Nutrition Made Simple at CHON'S CaFe

Hungry? You Ain’t Seen Nothin Yet!

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:11:00 +0000

There can be very little doubt that the defining era of human history will not be caused by nuclear destruction, energy depletion, pandemic or religious zeal – although these may indeed come to pass - as symptoms of a root cause. By the year 2050, given the current scenario, the planet earth will likely be unable to nourish more than 60% of its 9 billion people. Starvation, its consequences, and how we respond will be, for many, many reasons, by far the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced. It has massive human, ecological, resource, geo-political, technical, ethical and personal implications.

We are a long way from figuring out how best to respond – and it is clear that the current model is lining up to be a train wreck of epic proportions.

The Malthusian Dilemma: 18^th century economist Thomas Malthus concluded that "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man". In very simple terms, he pointed out that, since population growth is exponential and productivity gains are incremental (geometric), food supply will always limit population growth. In other words: If there is food available, populations explode until they are limited by their ability to produce more food. In the 200 years since Malthus, we have seen proof of his theory. Periods of population growth are always preceded by a revolution in agricultural productivity.

In 1850, it took 8 people to feed 10. Today it takes 2. The four largest ‘spurts’ in population correspond to the four great agricultural productivity innovations:

· Transportation: The late 1800’s – rail brought food to the city and goods to the farm. It also started the exodus from farm to city. Farmers began to produce more than they consumed.

· Mechanization – The mid 1900’s tractors drove the acreage tillable by one person from under 40 to over 1,000.

· Cheap Nitrogen – Until 1915, nitrogen (the single most important nutrient in growth rate) came from manure. The Haber-Bosch process (invented about 1915) gave us the ability to make nitrogen fertilizer from natural gas. Today, conservative estimates say that 60% of our yields are accomplished through the use of chemical fertilizers – nearly all of which come from oil and gas.

· Genetics – In the second half of the 1900’s, genetics quadrupled corn yield and increased animal production nearly 10-fold.

World population growth rate has exceeded 2% four times throughout all of human history: 1880’s, 1940’s, 1950s and 1960’s (where it peaked at 2.3%/yr.). Since the 1970’s, it has slowed to about 1%.

A few not so fun facts:

Today we are adding the population of Germany to our planet every year (80 million).

97% of population growth is happening in agriculturally (and economically) ‘poor’ countries.

Virtually ALL population growth is occurring in cities.

When cities grow, for historical reasons, around markets and transportation, they typically displace the best agricultural land.

20% of the population consumes nearly 80% of the agricultural output – mainly caused by demand for animal protein in the ‘wealthy’ countries: US, Canada, Japan, Australia and Saudi Arabia. (It takes 18 lbs. of grain to produce 1 lb. of beef.)

As economies around the world develop, the demand for animal protein is growing 7 times faster than the demand vegetable-based foods.

The US produces 35% of the world’s wheat, 60% of the corn and 20% of the rice.

Most of the land in China, India, Africa and other areas where the population is growing will not produce food without irrigation and chemical fertilizers.

US corn yield is 155 bu/acre. In India it is 26. US milk/day/cow is 80 lbs. In India it is 8.

In considering the issue, a real solution exists only within a very few actions:

1. Limit population growth: This, of course, is THE solution, but a very morally and philosophically delicate one to implement. However, since out of control birth-rates are primarily driven by ignorance, religious zeal and poor government policy, it can and should be impacted on those platforms.

2. Limit the consumption of animals: A moral imperative for the ‘wealthy’. Meat, as a nutritional ‘need’, was born of abundance and followed by gluttony. It is not a requirement for good health – and, in fact, may be at the root of a subclass of the food crisis – malnutrition in the face of obesity. Moreover, the ‘wealthy’ have many important food choices often not available to the vast majority: organic, local, sustainable, perishable, heirloom – and access to huge variety.

3. Drive another revolution in agricultural productivity (including sustainability and real nutrition): Take off the shackles of the techno-fearing fanatics and fund this - and it will produce results. It is our quickest way to a solution – keeping in mind that it is only a short-term fix if not done thoughtfully, with an eye to sustainability, real nutrition and population growth. (Of course, more food, without controlled population growth, just delays the inevitable.) Our past jump to technology may have created some unintended consequences - issues that need not be repeated - but, without it, the population is already too big.

No fan of government intervention, I would prefer to drive these changes at the individual level. Personal commitment and grass roots movement can (and does) go a long way. However, food supply may be one of the few things (like roads, human rights and security) that our governments should provide.

