in the evening. Not my finest hour, but grateful this doesn't happen on a regular basis anymore.

AM SNACK: 1:30am,  iced green tea, 0 cal

BIKE SNACK: 2:45am, granola bar, 100mg caffeine, 425 cal

BREAKFAST: 6:30am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 9:30am, Fage whole yogurt with honey, vanilla and almonds, 285 cal

LUNCH: 12:45pm, vegetarian meat balls, mushroom masala, string beans, pickles, 660 cal
TVP-based protein balls, haven't eaten a similar product in years, not bad. Got a fancy expensive mushroom-flavored brand, another score for opening up the routine, since sauteed chicken breast has been put on hold.

PM SNACK: 3 pm, momma salad, tomato crackers from Grazebox, 220 cal

PM SNACK: 4pm, kind bar, 200 cal

PM SNACK: 5:30pm, cashews, 160

DINNER: 6pm, slice of Costco pizza, 700 cal

EVENING SNACK: 8pm, cheetos, 300 cal

EVENING GORGE: 8:30pm, digestive cookies, 1,040 cal

-----

BIKE CREDIT: 500 cal
FRIDAY COUNT: 2700

SLEPT: 9:30-6am, 8.5 hrs
Tried to wake at 4am to lift weights, but just too tired to think straight and went back to bed. Will fit in a lift over the weekend. Fit in a good 20 mile ride after work, after a last minute plan-cancellation.

AM SNACK: 6:15am, iced green tea, 0 cal

BREAKFAST: 7am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 9am, fruit smoothie, 400 cal

NOON SNACK: 12 pm, momma salad, crackers and mango chutney from graze box, 180 cal

LUNCH: 1:30pm, almond butter & grape jelly on whole wheat, health salad, pickles, 610 cal

PM SNACK: 3:15pm, donut, +/- 300 cal

PM SNACK: 4pm, frosted corn flakes, +/- 150 cal

BIKE SNACK: 6:30pm, homemade granola bar, +/- 300 cal

DINNER: 8:15pm, shrimp pad thai, thai salad, fried tofu, +/- 900 cal

EVENING SNACK: 9pm, 2 chewy industrial chocolate chip granola bars, 200 cal

Government needs a nutrition per calorie measure

Back in the '50s, when the government was cheesy.

The new federal nutrition requirements for school meals are continuing to cause ripples in New York City. A few weeks ago bureaucrats tried to put the kibosh on a program that had professional chefs prepare from-scratch foods on-site in individual schools rather than truck in pre-packaged, pre-cooked, pre-blanded food units from a central commissary. It was only last week when the city boasted that its school lunches were actually under the nation's minimum calorie-requirements:

(In) the case of the 860,000 school lunches served daily, (the Bloomberg administration) ignored a set of United States Department of Agriculture requirements written in 1994, without seeking permission. City health and education officials said their aim was not to lower calories, but rather to increase the nutritional value of the foods reaching students’ mouths.  

The city officials said new federal guidelines, which take effect this school year, proved they were right all along. The new rules reduce the minimum calorie counts by more than 200 calories in some grades and, for the first time, set calorie maximums as well. But the officials acknowledged that for older students, the new rules still demand more calories on the lunch tray than the city’s schools have been providing.

Bloomberg has overseen a few measures aimed at child obesity by adjusting policy in the schools. One example is a revision in how breakfast is served. For years breakfast was made available right in students' classrooms. But administrators and health officials suggested that the presence of food was an invitation for kids to overeat--hungry or not. Now breakfast is only served in the school cafeteria before the morning classes begin, not during them.

School breakfast in Texas.

Of course it can be argued that the city is more concerned with the fat kids than those without enough to eat but I don't buy it. School breakfast is still available to those who are hungry, just as unlimited amounts of sugared beverages will be available to the public once a 16oz cup restriction is put into place -- the policies just require more mindfulness.

Last year, the city said that the number of obese students, in kindergarten through eighth grade, had dropped 5.5 percent over the previous five years, based on the results of annual fitness exams. It was the biggest decline cited by any large city, but 21 percent of elementary and middle school children were still obese.

Those kinds of numbers are hard to argue with. Fact is poor kids without access to regular meals and fresh, nutritious food tend to get fat, despite living in what urban planners call "food deserts" and living under what sociologists call "food insecurity." When we don't get the nutrition we need from the food available, the body revs up and seeks out more calories to get the nutrition it needs. It's NOT just a calculus of counting calories, but a sum of the nutritional quality of those calories.

