Coke Blinks

Coca Cola recently released this advert, and it is surprising. They officially and loudly profess that obesity is a thing, which is huge for one of the biggest corporations in the world. Unfortunately, that's about all they do: call it a thing, then start spinning it. As expected, they deflect responsibility by (FALSELY) claiming all calories are equal, whether from sugar, protein or fat, and put the responsibility on the consumer. Due to the Internet echo chamber, a response was crafted quickly:

Coke is seeing the future. As I've prognosticated in this forum in the past, Big Beverage and Big Food is looking ahead at a future similar to Big Tobacco, and perhaps know this cycle of correction will come ever faster so they need to get ahead of what's going to happen to their bottom line if they don't act.

It's kind of transparent what Big Bev is doing in fighting the very beginnings of real action to counter-act they damage their product does to consumers. Bloomberg's "soda ban" is going to take affect in a few months, and Big Bev has been raising (probably ineffective) court challenges to stop it, including purchasing the support of the NAACP and Hispanic Foundation. This is particularly sad, as the minorities who are supposedly represented by these groups are also more impacted by the health effects of the product Big Bev is looking to protect. Arguments that the "ban" will effect minority-owned businesses more than the exempt chain groceries like 7-11 should be an argument to close loopholes, not do-away with this progressive legislation. In the end, it's about money, and I suspect the money Big Bev gives to these groups to ensure their support is a drop in the marketing budget.

Meet Drop, the kitty who lives in a bucket!

There can be an argument that perhaps sugary soda is habit forming rather than addicting, but any one who takes the position that the empty, nutritionally void, insulin-revving calories of sugar are equivalent to all other calories are probably trying to sell you something at the expense of your health and well-being. Still, it's fascinating to watch the contortions Big Bev & Food will make in the next year as "soda bans" and increased food regulation become more accepted as common-sense.

-----

WEEKLY AVERAGE: 1845
Another week of a very low average, again due to flu, then to having to fast due to undergoing a colonoscopy, yick. I wonder if this hickup of low-cal weeks will hurt me, help me, or make no difference in the end.

-----

MONDAY COUNT: 1440
Woke up feeling OK, ended up napping noon-4:30pm, and got to bed before midnight. Clearly, this flu is on it's way out but not leaving without letting itself be known. Doesn't leave a lot of time for eating, he he. Was tempted to go out for dinner, but once I sat down and got my head straight, I realized if I had restaurant food, that would mean the majority of calories I ate would have more fat, salt, preservatives and less fiber, nutrients and water than is reasonable. Glad I stayed in.

AM SNACK: 8:30am, iced green tea, 0 cal

BREAKFAST: 10:30am, kolon bloe with whole milk, 280 cal

DINNER: 6:30pm, teryaki chicken meatballs, quinoa, chopped spinach, 7oz diet sprite, 1040 cal

EVENING SNACK: 9:45pm, pretzels, 7oz diet sprite, 120 cal

-----

TUESDAY COUNT: 935 cal

Had a good night's sleep, nose is 95% clear, head doesn't go fuzzy when I try to walk. However, eating was not in the cards today because....I have my 1st colonoscopy tomorrow! I usually wouldn't speak of this in public, but if I'm not going to frighten readers into thinking I have some horrible eating disorder, better just say it, he.

AM SNACK: 8:15am, iced green tea, 0 cal

BREAKFAST: 10am, fage whole yogurt with almonds, agave and vanilla, 410 cal

AM SNACK: 11am, apple/carrot/kale/beet juice, 100 cal

PM SNACK: 7-8pm, 64 oz of Gatorade with miralax powder, 425 cal

-----

WEDNESDAY COUNT: 1580 cal

Had a pint of water in the morning, and by the time I arrived for my colonoscopy, felt ready to go to sleep. After coming to from anesthesia, had cramps and a weird feeling of wellness, and after lying down all afternoon, my appetite didn't return until dinner. When it did, it came back with a boom, but I knew enough to not go crazy. Threw in onion rings, just because I could, and successfully fought some wicked sugar cravings in the evening.

