It seems that the consistent need for a "bad guy" in American public has extended itself to the world of food. Just like we need a "Public Enemy #1" to be scared of when we walk down the streets, we need a "health enemy #1" to avoid like the plague (pun not intended) to check for on labels.
 "I've come for you... and I've brought Crisco!" |
Yes, this is the root of all evil in food. If you eat any trans fat, you will surely die a quick, yet horrible death. So check those labels for trans fat people. If there are none in there, then it is good for you!
What a load of crap. I mean, doesn't it seem like just yesterday that avoiding carbs was the ultimate solution to preventing a miserable death by tastiness? And before that, all we had to check for on labels was the cholesterol content. Before that, it was just the calorie level that caused the most concern. ("Just for the taste of it... One Calorie!... Diet Coke! " Never mind what aspartame does to you...)
There are two things wrong with this kind of thinking when it comes to nutrition.
 How odd that their circle seems to "cross out" both "saturated fat" and "cholesterol".... |
Yes, they were yummy, but I would hardly say it was safe to "indulge all I wanted". But if I was only paying attention to the trans fat though, I just might have believed that.
The other problem with this narrow-focused thinking with respect to healthy eating is that it does not recognize that nutrition science is a very new science. We are still a long way from knowing everything there is to know. So much so that for quite a long time there, the recommended replacement for butter to keep cholesterol down was margarine. For those who don't know, margarine contains trans fat. To put it more accurately, margarine IS trans fat. A big stick of it. This is what doctors were suggesting their patients with heart problems eat to reduce their cholesterol intake.
Almost as good an idea as those cigarettes that had asbestos filters, huh?...
The flip side of this is also that there usually seems to be one "magic bullet" cure-all good-for-you food that you should be getting as much of as possible. Right now, that seems to be whole grains. Which are indeed good for you, and you should get as much of them as you can. But let's not forget when green leafy vegetables were the best thing going. Or anti-oxidants. Or tofu and bean sprouts...
The trick to healthy eating of course is to have as much of these beneficial foods as possible, and limit that which we know is bad for us. Oh yeah, and get up, get outside and stop reading this drivel while you're at it too!
But before you go, allow me to share with you my guess for the next "bad guy" in the dietary world. I think it is going to be "refined sugars". There is already some rumblings in this court, and I don't think the "anti-carb faction" has been totally silenced - they are licking their wounds (which probably taste like bacon) and refining their message. Also, riding the wave of how whole grains are "good carbs", the "bad carb" will soon have to come into some sort of prominence.
So yes, "raw" sugar (or will they call it "whole cane"?) may become the next "good" thing for you as the flip side of this coin when refined sugars are burned at the stake. Please don't fall for it.
A Snickers bar by any other name would taste just as sweet. And will make you fat.
Posted by Matt Finarelli on 2007/02/23 @ 9:58 | Comments (9) | EatFoo 1.0 Posts
Comments
Great first post! I really enjoy Deglazed, and I'm glad you've joined our ranks over here at EatFoo. :-)
Posted by: bettyjoan at February 23, 2007 11:15 AM
Thanks so much Betty! It's both good to meet a fan of my other work, as well as to be here with you all at EatFoo. :)
Posted by: Matt at February 25, 2007 1:59 PM
Haha. Nice job pointing out the insanity of nutritional marketing. Ive observed this for a while as well. Its pretty funny how theres always ONE THING that is the reason you're fat, the reason you're stuck in a sham marriage, the reason your kids are ugly...but I digress. People seem to forget that common sense rules all. A balanced approach is the last one people always follow, looking for the quick fix, the extreme....
Welcome to EatFoo!
Posted by: Chris Santoro at February 26, 2007 8:03 PM
I also love the approach to avoiding trans fats. "Trans fats are bad for you? Oh, shit. We better hydrogenate the hell out of these oils, then." So instead of partially hydrogenated soybean oil (Crisco), we have fully hydrogenated soybean oil (the new Crisco with the green label). And what is fully hydrogenated fat? Saturated fat. Not exactly the healthy choice, but it allows them to print, in big, bold letters, "0g Trans Fats!"
Posted by: Barzelay at February 27, 2007 12:31 AM
Right, again the science of this escapes me. When you take unsaturated fat, and make it into saturated fat, that is trans fat. So why is that worse then just regular saturated fat?... And why do we ignore the saturated fat in foods now in lieu of the trans fat? New York outlawed trans fats, and not saturated fats. Seems odd to me - though I am not in favor of us outlawing saturated fat, as that would put an end to, well, meat...
The simple point is that there is no "magic bullet" to avoid, nor one to seek out that will make you happy. And that truth is just too hard for most people to accept.
It's the same thinking process that leads people to play the lottery.
Posted by: Matt at February 27, 2007 1:31 PM
cheesecake rocks
Posted by: Kyle at September 16, 2008 5:07 AM
cheesecake rocks
Posted by: Kyle at September 16, 2008 5:08 AM
cheesecake rocks my socks!!!
Posted by: adam at September 16, 2008 5:09 AM
Rachel Ray is the SHIT!!! and cheesecake sucks if shes not making it
Posted by: Brookeie Babie at September 16, 2008 5:13 AM