And the consequence of not taking action on any or all of the above? The US will be compelled, by moral obligation or force, to feed an insatiable world. Make no mistake: Starvation is a mighty motivator, desperation is a super-rational rule-rewriter, and envy a sure cause of resentment and violence. At the very worst, the starving hordes, having very little to lose, with take our food-wealth by force – likely resulting in what we have always feared most as the world-enders: nuclear confrontation, energy depletion, Armageddon by pandemic and/or rule by religious/political zealots. At the very least, this will dramatically change our environment, cost of living, cost of energy, cost of foreign aid, world-role, political orientation - and will grant huge power to agribusiness.

Denny's Best 25 Mile Bike Loop (Minneapolis)

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:42:00 +0000

For me, a summer bike ride is more about the setting than it is about the exercise. If you’re with me at all on that, this loop will quickly become one of your faves. (Plus, with this loop, you get 2 free miles: It’s actually only 23.) It takes you through some of the best places Minneapolis has to offer: The Lakes, Downtown and the Mill District, the Mississippi and Minnehaha Creek and Falls. Nearly all of it is dedicated bikeway and a fairly level grade. (Be sure to take the loop clockwise as outlined on the map. That way you will get a nice-7-mile-long-slightly-downhill run as you follow the river towards the falls.)

Google Map of Denny's Loop

Fuel Stops

• Start out at the Turtle Bread Company in Linden Hills: Free/easy/secure parking at a great place to get a box lunch or stop after your ride.

• Plenty of places for food and beverage along the Nicollet Mall, or take a nice break in the shade at Peavey Plaza (mile #8).

• Plan a stop at Sea Salt: Grab a bite of great food from the people that own Coastal Seafood, the area’s premier seafood distributor. They quite often have live music – and they always have Sebastian Joe’s ice cream and Surly and Summit on tap. Plus – the Minnehaha Falls are right there. (Mile #16)

Other features

• Lake Harriet Band Shell and the Bread and Pickle: Happens pretty early in the ride, but a great place to stop for a view or ice cream or ice tea. Check out the music schedule too: Band Shell Music Schedule

• If you’re new to town, you’ll want to take a picture of the famous ‘Mary Tyler-Moore house’. Just a couple of blocks off-course from the old horse-watering fountain.

• Take a picture at the ‘Dandelion’ fountain in Loring Park.

• Plan to stop and take some pictures – or at least take the time to look – around the Mill Ruins area: Stone Arch Bridge, Guthrie, St. Anthony Falls, Ruins Park, the Falls Laboratory, Gold Medal Park, Old Pillsbury ‘A’ Mill, 35W Bridge Memorial, etc.

• If you’ve got time (and want to add 2 miles) cross the river at the Northern Pacific Railroad bridge (just past the 10th Avenue bridge) follow the East River Road, take a right by Yudof Hall (just before the Medical Center) and pick up the trail at the south end of the parking lot. This way you’ll get to see the U of M campus, Weismann Museum and go on the neat river cat-walk. Cross back on the Franklin Ave. bridge.

• Consider a stop at the Lock and Dam – it’ll add 45 minutes to your trip – but it’s very cool.

• If you missed it at Sea Salt, be sure to get some Sebastian Joe’s in Linden Hills – you’ve only got another 5 blocks to go, after all!

• Clean restrooms (even though some are porta-potties) are noted along the way.

Here’s a great Google Map that shows the route and features, mile-by-mile. It should work on your smart-phone too: Google Map of Denny's Loop

Obesity: A One-Two Punch from Obsolete Hard Wiring

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:06:00 +0000

Punch #1: Bigger is Better

Studies have shown that, when given a choice, birds will preferentially sit on the bigger of two eggs. Why? Bigger eggs have more nutrients to nurture the embryo so, when it hatches, it is more mature – and is more likely to survive. Makes perfect sense – unless you introduce an egg that is outside of their evolutionary reality: Give them a giant egg (i.e., of another species) and they will ignore their offspring to sit on it. Obviously, in this case, their hardwiring produces the wrong response. For good nutritional reasons, we are conditioned to seek out bigger fruits, plumper prey, rounder melons, and brighter colors.

Supersize Me

In study after study we find that people will chose larger portions (in some studies, up to 90% of us will) and will eat more, if given a choice between ‘regular’ and ‘super-sized’. Even if we don’t eat all of a larger portion, we eat a minimum of 30% more just by virtue of being offered a larger portion. Other studies show that, even before deciding to eat, larger is more appealing: we salivate more, pay more attention to and are willing to work harder for ‘big’ things – including cups, plates and packages – even bigger pictures get us more excited.