DINNER: 5:30pm, eggplant hero with no cheese, onion rings, house salad, 7oz diet sprite, +/- 1100 cal

EVENING SNACK: 8pm, cheesy poofs, 300 cal

EVENING SNACK: 10pm, pretzel rods, 7oz diet sprite, 180 cal

-----

THURSDAY COUNT: 2255 cal

Finally relatively back to normal. Lifted weights after missing two sessions, felt noticeably weaker but was able to get through -- wow, it only takes a week to get weaker? Damn.

AM SNACK: 8am, iced green tea, 0 cal

BREAKFAST: 11:30am, smoothie, 375 cal

LUNCH: 2pm, sardine & avocado on whole wheat toast, roasted broccoli, baby carrots, 7oz diet coke, 640 cal

PM SNACK: 6pm, apple/carrot/ginger/beet/kale juice, 120 cal

DINNER: 8pm, grilled chicken breast, whole wheat cous cous, roasted brussel sprouts, 7oz diet sprite, 820 cal

EVENING SNACK: 8:30pm, cheesy poofs, 300 cal

-----

FRIDAY COUNT: 3015 cal

Woke up early, got a train out of Penn Station at 7 in the morning to get to Rochester for a cousin's kid's bar mitzvah this weekend. Packed lunch, as Amtrak food is that special blend of unhealthy, terrible and expensive. Nice catered dinner in the evening, guest snackies at the hotel. Didn't feel too bad about over-eating, as it was very social and ate ridiculously small amounts earlier in the week.

AM SNACK: 5:30am, iced green tea, 0 cal

BREAKFAST: 7:15am, multigrain bagel with cream cheese, lettuce, tomato and o ion, +/- 450 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 9:45am, 2 almond butter & jelly sandwiches on whole wheat, baby carrots, 935 cal

PM SNACK: 12:15pm, beef jerky, 120 cal

PM SNACK: 4pm, cheezits, 210 cal

DINNER: 8pm, chicken, potato, broccoli, small salad, 2 rolls, cannoli, water, tea, +/- 900 cal

EVENING SNACK: 10pm, dark chocolate bar, pretzel thins, 400 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

Soda Ban: The Facts, Astroturfed

FROM MAH COLD DEAD HANDS!!

Big Soda has dropped some of their loose pocket change to set up a website to influence the voting public on a topic they can't actually vote on, so it's interesting to delve into what exactly they're getting at. Let's take a look at the "facts" as they see them, shall we?:

What beverages would be banned? The mayor is proposing a ban on the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages over 16 ounces in restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues, coffee shops, pizza shops, delis, food trucks or carts. This restriction would apply to both fountain and bottled beverages and include beverages like soda, sweetened coffee drinks and teas, juice drinks and sports drinks.

The correct answer is, "No beverages would be banned." It's a serving-size issue for the most caloric, nutritionally-void drinks. While juice and sports drink have a patina of nutritional value, the bottom line is they are as full of empty calories just like Mountain Spew and Croaka Cola.

I coulda been a contendah....for wacky pack copy-writing.

What beverages are exempt from the restriction? Diet sodas or any other calorie-free drink would be exempt from the restriction along with any drink that is at least half milk or half milk substitute.

So now it's a "restriction" and not a ban. Basically, the whole wide world of non-sugared drinks are unaffected. But if you're a sugar-addict (or a share holder in Big Sugar), that doesn't mean much.

Does the restriction apply to free refills at restaurants? No, it doesn’t. Consumers could refill a beverage at a restaurant as many times as they want.

So much for being a "ban" or much of "restriction", for that matter. There is also nothing stopping anyone from buying multiple sodas, not just freebies, but making this point fully clear would be too, uh, honest and factual.

Drink in the Freedom.

Does the restriction apply to beverages sold at grocery stores? This proposal would apply to all restaurants/food locations which require a health inspection report. People can still purchase sodas, juice drinks, sports drinks and sugar-sweetened teas in sizes larger than 16 ounces at the grocery store.

If you want to be a disgusting glutton that people stare at and cluck their tongues at, you still can be...at the grocery store.

