I love you, Fatty Fatty

I've gone on here before about the absurdity of some people's continued obsession with "low fat" foods as a key to dietary balance. Between the processing it takes to make what was once relatively whole foods into fractionated "diet" food and the ill health brought on by the imbalance as well as trying to make up for the dearth of flavor and satisfaction created by removing fat (hello, Snackwells!), it's very satisfying to see trend pieces that tout an increase in the consumption of foods that retain it's fat.

Public health authorities have long urged Americans to cut back on foods high in saturated fat like butter, meat and whole milk. But a new report on dietary-fat consumption suggests that the public is increasingly eating more, not less, of these foods.
The new report, which was published last week by the Credit Suisse Research Institute, found that sales of butter in the United States rose 14 percent last year and climbed another 6 percent in the first three months of 2015. Sales of whole milk rose 11 percent in the first half of this year, while skim milk purchases fell 14 percent. The report also predicted that consumption of red meat and eggs would climb in the coming years.
The trends reflect what appears to be a shift away from processed foods and toward those that are considered more wholesome, even when they contain saturated fat and other macronutrients that were once vilified as unhealthy, such as dietary cholesterol, said Stefano Natella, the Global Head for Equity Research at Credit Suisse and an author of the new report.
“I think this is part of a trend toward more natural foods — more organic, unprocessed and simple foods,” he said. “All these foods have a natural characteristic attached to them. Full-fat milk sounds a lot more natural to people than 2 percent or skim milk. Cows don’t produce skim milk. You have to process it to take out the fat.”

Regardless, when you get down to it, regardless of what macronutrient is vilified or celebrated, the cornerstone of any shift in nutritional thinking needs to be "all things in moderation". We shouldn't start slamming pints of heavy cream and start banning any and all sugar from our diets; we should perhaps make small changes, see how we feel as individuals, and slowly change our own diets accordingly.

Despite the rant below criticizing the federal school lunch program, I'm grateful there IS a school lunch program, happy people in government are actively doing something, and Michelle Obama is fantastic. OK?

But of course, when it comes to BIGG GUBBERMINT, such nuanced and micro-tweaks are impossible when trying to feed almost every single child 5 to 10 times a week in a school cafeteria.

MORE than 30 million children trundle through school cafeteria lines every day in the United States and thanks to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which took effect in 2012, they are no longer served greasy pizza, salty French fries and sauced up chicken wings. Meals must now be lower in fat, calories and sodium and contain lean proteins, more fruits and vegetables and whole grains. And kids from coast to coast are wrinkling their noses.
Food and nutrition directors at school districts nationwide say that their trash cans are overflowing while their cash register receipts are diminishing as children either toss out the healthier meals or opt to brown-bag it. While no one argues that the solution is to scrap the law and go back to feeding children junk, there’s been a movement to relax a few of the guidelines as Congress considers whether to reauthorize the legislation, particularly mandates for 100 percent whole grains and extremely low sodium levels, so school meals will be a bit more palatable and reflective of culinary traditions.
“Other than mandating more fruits and vegetables, the new regulations haven’t really changed anything except force manufacturers to re-engineer products” so they meet the guidelines but not children’s taste expectations, said Bertrand Weber, director of culinary and nutrition services at the Minneapolis Public Schools. “Now kids get whole grain doughnuts — whoop-de-do.”

The guidelines of the school lunch program is not keeping up with current nutritional thinking. They're cutting fat, cutting salt, cutting sugar -- three things kids love, and adding things kids hate -- fruits & veg. What they SHOULD be doing is using their economic power to get higher quality whole ingredients, amping up the good fats and flavor and reducing portion size. Paying for on site from-scratch cooking rather than pre-fabricated space-meals from a central commissary will be more expensive, but the kids will like it more, it will taste better and be fresher, and in the end serve it's purpose -- feed our kids good, not save a buck or allow Big Food untold profits. 

Fat is good for food, for flavor, for health, for kids. Anecdotally speaking, too many women (and, uh, "metrosexual" men) of my generation seem to conflate healthy eating, low-fat food and femininity itself. I hope my daughter (and my son) figure out for themselves what foods make them healthy and happy before a profiteering harpy like Susan Powter comes along and messes it up for everyone.

Never forget.

-----

WEEKLY AVERAGE: 2593

Not a bad week, not a good week. Livin' it.