Punch #2: Too Much Is Never Enough

All higher order animals have some type of built-in mechanism that regulates caloric intake relative to activity and other energy needs. However, in some cases, our evolutionary reality never provided an opportunity for “too much” of some nutrients. There simply was no need to hard wire an upper limit on things like salt, sugar and fat – because the foods available to us (or the energy required to get them) meant that, in practical terms, we could never get enough.

The Land of Plenty

It is estimated that, during most of our 200,000 year developmental history, we expended significantly more than 2/3rds of our resources on feeding ourselves. At the time of the Civil War it still took 80% of the population to feed us. Today less that 3% of us are actively involved in primary food production.

On the other hand, the 3% of us that are farming allow us all to consume over 1/3 lb of pure fat, per person, per DAY (soybean, corn and animal) – and the demand has jumped 15% in the last 15 years.

At the time of Caesar, salt was scarce enough to be used as a currency (the English words salt and salary both come from the Latin root sal, or salt.) Today it is estimated that we have enough readily available salt around and under the Great Lakes to allow unbridled consumption for at least the next 70 million years.

Before Columbus introduced Europeans to sugar, normal foods simply were not sweet. Even at that, ‘sweet’ was the exclusive parlance of the aristocracy, who would sometimes consume up to 4 lbs. of sugar in a year. It was considered a ‘fine spice’ and used sparingly. For American settlers, ‘sweet’ came from apples and sweet potatoes. Honey was the only ‘sweetener’ for most of our history. Fast forward: Last year (USDA) we consumed 156 lbs. of sugar per person.

Obsolete Hard Wiring

Until relatively recently, it was virtually impossible to get too much fat, salt or sugar. Our brains developed ways to motivate us to find these scarce nutrients (dopamine) and enjoy them (endorphins), but had no reason to develop a mechanism for stopping us.

Combine our innate drive to find as much fat, salt and sweet as possible with our conditioned preference for bigger – with the fact that all three are cheap and incredibly available – AND with the realization that we have never before needed an ‘off’ switch - it is no wonder that the hardwiring that served us so well has not only up and left us flat – it has left us fat.

Bike-ride Eateries: Three places worth some pedal-pushing.

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Thu, 19 May 2011 19:10:00 +0000

With the warm weather, out come our bikes – which are primarily used as transportation to and from great places to eat. This spring we’ve landed at three that are definitely worth some pedal-pushing:

Tilia 43rd St. in Linden Hills
http://www.tiliampls.com/
Opened in March, Tilia (Latin for ‘linden) is a nice cross between neighborhood tap and funky-foodie place. They maintain a nice rotation of 21 interesting draught beers and have my personal favorite – a $3 PBR Tall-boy can. Great wine-list too – not too heavy on the California’s, which I think is a plus. Good clean menu items that are nicely conceived, executed and presented - but definitely not over the top. The crowd is cool and varied – young, old, and from goth, to aging punksters, to white-bread SoMpls-ites. The main guy, Steve, plays the laid back owner-schmoozer part to a tee. It’s always crowded, even on Mondays, and they don’t take ressies.

For your bike ride: Just up the hill from the Lake Harriet band shell and take either Queen or Linden Hills Blvd a block or two south.

Yum where Mtka Blvd splits off from Lake St. on the south edge of Tyrol Hills
http://www.yumkitchen.com/
If I didn’t know better, I’d say the old Lincoln Del was reincarnated a block away as a cafeteria – and I hate cafeterias, but this one is different. Open and airy with a clean floor-plan that includes a gleaming kitchen and central bakery setup – it just feels like quality. The food is not fancy and has a deli orientation. But - it is definitely not deep-fried or Sysco-inspired. It’s all house-from-scratch and authentic - and incredibly good. Crowd is upscale: mahjong ladies, neighborhood princesses and meet-dad-after-soccer families.

For your bike ride: Peel off from the Cedar Lake bike path onto Sunset Blvd and turn left on Glenhurst.

Sea Salt on the Grand Rounds at Minnehaha Falls
http://www.seasalteatery.com/
In the old park refectory building, Sea Salt is sort of fish shack meets the state fair. It has great outdoor seating and a ‘20s park-pavilion feel. Food offerings range from oysters on the half shell to deep fried fish’n chips-type choices – with tacos and red beans and rice in between. Good quality and FRESH (Coastal Seafood) – but no chefs here! The only real down-side: You need to wait in a (often long) line to place your order and then wait again for the food-runner to call your name. For sure, though - a really enjoyable place to soak in the afternoon sun and have a beer while watching the tourists give Hiawatha’s sculpture and the falls a look-see.

For your bike ride: Just follow the signs to the falls. I can’t even imagine driving to Sea Salt. It’s the perfect bike destination!