Are sugar-sweetened beverages the cause of obesity? No, calories from all foods count. From 1999 to 2010, full-calorie soda sales declined 12.5% while obesity rates went up. According to the CDC, added sugars consumed from sugar sweetened beverages are down 39% thanks in part to more low- and zero-calorie choices. Restrictions that target a specific size of beverage will do nothing to change behaviors or teach people about a healthy lifestyle. Only education, diet and exercise can do that.

Oy. Sure, calories from all food count, but between the addictive nature of sugar and the fact that it is nutritionally void, it is sugar that is the most expendable, if we need to cut calories. Sales might be going down in sugared soda, but consumption of sugar is still up, due to our increase in all calories since the 70s.

The most galling statement here is "Restrictions that target a specific size of beverage will do nothing to change behaviors or teach people about a healthy lifestyle."  To say that rules, restrictions and laws do nothing to change behavior is a flat-out anti-gubbermint lie. "Only education, diet and exercise can do that," is just another variation of the McDonald's Defense: it's a personal responsibility, it's on you to care for yourself, we're just an innocent party over here. If our product sickens you, then stop using it. No addictive qualities here, no compulsion through repetitive media exposure, just move along, thank you!

No, continue eating 68 sugar packets. You will not get fat. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Will the beverage restriction have an impact on obesity rates in New York City? No. While New Yorkers would be limited to 16-ounce beverages, they would still be able to indulge in other high calorie foods. According to government data, sugar-sweetened beverages like sodas, juice drinks, sports drinks and teas account for only 7% of calories in the average American diet. With 93% of calories coming from other foods and beverages, it’s time to look at the bigger picture—diet and exercise.

That is one incredibly certain "no," when there is no test case or study, and throwing out random statistics that don't really bear any weight on the issue doesn't help. The assumption is that people will eat the same number of calories regardless of restrictions (because we are all wild animals with no sense of shame) so why bother.  I don't think the restrictions will impact NYC's obesity because it doesn't go far enough, but I really don't know. That the message, "these drinks are too large" will become a more normalized part of the noise cloud of culture is fantastic.

The bigger picture is not to put all the responsibility on the individual -- the bigger picture is to start targeting habits that are aided and abetted by non-individuals. Corporations may be "people", but they ain't individuals.

And they have a strict diet of Soylent Green.

Will I be able to vote on this proposal? No. The mayor is only required to get approval from the NYC Department of Health to make this restriction a reality. However, public hearings will be held. Join New Yorkers for Beverage Choices to stay up to date on all of the latest developments along with information on how you can make your voice heard.

This underlines the importance of this 16-oz restriction is to the Soda Industry: it is the tip of the spear, so let's shut this conversation down before they figure out perhaps unrestricted access to addicting high-profit products are not in the consumer's best interest. Well,  according to the latest news on the website, the public hearing happened, and the public spoke. And the public agrees with the "ban" was suppressed by the evil gubbermint bureaucracy:

“The one and only public hearing about the proposed ban came and went, and many businesses that would be impacted were unable to voice their opinions because of the inconvenient time and location – in Long Island City in the middle of the business day,” said Coalition spokesperson Eliot Hoff. “Whether or not city officials are listening to New Yorkers on this issue, we are still out on the streets educating people and businesses about the impact and encouraging them to stand up and make their opinions known.”

Stand up and make their opinions known, as long as it is in line with the bottom of line of Big Soda. Astroturfing at it's finest!

Astroturfing is a form of advocacy in support of a political, organizational, or corporate agenda, designed to give the appearance of a "grassroots" movement. The goal of such campaigns is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to another political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.

 Tomorrow, we jump to the defense of sugar, dispelling the myth that sugar causes diabetes. FBIWC: Fair and Balanced.

THE COUNT: 2345
Took Edie up to Tarrytown to visit a friend, her kids and their suburban public pool. Eating was an afterthought, and I didn't object when she brought us to the Golden Arches -- I would know exactly how many calories I was taking in.

On the opposite end, the whole wheat pasta dish was again assembled from fresh CSA vegetables just picked from the ground this morning.