-----
BIKE CREDIT: 1140
MONDAY COUNT: 2110

SLEPT: 8:30pm-6am, 9.5 hrs

AM SNACK: 6:30 am, iced black chai tea

BREAKFAST 1: 9:45am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 11am, steel cut oatmeal, 450 cal

BIKE SNACK: 1:30pm, homemade granola bar, 320 cal

BIKE SNACK: 2:40pm, homemade granola bar, 320 cal

BIKE LUNCH: 3:45pm, subway veggie patty hero, corn chips, diet coke, 750 cal


DINNER: 6:30pm, mahi mahi, roasted asparagus, poppa salad, 650 cal

EVENING SNACK: 7:30pm popcorn, +/- 400 cal

HUNGER SNACK: 8pm, kind bar, 200 cal, 9/10
-----

TUESDAY COUNT: 2820

SLEPT: 9:30pm-6:15am, 8.75hrs

AM SNACK: 6:30 am,  iced black chai tea

BREAKFAST: 9:45am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 10:45am, fruit smoothie, 450 cal

LUNCH: 1:30pm, sardines and avocado on whole wheat toast, chicken soup, momma salad, pickles, 720 cal

PM SNACK: 3:45pm. cheezits, 210 cal

DINNER: 6:45pm, French Bread Pizzas,  poppa salad with dressing, 1080 cal

HUNGER SNACK: 8pm, kind bar, 200 cal, 8/10
-----

WEDNESDAY COUNT: 2795

SLEPT: 9:30pm-6am, 8.5 hrs

AM SNACK: 6:15am, iced black chai tea

BREAKFAST: 8:30am, 2 sausage patties of indeterminate animal and 4 mini pancakes, +/- 200 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 10:30am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

LUNCH: 1:30pm, grilled chicken, poppa salad, 700cal

PM SNACK: 2:30pm, momma salad, cheezits, 310 cal

DINNER: 8pm, burrito, diet coke, ice cream, +/- 1425 cal
-----

BIKE CREDIT: 735 cal
THURSDAY COUNT: 2560

SLEPT: 11:30pm-6:45am, 7.25 hours

AM SNACK: 7am, iced green tea

BREAKFAST: 9:30am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 10:15am, steel cut oatmeal, 450 cal

BIKE SNACK: 11:45am, homemade granola bar, 325 cal

LUNCH: 1:45pm, cheezits, poppa salad with dressing, 410 cal

PM SNACK: 2:30pm, kind bar, 200 cal

PM SNACK: 5pm, 1 slice streetza, +/- 500 cal

PM SNACK: 8pm, watermelon +/- 400 cal

DINNER: 9:30pm, instant ramen, 850 cal
-----

FRIDAY COUNT: 2680

SLEPT: 11:30pm-6:30pm, 10am-1:30pm, 10.5 hours
An active night with not the deepest sleep, good thing I had no where to go but sleep in the morning.

AM SNACK: 1: 7am, iced green tea

BREAKFAST 1: 9am, corn muffin, bacon, +/- 500 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 2:15pm, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

LUNCH: 3:30pm, grilled pork tenderloin on toast, momma salad, 780 cal

PM SNACK: 4:30pm, kind bar, 200 cal

DINNER: 6:30pm, bigos, potato pancake, peanut butter pie & ice cream +/- 1000 cal

Home Vs School Lunch: School wins.

-sigh-

Several years ago, I wrote about the idea of the government providing lunch for school children, how food is inherently political, and just having healthier food around is a good thing, even if snot-nosed little kids make a big noise about not eating it. Unfortuntately, the basic idea of the government feeding children while under their care is a partisan football. Pushing this massive public program forward towards healthier foods and more sustainable choices is a "liberal" agenda, while letting the market determine the cheapest, most business-advantageous foods be fed to children regardless of consequence seems to be the clarion call from the right.

Michelle Obama's agenda as first lady has been focused on children's obesity, because one would think no one would be in support of kids being fat. But while safe-for-business noise is made about kids exercising more, there has also been moves to make school food more centered on whole grains, fruits and vegetables, etc etc. There has been all sorts of push back, with the Secretary of Agriculture blatantly proclaiming that dietary guidelines will not consider sustainability, just "health", though we all know the health he refers to is business health over the health of the consumer. States look for exemptions from rules mandating healthier food because of claims they don't value children's health don't have enough funding, though a few cut through the politics and zero in on getting better stuff on their children's plates.

I don't care about what we can do for the environment, only what the environment can do for us.

A friend of mine recently placed her young child in his first school setting, and she had more than a little consternation about what he would be fed. Up until that point, he had a loving nanny-figure who would make him home cooked meals with a bit of care and soul, and now...Big Government grub? I understand -- packing a home lunch with care and love is probably going to be healthier than whatever a bureaucrat purchased on the commodities market for the best price possible. Well, that was my assumption, anyway...

One study, conducted in 12 elementary and intermediate schools in Houston, found that compared with what is served in school, lunches brought from home contained fewer servings of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and milk than the national program mandates.

Packed lunches also contained more desserts, chips and sweetened nondairy drinks, none of which can be served by schools that participate in the federal program. “About 90 percent of lunches from home contained desserts, snack chips, and sweetened beverages,” the study found.

A second study, conducted among pre-K and kindergarten children in four schools in rural Virginia, found that calories, fat, saturated fat and sugar were significantly higher and protein, fiber and calcium were significantly lower in lunches brought from home than in the meals served in school.

A third study examined food selection and plate waste by elementary and middle school children in four schools in an urban, low-income school district before and after introduction of the new meal standards. Juliana F. W. Cohen and co-authors found no increase in waste and a significantly greater selection and consumption of vegetables and fruits from the improved menus.