So, in the words of Queen: "Get on your bikes and ride..."

Lactose Intolerant? Which Dairy Products Contain Lactose? How Much?

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:17:00 +0000

Milk, the starting point for all dairy products, basically has four components.

Two components that don't mix with water:
     • Casein – the protein used to make cheese.
     • Fat - the butter (Cheese is basically fat and casein)
Two components that do dissolve in water:
     • Whey Protein – the protein found in whey, the by-product from making cheese. (Remember Little Miss Muffet? Curds (cheese) and Whey.)
     • Lactose – the sugar in milk (from the Greek: lact=milk, ose=Sugar)

The amount of lactose in any given dairy product has to do with which and how much of these components is present. In order from the most lactose to the least:

1. Whey – 76%
     Remove the cheese (fat and casein) and you’re left w/ mostly lactose and some whey protein.
2. American (process) Cheese – 10%
     While cheese is low in lactose, process cheese often has lactose added back in as filler.
3. Whey Protein Powder – 7%
     The concentrated proteins for this product are actually made by removing lactose.
4. Soft Serve Ice cream – 7%
     Based on skim milk, which has more lactose.
5. Skim Milk – 5.8%
     Removing the fat doesn’t create any lactose, but lactose does become a higher percentage of the total as a result.
6. 2% Milk – 4.9%
     Same as skim, just less fat is removed, so lactose is a slightly less, as a percentage.
7. Buttermilk – 4.5%
     Butter milk is cream with the fat removed (the fat becomes butter) – so, as a result, the lactose level is higher than cream.
8. Whole Milk – 4%
     Less lactose as a percentage than 2% or skim because, in effect, the lactose is diluted down by the fat.
9. Yogurt – 4%
     Generally made with skim milk.
10. Ice Cream – 3.5%
     In general, the better the ice cream (i.e, higher fat content), the less lactose.
11. Half-and-Half – 3.3%
     The way to get cream is to take out the proteins and lactose (leaving the fat). The higher the fat content, the more lactose has been removed.
12. Cottage Cheese – 3.3%
13. Sour Cream – 3.3%
14. Cheese – 2.5%
     Most of the lactose goes with the whey, so cheese is low in lactose.
15. Cream – 2.5%
     Same idea as for half-and-half – just more extreme.
16. Whipped Cream – 2%
     Same as for cream, except the added sugar (sucrose in this case) reduces the % lactose.
17. Premium Ice Cream – 2%
     Recurring theme: more fat, less room for lactose.
18. Milk Chocolate – 1.5%
19. Aged or Sharp Cheese – 1%
     As cheese ages, the bacteria that give it the ‘sharp’ flavor do that by ‘eating’ the remaining lactose. Aged, strong, sharp, hard cheeses hardly contain any lactose.
20. Ranch Dressing – 1%
21. Dark Chocolate – near 0%
22. Butter – near 0%
     Butter is nearly all fat (plus a little water and a tiny bit of protein).
23. Eggs – 0%

Unlike allergies, which are not very dependent on amounts (what you are allergic to is either there, or it isn't), lactose intolerance has to do with your ability to digest lactose – so how much is a big factor. (You can be allergic to milk, but, in that case, it is the milk proteins that are of concern.)

Evolution: Your Handy Guide to Nutrition

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:04:00 +0000

In the process of ‘evolving’, we developed capabilities and relationships that gave us a continuously improving competitive edge. So, we stood up and walked, got opposing thumbs and a big cortex. We also developed an inscrutable set of nutritional complexities. However, complex as they are, when viewed through the lens of evolution, we get some great insights into what we should eat.

To answer the question “Should I eat it?” ask yourself “Did I evolve eating it?” You’ll get a "yes" to fruits, vegetables, meat and fish (yes, even the fats). You’ll get a resounding "no" to hydrogenated oils, high fructose and flavorings (even ‘natural’ ones). There might also be some surprises: A little dirt, bacteria and pollen might go a long way – and where would we have eaten ‘low-fat’ 10,000 years ago? You can even use this idea to ask “What combination of foods should I eat?” We evolved eating a lot of plants - and were only able to supplement our diets with hard to catch animals.

There is no altruism in nature. The plants and animals that provide the calories and nutrients we require always get something in return. The apple makes fruit as a way to drop its seeds further from the tree. Who needs the anti-oxidants (CHONS CaFe: Antioxidants) in blueberries more: us, to ward off cancer? - or the blueberry so it can stay brightly colored? Once we learned to care for and feed cows – and then started milking them before eating them - we eventually developed an ability to metabolize the sugar in their milk (CHONS CaFe: Lactose Intolerance).