Water water food everywhere and not a drop to drink eat.

Counting calories is a nice, graphable measure for a large bureaucracy (or cough cough a small blog), but when the fruit & veg & whole grains are increased it is the nutrition that needs to be measured along side the calories. Perhaps some sort of nutrition-per-calorie scale would make more sense. In my counting I don't obsess about the nutritional side of it, I just up the veg and down the sugar, and hope for the best.
------

Looks like the FBIWC weight loss plan is taking off! Two fellows in LA are claiming the idea that eating less will cause you to lose weight is the golden ticket....if only you buy their set of plastic doohickies.

(Berkowitz's gym trainer, Kates) said that to lose weight, it didn’t matter what you ate, — in fact, he insisted that Mr. Berkowitz not limit himself to grilled chicken and vegetables — but it was how much you ate. Mr. Berkowitz remained unconvinced, but took note of the portion sizes that Mr. Kates showed him with his hands. 

The next day, Mr. Berkowitz began to wonder if Mr. Kates might actually be right. “So I run out and I get clay,” Mr. Berkowitz said. “According to his measurements, my wife and I make bowls.” They took the bowls to Color Me Mine, a pottery studio, and fired them up. “I put a big ‘M’ under one bowl for meat. A big ‘C’ for carbs, and ‘D’ for dairy, because that’s how they’re divided. I started eating that way. My energy was up and the weight started falling off.” He ultimately lost 46 pounds. 

Mr. Berkowitz was intrigued by the simplicity of Mr. Kates’s plan. Unlike Weight Watchers, which also advocates portion control, there was no need to add up points or know how many grams of fat were in a piece of food. Also, Mr. Kates’s portion sizes were bigger than those of other diets Mr. Berkowitz had seen.

Silly me, why am I weighing food, reading labels, and consciously increasing my fruit and veg and lowering my carbs? What I should be doing is buying some plastic cups from some LA hucksters and letting them do the thinking for me.

------

On Thursday, I ordered a "large" soda in honor of the ban. FORTY FOUR F@*%IN' OUNCES! TASTE THE FREEDOM!! Even the cup is obese...

So that is that. In a surprise to no one other than beverage industry lobbyists and a few morbidly obese diabetics waking up from a corn-syrup-induced coma, the NYC Dept of Health has decided to approve Bloomberg's "soda ban." It doesn't take effect for six months, so I imagine there might be more noise until then, with lawsuity goodness and big-money-backed efforts to protect our "freedom" until then.

Here is an excellent video from the NY Times 'splaining the "soda ban". Jezebel posted the video, and I was really impressed by one commentator named "Birthdaygirl" that's worth reposting in its entirety here (italics mine):

When it's framed as a ban, the people who want to preserve their personal freedom to eat/drink what they want are practically fighting the food lobbyists' fight for them. But if someone really wanted to nip this issue in the bud and they could successfully harness that "right to eat what we want" attitude, you could really throw it back in the food industry's face. 

I do believe that I have a right to eat what I want and, by extension, I believe that I also have a right to not eat what I don't want. I think we have a right to know what we're putting into our bodies and, just like cigarettes are clearly labeled to warn us that they may be carcinogenic, I think if the government were really on our side about it, a lot of foods would be labeled similarly. You shouldn't have to put on a pair of glasses to realize that Coke and Pepsi contain methylimidazole and you shouldn't have to do a google search to realize that methylimidazole is a suspected carcinogen. 

Labeling soda with warnings about suspected links to obesity and cancer wouldn't protect people from themselves as immediately as a ban will but, in the long run, it would do more to solve the actual problem by bridging the education gap and by forcing Coke and Pepsi (amongst others) to reexamine their ingredients lists. I'm happy to defend the right of adult Americans' to drink coke but I do feel concerned about whether the average soda drinker actually understands what he/she is drinking and I think it'd be preferable if that information was at least more easily accessible. 

True freedom necessitates having enough correct and accurate information to make an informed decision. Just like plenty of people still smoke, plenty of people will always drink soda in mass quantities regardless of what they are or aren't told about the health risks of doing so. But I still wonder if the very people who are so sure that this is an issue of "personal freedom" wouldn't be somewhat offended to realize what the manufacturers of their favorite junk foods aren't telling them about the food they're eating. When it comes to something like soda, it means not just knowing that "it's bad for you" but why it's bad for you. It means making that information easily accessible to people rather than hiding it in size 6 font. Until then, I'm not sure if the average American's decision to drink soda can be characterized as exercising a freedom so much as exercising ignorance. 