AM SNACK: 6:30am, iced green tea, 25 cal

BREAKFAST: 8:15am, fruit smoothie, 350 cal

AM SNACK: 11am, momma salad, 100 cal

LUNCH: 3:45pm, quarter pounder, fries, diet coke, 890 cal

DINNER: 7:30pm, whole wheat fusilli with tomato, eggplant, pepper & herbs, +/-800 cal
Did measure this meal, but didn't feel like finishing it. Measured out at 985, bringing to the upper limit of my budget...

EVENING SNACK: 8:30pm, dark chocolate, 160 cal

Big Food is the New Big Tobacco

Man exhaling after a good suck on a cigarette. Or a Smoke Monster, what evs

In Sunday's NY Times, there was an article on the front page of the business section that detailed a class of high powered lawyers who spent their careers targeting Big Tobacco quite successfully. Now that the Smoke Monster has been more or less defeated, they've set there sights on a new monster:

“There was nothing scary on (the can of Pam cooking spray), just this innocuous word, ‘propellant,’ ” said Ms. Sturges, a hairdresser from Los Gatos, Calif. After digging deeper, she learned that “propellant” included petroleum gas, propane and butane. “I’d been spraying that on muffin tins to make muffins for my grandchildren — oh my God!”

The lawyers are going after Big Food, but not for the reasons I assumed. It's not that Big Food is promoting unhealthy food for maximum profitability at the expense of public health -- that may be immoral and evil, but not illegal...yet. They are going after mislabeling. As my dad said, "Hey, cyanide is all natural." There are no set standards to call something "all natural" or "healthy", so when something is promoted as such, even subtly, when it really isn't, that may be actionable.

Big Food's new mascot, Devilly Foodstein

The article points out that Big Tobacco wriggled out of years and years of lawsuits because it pulled the McDonald's Defense -- smoking was a personal choice, and who are we to interfere with one's personal rights? Only when the clutter was pushed aside and the science was taken seriously, it was finally acknowledged that Big Tobacco's product was making people addicted & sick, run up huge medical bills and -ahem- killed them. The government and justice system turned and made things a bit righter. Not fast enough to help my mom's life-long cigarette habit that  killed her before she could meet my children, but what-evs, B.T.

Consumers are increasingly conscious of their eating habits as rates of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, obesity and other health problems rise. State and local governments are also becoming alarmed at the escalating costs of caring for people with those diseases and are putting pressure on food companies.

Smoking was a "personal choice", but man does not make choices in a vacuum, and those who profit from influencing choice bear responsibility. Perhaps when enough people die from the food habits that will be reclassified as addiction-fortified and under the pointed influence of Big Food for their profit at our expense. I hope I'm not being too shrill, I'm gettin' all Chris Crocker on ya.

Please!! Leave Big Food aloooone!

In local  news, NYC's Mayor Bloomberg has been pushing a "soda ban", which is so gentle that it doesn't actually ban any soda at all.  But Big Money is at stake, so at even the hint that public opinion might be shifting from "personal responsibility" to "societal responsibility", the representatives of Big Money will come at us, pretending to be our friends, defenders of freedom, choice, babies and AMURIKAH! Big Soda put together a website with everything you need to know, so let's (cue DJ sound) BREAKITDOOOOWN!

Don’t let Mayor Bloomberg ban beverages over 16 ounces in NYC
Mayor Bloomberg is proposing to ban sales of sugar-sweetened beverages over 16 ounces in New York City. Fountain and bottled beverages over 16 ounces could no longer be sold in restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues, coffee shops, food trucks and street carts.
According to the mayor, New Yorkers need help deciding what size beverage is appropriate.  

If this now, what’s next?

The scare-title is wrong. It should read

Don't let Mayor Bloomberg ban sugar-loaded beverages over 16 ounces per single cup in NYC's inspected eating establishments

That's right, there is NOTHING stopping anyone from ordering TWO 16 ounce beverages. Or ten for that matter. It only effects businesses that need inspections from the Department of Health, so you can still get your 2 liter bottles of pop from the supermarket.

