I was trying to avoid Girl Scout cookies. When asked about purchasing some I went to the Girl Scout website to see if they contained High Fructose Corn Syrup and / or Partially Hydrogenated Oils. Well, according to the website, yes. So I said no. I have two boxes of Thin Mints in my freezer so I don’t need any more. I get enough HFCS and trans-fat in my diet even though I try to avoid it. I don’t need to add to it. But, guess what, my hubby came home with FIVE boxes of cookies. I don’t know who he bought them from, but . . . now we have Girl Scout cookies in the house.
So I was looking at the boxes to see if these were the ones with the HFCS and trans-fat in them because some of them had it and some didn’t, but the thin mints we got didn’t have them. I thought that I was mistaken, but instead of going to the website I went to my freezer. The two boxes in my freezer have HFCS but the one my husband just bought, does not. And it turns out that the baker is different.
Freezer boxes: ABC Bakery (WITH High Fructose Corn Syrup AND Partially Hydrogenated Oil)
New box: Little Brownie (WITHOUT High Fructose Corn Syrup. But still contains Partially Hydrogenated Oil)
So, it can be done. Manufacturers CAN make products WITHOUT HFCS, we just have to make them do so.
Both bakeries use Partially Hydrogenated Oils, which we shouldn’t tolerate either.
Neither baker is near San Jose or California for that matter, so I don’t know why one baker is used over the other. But these are the Girl Scouts, I would hope that they were concerned about what ingredients are in their cookies.
So if you are interested in trying to avoid HFCS as much as possible check the baker and the box of your Girl Scout cookies.
So I started a new workout routine Friday. In particular, a new chest routine. I started with dumbbell chest flies and immediately followed each set up with dumbbell bench presses. Essentially, I did a super-set. I’m feeling insanely sore today, which is nice.
This afternoon I did 30 minutes on the stair master with five 2-minute sprints at a speed of 100. I was exhausted when I finished. It felt great though.
Sunday is my day off. Still, I’ll make myself a recovery juice. Apple, celery, broccoli, and carrot.
The famous golden arches have been in the news this week and as usual attracting a degree of criticism. Questions have been raised about McDonalds sponsorship of the Winter Olympics and also a deal struck with weight watchers.
It is worth getting something on the table straight up. McDonalds is in the business of selling fast food. They have a legal and legitimate right to do so and to promote and advertise their products. They are entitled to offer sponsorship dollars in return for publicity.
Each individual person has a choice as to whether or not they choose to go to a McDonalds outlet and if so what menu items they choose.
The issue surrounding the Olympics is the usual gripe about an “unhealthy” product being seen alongside sports, and healthy athletes. It is fairly unlikely that the competitors at the Olympics eat much fast food from any company so they can hardly claim that any medal won was a tribute to the foods advertised. In turn it is drawing a long bow to suggest that viewers will draw that inference. Essentially this is awareness advertising and creating “warm fuzzes” so consumers look more fondly on the company, whether they buy the products or not.
The real question that arises is whether the organizers of the Olympics should accept such sponsorship? In my view there is no reason why they would not. Being sponsored does not imply support of the sponsor-it is the other way around. People can argue that there is endorsement by association. That is possible but even if it is the case-so what?
The key issue is that like all fast food, the issue is not its existence but how people use it. If someone goes to McDonalds once a month or so then really that is not a problem. Whilst I would not recommend it, and I am not a customer, I have no issue with people who go from time to time. Health problems arise if people eat fast food frequently. The product per se is not the problem; it is how people use it. That is a function of the individual not the company. When asked if you want to supersize or would you like fries you are not obligated to say yes. You always have a choice.
The second story is more interesting. In New Zealand (and Australia later this year) three menu items will bear the weight watchers logo. No doubt there has been a fee paid by McDonalds for this. Previously the company paid the Heart Foundation over $300,000 to put the tick on seven meals.
The Weight Watchers website advises people to avoid fast food, including warnings about salt, fats and additives. At the same time Weight Watchers logos will be seen on mats and menu boards in McDonalds. The three meals, which have earned the logo, are a wrap, chicken nuggets and a fish dish. All have around 400 calories.
What are we to make of this? The meals have to meet certain criteria to have received weight watchers endorsement. McDonalds have responded to previous criticisms by broadening their offering. Equally it is a strange pairing to have people on a diet go for fast food with the support of a group like weight watchers.
A few questions arise. Will the dieters order the weight watchers approved meals? Will they take their children and what meal will they have? Will people be full after these meals or might they go back for more?
Smart companies spot market trends and look to cater to them. Generally businesses are much smarter than “non profit” organizations for the simple reason that they have to be to survive. If there is demand for healthier food then smart businesses will respond to this. By the same token, smart consumers will know when they are being “taken for a ride”.