Right now, the food industry has got us all by the tail. They're too powerful and most people are too uninformed for the American public to win the fight for our right to know what we're eating and "personal freedom" to consume food about which stronger claims can be made than "it hasn't been proven carcinogenic in humans". A soda ban is something they can swallow because they can always bump up prices to cover the profits they're losing without 20+ ounce sizes. But if we're looking for an answer as to how to solve these problems permanently: I think we should look more closely at the outrage that many people feel over the idea of not being able to control what they're eating. Because I think a lot of these people would have a lot more to be angry about if they understood the full extent to which they already lack control over the food they eat.

------

Stay up all night! Get riiiiipped!

When you drink 44 oz of diet coke at 3pm on a Thursday in celebration of a soda ban being voted in, funny thing is you will not be able to go to sleep for at least 12 to 13 hours after that historically gluttonous event. This, I found out the hard-way. One advantage of insomnia is catching u`p on all the latest infomercials

"P90X"  is a high-intensity work out in which users are told exactly what to do for 90 days, using the same equipment I have (a pull up bar and a set of free weights). One thing they glossed over very quickly is the one of the many "free gifts" you get when you CALL NOW: a companion book to the twelve DVD work-out videos that....tell you exactly what to eat for 90 days. 

A little internet thinkin' found this to mostly be a high-protein, low-fat calorie-restricted plan, with some cosmetic changes to make it into 3 matching "phases" to go along with the three phases of the work out plan. Huh, sounds similar to `how I eat, with additional hyperbole and complicating details.

A big deal is made up of "muscle confusion" as the secret to why the work out works -- high intensity on certain muscles, then a changing of the routine before "muscle memory" sets in and working on other exercises that work the same muscles. Just like Berkowitz & Kade's repackaging the tried-and-true concept that eating less will make you lose weight, P90X repackages two concepts:

1. Prison and buff inmates have taught us that intensity and repetition gets result, especially while out of our comfort zones, regardless of access to fancy equipment.
2. Working the same muscles with a rotation of different exercises over an extended period of ime will be much more effective than just the same exercise motion over and over. This kinda is standard practice for weight training since....the invention of weight training back in 1867?

Irving Weighttrainobergstein and his very flamboyant shorts.

But they do a lot through some jumping around, some "extreme yoga" (the thought of which makes me itchy), and LOTS of testimonials with before/after pictures. Oh, and it's also the work out routine Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan swears by. Ick.

------

WEEKLY AVERAGE COUNT: 2460
% FROM REFINED SUGAR: 5%
The average has been distorted by the ride on Thursday, which made me eat a bit more to be reasonably comfortable. Happy with how much sugar I took in over the week; I kept it at a maintenance dose between the morning's iced green tea and, on a few occasions, the chocolate chips and peanuts.
------

MONDAY COUNT: 2155
Saturday I ate relatively reasonably, but fresh banana bread kept jumping down my throat. I rode the NYC Century on Sunday and while I burned over 2,500 cal I certainly took in enough to make up for it. Proof was in the pudding:  I just wasn't that hungry when I woke up Monday morning.

AM SNACK: 8:30am, iced green tea, 25 cal

BREAKFAST: 10am, fage full fat yogurt with honey and almonds, 230 cal
Half serving of all three ingredients still satisfies

LUNCH: 1pm, eggplant hero with no cheese, garden salad with dressing on side, +/-1000 cal
Edie wanted pizza for lunch and a total lack of food in the house supported her argument. Salad came with 2oz of dressing -- that's 4 tbsp of oil, about 400 cal. I put half of it on the salad.

DINNER: 6:30pm, breaded shrimp, baked potato with butter, roasted brussel sprouts, 7oz diet coke, 900 cal
------

TUESDAY COUNT: 2450
Got a good workout in the morning. Went over in calories (I think) but lunch was an estimation, and judging by how hungry I was in the evening, the peanuts & chocolate barely satisfied me. Better to be on the conservative range, I suppose.

AM SNACK: 7:30am, iced green tea, 25 cal

BREAKFAST: 9:15am, fruit smoothie, 365 cal

LUNCH: 12:30pm, hijiki tofu patty, large spinach salad with carrot ginger dressing, chips & salsa, diet coke, +/- 900 cal
My dining companion ordered the chips and salsa, and they just compulsively jumped down my neck as we were finishing up.

PM SNACK: 3:45pm, manchego cheese sample, a couple of almonds, +/- 50 cal
Edie & I were in Wholefoods, and she went nuts for the cheese tray they had out. I only had 4 or 5 little squares, but cheese packs a punch.