New Yorkers (and all Americans) need help deciding what size beverage is appropriate. Many are eating too much, we're getting fatter, and sugared soda is nutritionally vacant. When sugared beverages originally hit the market, the typical bottle was 7 ounces. Why is 20oz the new standard? Is it because people wanted more "freedom", or is it because agricultural policy made sugar cheap and vegetables expensive, that sugar is addicting and there is more profit in selling larger and larger quantities? People do not want  to be fat, get diabetes and rot their teeth. Is guzzling large quantities of soda more important than health?

Bloomberg's smoking ban has been a raging success. Bars and drinking establishments that predicted dire consequences ate their words when

1. smokers just smoked outside in all weather, because they're addicts and 
2. people who hated having to share air with smokers and make their clothing and skin stink now spend more time and spend more money in those establishments.

When Fran Drescher is elected Governor, I'll cede the point.

I have close friends who are against the "soda ban", decrying the "nanny state". I guess if you believe any sort of gun control is nanny-state, any sort of illegalization of hard drugs is nanny-state, any laws pertaining to the consumption of alcohol is nanny-state, then fine, I can't fault your consistency.

Such unilateral thinking blinds us to the shades of gray and the value of gradual positive outcomes. An actual soda ban would be a real attack on freedom of choice. Being forced to buy two 16 oz cups instead of one 32oz Mega-Jug when sitting down for a movie? Please. It's more likely you'll feel gluttonous, and that's a good thing. It is not a slippery slope, it is an adjustment in favor of our health vs. an industry's wealth.

We need light-handed guidance to direct us to habits that will add up to the greater good for everyone. Less obesity will help promote lower medical costs for all, at perhaps less profit for Big Soda. Just as a 7 ounce bottle was once the accepted normal standard put out by the soda industry, now it is in the hands of those elected to represent us and our interests to help establish a new normal standard.

Tomorrow, we delve into the "facts" as presented by Big Soda...

THE COUNT: 2345
Weekend eating went relatively well. Saturday was a day trip up to Connecticut to visit family, centering on a nice semi-home cooked meal with a lot of salad and corn. Sunday was a bike trip with the toddler to Staten Island for a big Polish festival, involving perogies, bigos, keilbasa and stuffed cabbage. I ate well, maybe a little too much, but no binging. Went to sleep feeling slightly hungry Sunday night, so I must have done something right.

Today is the first of four weeks of Edie out of day camp, before her preschool starts. Milli slept while we did the laundry, lifted weights and did misc. chores. I pulled out the old weight set my dad bought me when I was a teen, took off all the weights and had Edie do "lifts" in tandem with me, it was incredibly cute.

The main adventure of the day was a subway out to Coney Island to ride the Wonder Wheel. Couldn't take the kids to Coney without a hot dog! Fortunately, Nathan's has all it's nutritional info on line.

AM SNACK: 8:15am am, iced green tea, 25 cal

BREAKFAST: 9:30am, steel cut oatmeal, water, 375 cal

LUNCH: 12:45pm, hot dog with kraut, onions and mustard, deep fried potatoes, diet coke, 800 cal

I normally would have had two hot dogs, but that would have destroyed the budget. A dog is only 300 cal -- it's the fries, at it's smallest, is a whopping 500. The biggest size, with cheese, is about 1,200 cal, well over half my daily budget.

PM SNACK: 2:45pm, momma salad, 120 cal

DINNER: 6:15pm, broiled sole, steamed string beans, multigrain rice mix, pickle, 7oz diet sprite, 840 325 cal
Something went funky, the wild rice/brown rice/wheat berry mix required more water and less salt than I eyeballed, came out funky. I had to eyeball it because the 117g/415 cal (+100 cal for a tbsp of butter) was all that was left in the package, and I was too tired to do the correct math. Funny how light the meal becomes when it's just fish and beans.

DINNER pt 2: 7pm, slice of pizza, +/- 300 cal

EVENING SNACK: 9pm, homemade vanilla ice cream with chocolate syrup, 400 cal

An indulgence, after chores, a day out with both kids, a failed dinner, grocery shopping and coming to a halt, finally, at 9. Still kept in budget, though -- almost felt like a binge, as this was a satisfying portion size!