In my opinion those who genuinely want to lose weight will not benefit by going to any fast food outlet even if there are lower calorie options available and regardless of whose “endorsement” it has. If you want to have the occasional Big Mac then by all means do so and enjoy it-just do not make it a regular occurrence.
“The one common experience of all humanity is the challenge of problems.”
- R. Buckminster Fuller
2 miles from my house to the gym offers a perfect opportunity for a short fixie huck/warm-up prior to throwing around a little iron. An odd combination, I know. I was asked recently if I was the only fixie enthusiast/Paleo-proponent/physical culturalist that I know of. Well, I don’t know about that, but it sure does feel at times as though I were deposited here from an alien ship.
…let’s just say I’m a member of a very, very small subset
Today’s Workout -
My focus is still primarilly on unilateral, lower-body work, and today’s MetCon session did not deviate from that theme. The reps in each exercise are still fairly low, with the emphasis being placed on the explosiveness of every rep of each exercise vs attempting to reach some predetermined rep number. I moved smartly between exercises, but I did not allow much, if any, degradation in my form. Here’s how it shaped-up:
Post warm-up “bridge”: whip snatch to OHS, 3 sets of 5 at 95 lbs
The day’s combo: whip snatch x 5
single-leg clean* x 1 (left)
high box step-ups (front squat bar position) x 5 (left)
single-leg clean* x 1 (right)
high box step-ups (front squat bar position) x 5 (right)
muscle-up + L-dip combo (1 mu + 2 L-dips = 1 rep) x 3
rear foot elevated “elastic verts” x 6 each leg
~ all weighted exercises @ 135 lbs. 4 total rounds ~
The single-leg clean is simply, and in the end, a regular power clean — however, the pull phase is done with a single-leg emphasis; the catch is a normal, i.e., bilateral, catch. I do allow a “balance touch” with the off leg when needed (i.e., as fatigue set in). From the catch, I moved directly into the step-ups. The box height here is just below knee level. Notice that today’s step-ups were done with a front squat bar position; this translates to a bit more of a quad-dominant movement vs the normal back squat bar position.
Moving on to nimrods in the news…
The following quote is all you really need to see of this recent NYTimes article on obesity to realize we’re dealing, once more, with a blindered, simpleton take on diet.
“…The answer lies in biology. A person’s weight remains stable as long as the number of calories consumed doesn’t exceed the amount of calories the body spends, both on exercise and to maintain basic body functions. As the balance between calories going in and calories going out changes, we gain or lose weight.”
Ugh! To be fair, the author did interview a couple of dietary “bright stars” — and then conveniently dumbed-down their message. How is it that the sane voices in pieces such as this become so marginalized? I suppose it boils down to sound-bite journalism, and the general public’s reluctance to spend the time required to delve further into subjects that may lay outside their fields of specialization; a destructive, symbiotic relationship, of sorts.
I believe it was Dr. Richard Feinman (he of the Metabolism Society) who so eloquently equated the “calorie-in/calorie-out” theory of weight managaement to (and I’ll use my own wording here):
“…considering the affect of gravity upon an object, absent of friction.”
A nice corollary, I think. Real people and real metabolisms must operate in the real world. No consideration of how a type of calorie affects metabolic response is as ludicrous as the aforementioned consideration of gravity absent friction. A nice thought experiment, maybe; any real-world application, though, is not to be found.
And then there was this, uh…free-verse, anti-paleo ramble? Not sure what Ms. King’s “Problem with Paleo” is, exactly — maybe she thinks animals are shouldering the load and/or bearing the brunt of abuse so as to satisfy the faddish whims of hipster caveman wannabes? I dunno. My thought is, fine, be a detractor — I rather enjoy having my convictions rattled — but please come to the fray with a grounded, plausible argument for Chrissakes. Sheesh…
I refuse to end on a negative, though, and here to save me from that is a fabulous and recent TED talk given by chef Jamie Oliver. I’m quite sure everyone with a diet/physical culture bent has seen this by now, but I wanted to “store” it on TTP because I believe in Jamie’s message — and in his dire warning. Please show this to someone in your life who may not be as diet-centric as you — and for God’s sake, if you have kids, please, PLEASE pay attention. This really is a matter of life and death.
Washington D.C.—A JOINT STUDY BY THE FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) revealed today that regular ingestion of “natural and organic foods” leads to a significantly higher risk of “death by natural causes”. “It’s ironic that millions of Americans chronically eat natural foods to be healthy,” explained Dr. Jordan “Gordy” Bulboso, FDA spokesman, “only to die a cruel yet ‘natural’ death.”