PM SNACK: 5pm, momma salad, 90 cal

DINNER: 7pm, sauteed chili chicken breast, plain whole wheat cous cous, home made health salad slaw, 7oz diet sprite, 700 cal
Needed to change up the dinner game, getting a little boring. Plain couscous is a stupidly easy way to mix up the starches, and the 42g single serving looks tiny dry, but blew up big when hydrated. The health salad is a recipe from the 2nd Ave Deli cook book -- mostly shredded cabbage, dressed in mostly white vinegar, offset by olive oil and white sugar (though I cut the amount of sugar in half, and it did not suffer).

EVENING SNACK: 9pm, peanuts & chocolate chips, 320 cal

------

WEDNESDAY COUNT: 2360

Slept poorly. Woke up with the baby for a diaper change and bottle at 4:30, found myself with acidy stomach and the need to "use the facilities". Took a swig of Mylanta and was back to bed by 5:30 -- I think the large serving of cabbage in the health salad (along with the acidy vinegar) threw my system a bit, but not enough for me to keep with it, as I think I'll adjust. I've been making the health salad for years now, just not for the last hot season, and not since I started restricting calories.

For those who care: Toss finely shredded white cabbage for a small, cored head with a dressing made with:

• 3/4 cup white vinegar
• 1/4 cup white sugar (adjusted from the original recipe's 1/2 cup)
• 1 tbsp white salt
• 1/2 tsp white pepper

Taken from the 2nd Ave Deli cook book, adjusted. They add carrot and celery, but if you're trying so hard to be white white white, why mess with it?

AM SNACK: 8:30am, iced green tea, 25 cal

BREAKFAST: 9:30am, steel cut oatmeal with butter, brown sugar, vanilla, cinnamon and salt, 375 cal

LUNCH: noon, quarter pounder, fries, diet coke, 1 chicken nugget, 950 cal

PM SNACK: 3:45pm, momma salad, 100 cal

DINNER: 6pm, whole wheat pasta with turkey meatballs, sauteed eggplant, roasted brussels and parm, 7oz diet sprite, 780 cal

EVENING SNACK: 9:30pm, whole wheat pretzels, 130 cal

------

THURSDAY COUNT: 2985

Had a good weightlifting session in the morning, increased my reps from 6 to 7 (when I hit 10, I'll increase the weight amount and go back down to 5) and spent a few extra seconds in the negative pull-up positions. Spent the day with Edie on the big bike, taking a meeting and some chores, ended up at Coney Island. 

Without thinking, I did about 30 miles on the bike. When I got to Coney, I allowed myself a second hot dog and it felt good. Thirsty, drank a 44 oz diet coke, blurg. Ate a small carb-free dinner which was the only thing that could fit the calorie budget, but an hour later felt the hunger build up in a way that I knew would be a problem. I poured myself a bowl of peanuts and chocolate chip, weighed but not measured. I estimated 350-400 calories. After I ate it, found it it was about double what I thought....such a tiny bowl! Regardless, I still went to bed feeling hungry enough to eat a lot more, so felt good about bending the budget today.

AM SNACK: 8:45am, iced green tea, 25 cal

BREAKFAST: 10am, kolon bloe & whole milk, 300 cal

AM SNACK: 11:15am, momma salad, 100 cal

LUNCH: 3pm, 2 hotdogs with kraut and onions, fried potatoes, humongous diet coke, 1360 cal

Ordered a "large" diet coke in honor the soda "ban" approved today (see above). 44 ounces, jesus, I was thirsty, but if that was sugared, it would have been over 1000 cal...

DINNER: 8pm, grilled spicy curry chicken breast, steamed string beans with butter, 7oz diet sprite, 500 cal

EVENING SNACK: 9pm, chocolate chips & peanuts, 700 cal

------

FRIDAY COUNT: 2350

Woke up tired and very hungry, which made me happy I ate the extra calories yesterday.

AM SNACK: 8:45am, iced green tea, 25 cal

BREAKFAST: 9am, steel cut oatmeal with butter, brown sugar, vanilla, cinnamon and salt, 375 cal

LUNCH: 12:30pm, sardine & avocado on whole wheat, health salad, 7oz diet sprite, 610 cal

PM SNACK: 2:30pm, momma salad, 100 cal

DINNER: 6:15pm, chicken with tofu, pork fried rice, shrimp toast, wonton soup, water, 1,240 cal