“These results suggest that the new school meal standards have improved students’ overall diet quality,” they wrote. “Legislation to weaken the standards is not warranted.”

It's  a nice thought that a parent's home lunch will always be better than a school lunch, but the facts don't bear that out. The food industry has so catered to a parent's convenience and a child's lizard-brain palate that a home lunch can become a lunchables pack, a juice box, and perhaps a bag of chips, a candy-bar like granola thing, and whatever else is convenient and "friendly". On average, the current state of a federally mandated school lunch tends to be more healthy than a typical home-packed school lunch. That's not to say that my friend's organic, balanced home lunches aren't vastly superior (or even my own whole wheat bagel, local pickle & washed cut strawberries aren't either), but she and I are not typical. 

Some foods should be "21 and over", because if you're going to eat this sh@t, you should be old enough to understand and accept the consequences.

It's a cop-out to say sex ed should be taught at home, not at schools -- the culture is such that too many parents won't do the right thing, diseases will infest the young and teen pregnancies will become a social issue. Once it affects you and me, it's not completely a personal or private issue anymore. Like sex, food is a personal, private choice certainly, but food can have grave impact on the public health, and can not be left to the vagaries of the market, or religion, or personal choice. There are valuable, vital reasons why government exists, and a superior school lunch across our great nation is one of them.

I don't want Big Government out of my kid's school lunch. I want Big Food out of my Big Government.

-----

WEEKLY AVERAGE: 2975
Oof. A good but high-stress work week, not a happy number but something to consider,  finding a new balance.

-----

MONDAY COUNT: 2885

SLEPT: 12:30pm - 6am, 5.5hrs

AM SNACK: 6:30 am, iced green tea

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

BREAKFAST 2: 11am, steel cut oatmeal, 450 cal

LUNCH: 2:30pm, vegetarian meatballs, health salad, pickle, soup, 480 cal

PM SNACK: 4:30pm, momma salad, and cheezits, 310 cal

DINNER: 6:30pm, flounder, asparagus,  poppa salad with dressing, 685 cal

EVENING SNACK: 7:30pm, popcorn, +/-400 cal

EVENING SNACK: 8:30pm, children's granola bars, 400 ca

-----

TUESDAY COUNT: 2820

SLEPT: 9pm - 6am, 9 hrs

AM SNACK: 6:15 am, iced green tea

BREAKFAST: 8am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 11am, Cabot with honey, almonds, vanilla, 500 cal

LUNCH: 2:30pm, chicken meat balls, lentil curry, steamed stringbeans, 550

PM SNACK: 4:30pm, momma salad, cheezits, 310 cal

DINNER: 6:45pm, small amount of lomein, kind bar, 2 chicken nuggets, popcorn, 5 children's granola bars, +/- 1300 cal
-----

WEDNESDAY COUNT: 2890

SLEPT: 9:30pm - 6am,  8.5 hrs

AM SNACK: 6:15 am, iced green tea

BREAKFAST 1: 6:45am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal
Mili helped me make it as he usually does, but then he spilt it. Looked like  a crime scene. -sigh-

BREAKFAST 2: 11am, steel cut oatmeal, 450 cal

LUNCH: 2:30pm, slice of pizza, sautéed chicken, pickles, 450 cal
Forgot my salad at home, ate it with dinner, -sigh-

PM SNACK: 3:15pm, momma salad, cheezits, 310 cal

DINNER: 8:30pm, Chipotle Burrito, poppa salad with dressing, 1080 cal

EVENING GORGE: 9pm, kind bar, 6 kid granola bars, 800 cal
-----

THURSDAY COUNT: 3090

SLEPT: 12am - 5:45am,  5.75 hrs

AM SNACK: 6am, iced green tea

BREAKFAST: 6:45am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 11am,Cabot with honey, vanilla and almonds, 500 cal

LUNCH: 2:30pm, poppa salad and dressing, sauteed shrimp & shitakes, pickles, 520 cal

PM SNACK: 5pm, momma salad, cheezits, 310 cal

PM SNACK: 6pm, kid granola bar, 100 cal

DINNER1: 7:30pm, samomsa chat over sting beans, chocolate, tea, +/- 700 cal

DINNER2: 10pm, fresh pasta with homade sauce, kind bar, +/- 800 cal

-----

FRIDAY COUNT: 3190

SLEPT: 11:30pm -2:30am, 4am- 6am,  5 hrs

AM SNACK: 6:15am, iced green tea

BREAKFAST: 7:15am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice,  80 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 11am, fruit smoothie, 450 cal

LUNCH: 2:30pm, almond butter & grape jelly on whole wheat, poppa salad with dressing, pickles, 700 cal

PM SNACK: 4pm, momma salad, cheezits, 310 cal

DINNER: 5:15pm, hot dog, fries, ice cream +/- 900 cal

EVENING SNACK: 8pm, frozen pizza, 800 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