Dr. Bulboso paused during the press conference to finish his glazed jelly donut and cigarette, but then went on to detail more specifics from the study. “Natural bacteria and toxins are more common in natural and organic foods,” said Dr. Bulboso, “and that means Salmonella typhimurium and E. Coli O157:H7 are twelve times more likely to affect you leading to increased morbidity, especially in the elderly.”
“Look, we’re as serious as a heart attack about this,” said Dr. Barry Horner, CDC Research Fellow and primary author of the joint study just before coughing up a large piece of Sausage McMuffin. “Excuse me,” said Horner, “but I changed my diet because of the dangers associated with natural foods. And you should know that ‘Death by natural causes’ is the leading manner of death listed on death certificates in the United States,” Too often, explained Horner, ‘natural foods’ avoid such consumer protections as pasteurization and anti-bacterial washes. “It’s strictly deep fried and preservative-laden foods from now on for me and my boys,” burped Horner.
And in a change that could have long-lasting fiscal implications, the 2 year study
The Horner boys at lunch
found that millions of American’s are literally addicted to natural foods requiring the federal recognition of a new addiction known as NOFAT: Natural and Organic Food Addiction Toxicity syndrome that, the study found, invariably leads to “death by natural causes”.
Dr. Horner explained that, in light of their findings, he would be heading up a new $40 Billion, 10-year, study to develop and test a “NOFAT diet” designed to reduce the frequency of deaths by natural causes. “The study will be done with corporate and institutional assistance from, among others, KFC, Dunkin’ Donuts and the Southern Institute of Fried Culinary Cuisine,” announced a proud Dr. Horner, “because people are going to have to get used to more lard in their meals.”
A careful review of the joint FDA/CDC study by Roadside journalists revealed a glaring problem with the government study—the data actually show that people who ate “natural foods” were typically very old when they succumbed to death by “natural causes”, suggesting that they lived longer on average. An additional problem with the study is that “death by natural causes” is at best “a loosely-defined term used by doctors and coroners describing death when the cause was a naturally occurring disease process.”
We confronted Dr. Horner with this information. He seemed shocked at first, but then recovered long enough to offer an explanation. “Hey, we weren’t studying longevity. And those people might have been old, but they’re all dead, right? And they ate the natural foods, okay? Bottom line is that my new study is already funded with Stimulus money, and we’re creating and saving jobs here, so you can go choke on a piece of celery!”
When we attempted follow up questions, Dr. Horner’s assistant, C. Bentley Painfrit, stepped in and ended our inquiry, saying emphatically, “Dr. Horner is a respected and highly placed federal official and, as such, is under no obligation to answer for the manner in which federal funds are spent.”
A relaxed President Obama reflects on health care reform
On a related note, Democratic legislative analyst, Slade Mizuno, explained that this new study was a “gleat deveropment” that makes passage of pending Health Care reform more likely. The study even merited comment from President Obama, who, in a relaxed and candid moment, said, “We all need to be more honest about the things we put into our bodies. We’re just not going to live forever.”
“It ilonic, but a new ‘NOFAT’ diet should rower the avelage age of death and thus declease the hearth cale cost estimate used by the CBO [Congressional Budget Office],” said Mr. Mizuno. “Indeed,” added President Obama, “more lard in the diet means more premature and painless deaths for Americans, thus lowering the high cost of elderly care. And this makes Health Care reform more palatable, if you’ll excuse the pun.”
This is what I had for breakfast and lunch (yes, I made too much):
It’s a cereal made from almonds, cashews, sunflower seeds, pecans soaked over night. Then dried a bit, chopped up in my food processor to more cereal sized pieces and then topped with raisins, coconut, oatmeal and bananas.
I also made a fresh batch of almond milk to pour over it.
This was my snack:
A yummy fruit salad!
And supper was a salad taco. Oh yummy yum-ness!
The nut meat, baja cheeze and corn salsa were recipes from ani’s raw food kitchen. Always delicious! The guac was made by processing an avocado in with some of the cheeze. I added cayenne and tamari to the cheeze because I wanted to cut the garlic a bit.
What’s your favorite, dying wish, could eat every meal, meal?
Here’s mine:
The other day Jammy Jamms took me to Red Robin for lunch. We like to go there whenever we have a gift card. And whenever we don’t. But luckily we had one this time.
Look how artistic I am taking a picture of something with Red Robin’s name on it. You have to go to Brooks Institute of Photography to learn those tricks.
Whoah, Tyra Banks forehead, slow down there.
And here comes my last meal on death row:
The Cobb Salad with grilled chicken, no bacon or cheese, but with pickle slices. Slathered with ketchup and ranch on the side. With a water. Although if it really was my last meal, I’d probably have a Diet Coke. And a bottle of Dom.
And steak fries. perfection in potato form.
And because we were evidently morbid and focused on my perfect last meal, JayJayJay took me to a candy store where I managed to leave with only a smallerish bag:
I asked for one of those 55 gallon trash bags… maybe this isn’t my perfect last meal anymore…
This is the fifteenth in a series of daily Lenten devotionals called “Scriptural Lessons Leading to a Godly and Moral Life.” To start the study, click on: A Daily Online Lenten Study Guide: Introduction or
To view yesterday’s A DAILY ON-LINE LENTEN STUDY GUIDE click on: A Daily Online Lenten Study Guide: Day 14
Today’s photographs feature the Jumonville Cross on the Chestnut Ridge between Unionville and Connellsville, PA. To view click on:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Sixth Commandment: 13Do not murder. Exodus 20:13
Fathers and mothers are singled out for special response on our part, above and beyond our response to human beings in general, as we have just seen in the Fifth Commandment. However, God instructs us to respond positively to all persons because all persons are created in the image of God.
Christians view each human being as having the breath of life in them that contains the image of God. Humans, unlike animals, have a special role in the world. Animals live by a built-in code of behavior we call “instinct,” and are apparently unaware of God the Creator. Humans are born with a spiritual aspect that makes them not only wonder about the Creator, but to desire fellowship with the Creator. Having God’s image within in us makes us want to know Him and be more like Him.
On the other hand, it is hard to be like something you have never seen in the flesh.
To make the job easier, Christians are able to look to Jesus Christ, the Son of God who came in the flesh. Since Jesus was in the flesh, he left a record of a perfectly-lived life that we can try to imitate. Thus, we look to Him for guidance in Godly living. Later on we will examine how his teachings guide us in Godly, moral living.
The final six commandments guide us to being good stewards in our relationships with other human beings.
The Sixth Commandment speaks directly to the fact humans are created in the image of God. Destroying a person who is created in God’s image, in a sense a part of God, is a very offensive act. It is, in essence, destroying God. Thus, behavior leading to destruction on a personal level is absolutely forbidden. To take a life is to interfere with the victim’s opportunity to build a good relationship with God and other humans—the stewardship that God expects of all of us. (A stable society requires that life be precious and not in constant threat of extinction on the whim of another—as we see later, Jesus expands this to teaching us to not even get angry with others.)
How we treat killing in general is guided by the concept of stewardship (basically, everything we do is about stewardship). It is permissable to kill animals to protect ourselves from direct attack, to stop the spread of disease, or for food. Inhumane treatment and killing of animals is beyond good stewardship and is offensive to God. Capital punishment by the government (an organization in place to protect and foster the good of the community) is allowed in some societies, including the U. S. A. Whether this is good stewardship or not continues to be debated—is capital punishment is necessary to discourage persons from killing other persons, or is imprisonment is a better stewardship because it prevents the perpetrator from harming others and, in addition, it also gives the prisoner time to draw closer to a good relationship with God.
Basically, individuals are denied the right to kill another person. However, this raises a question. Are we allowed to kill another to keep from being killed by that person? Laws allow self-defense killing if absolutely necessary. Living the Godly, moral life is not always simple, but this is a commandment that most of us are able to obey.
The Sixth Commandment: DO NOT MURDER.
Exercise 1: One common criticism of television and movies is that many program plots containing killing, and the killing is glorified. News programs often lead with drive-by shootings and other violent incidents. Do you believe this has changed our attitudes toward the Sixth Commandment?
Exercise 2: Explain why you oppose or favor capital punishment. Can we disagree on this matter and still remain faithful to the Ten Commandments?
Continue on to the next lesson on A DAILY ON-LINE LENTEN STUDY GUIDE: 16 by clicking on:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would you like to receive notification of each new post on Carolyn’s Compositions, subscribe by typing your e-mail address in the SUBSCRIPTION box in the upper right hand column of this page. Notification will begin after you CONFIRM your subscription in an e-mail sent to you by wordpress for that purpose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monte and I welcome any comments you might have on the Lenten posts. Use the COMMENT box below to respond. For details on the COMMENT CONTEST click on: http://carolyncholland.wordpress.com/monthly-prize-for-comments/
~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL READING:
Who will take our church from us? Lent Devotion #30
Extremely overweight woman to small child: Do you want pudding?
Pudgy child: I want an apple.
Woman: No, do you want chocolate pudding or vanilla pudding?
Child: I want an apple.
Woman: Here’s some chocolate pudding.
She took him back to the table where she sat down with another woman, also extremely overweight, who was eating a plate of mashed potatoes and dinner rolls.
What’s wrong with this picture?
(After the pudding, she got him jell-o, ice cream and some kind of green smeary bits. The Cabana Boy and I kept wanting to go pick the child up and feed him some green beans.)