We are also opportunistic. We ‘learned’ to use building materials from the things readily available for eating. Ever wonder what the ‘Essential Amino Acids” are? They are the nine protein building blocks that we can’t make ourselves – so we have to eat them. It's not that we couldn't make them, we just never needed to - so we didn't waste evolutionary resources developing that particular ability. Here’s another interesting one: We never bothered to produce Vitamin ‘C’ because we could eat it. Chickens, on the other hand can produce vitamin ‘C’, because it typically wasn't found in the foods that where readily available to them.

There is even a school of thought that says marijuana ‘learned’ to make humans feel good in return for propagation of its genetic material. This “cultivation evolutionary strategy” has put cows, goats, weed, corn and soybeans on the top of the ‘successful species’ list.

This all adds up to a time-tested symbiotic relationship that, even if we can’t unravel it enough to understand it, gives us great insights into what foods we need.

Next time you’re wondering if you should eat it, let your inner-caveman provide the answer.

Five Must-Visit Restaurants

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:02:00 +0000

We've been asked for our 'list' so often, we thought it'd be a good idea to start publishing our picks on CHONS CaFe. Our top five were posted last month (see Blog Archive in the right-hand column).

Here's a list of the five restaurants that we believe put Minneapolis on the culinary 'map'. All of these are inspired, chef driven, foodie-worthy eateries that can hold their own along side any restaurant on the planet.

If for no other reason than to say you've been there, these need to be on your bucket list.

Five Must-Visit Restaurants

Heartland (Meers Park)
A new incarnation of the restaurant near Macalester College, the ‘new’ Heartland is in a cavernous old warehouse, not accidentally across from St. Paul’s farmers market. Chef Lenny Russo has evolved from his start at the MN Horse and Hunt Club (which maybe explains things like Boar everything and other ‘wild’ offerings) to a true ‘local-vore’ master.

We found the recycled industrial motif to be a bit cold – but ‘eco-chic’ is in, right? Chef was very visible, involved, and approachable the night we visited. The menu was fantastically ambitious, but we found that, while many items sounded exotic (Mangalitsa Ribs or Duck Prosciutto), some of the items were pretty ordinary once they showed up.

The highlights: A phenomenal cheese plate and, especially, the home-made vermouth the mixologist used for our martinis (worth the trip alone).

Meritage (Downtown St Paul)
St. Paul’s best restaurant, by far. Although it’s pretty traditional French Brasserie stuff (not my favorite), the execution makes it happen. – And, now that they have a nice big new bar, we don’t have to sit at those little marble tables!

To be honest, we had a pretty bad experience with the service on about our fifth visit. (We accidentally went out on Valentine’s Day, which didn’t help.) The next day we got a personal e-mail from Chef Kline, who made good by personally cooking for us the next week “sans menu” – our own personal chef for a night – he even picked up the tab.

I also like the pedestrian feel of that part of St. Paul. Make the St. Paul Hotel your home base for the week-end and you’re within blocks of the Ordway and at least a dozen great restaurants, bars and other music/theater venues.

Le Belle Vie (Loring Park)
Here, more than any of our other 4 picks, it’s all about the food. ’09 James Beard winner Tim McKee’s Mediterranean creations are phenomenally well thought out, meticulously presented and breathtakingly great tasting! This is the one place I would definitely spring for the chef’s tasting menu.

We actually like the bar area better than the dining room, which seems pretty formal, stuffy and full of ‘old’ people. (It really requires the use of your best ‘inside voice’.) The bar area, on the other hand, has a warm Ralph Lauren/club feel - with some nice sitting areas and a big fireplace. It’s an expensive place to eat, but the two of you can do just fine for under $125 by working your way through the small plates, splitting an entrée and enjoying the very nice wine-by-the-glass list.

Alma (U of M area)
Probably on more “best” lists that any other local restaurant; the most telling is chef/owner Alex Roberts 2010 James Beard Award. Alex is a true Minneapolitan – but with a genuine New York pedigree.

The menu rotates often, so it is limited. (Actually, it’s often hard to find things that appeal to both of us.) The décor is sparse but not cold. There’s a perfect spot ‘upstairs’ for a group of 8-12 people.

Vincent (Downtown Mpls)
There actually is a ‘Vincent’ in the kitchen – and he’s a for-real French guy. From France. Go figure! (He followed his wife here when she went to work for NWA.) The food is definitely French, but not the pretentious kind. It’s of the very solid/savory variety, like a burger, steak, scallops - even a Hebrew National at the bar – and all definitely ‘award winning’.

The best place to go before or after Orchestra Hall: Before - for the very-reasonably-priced happy hour – the best steak tartar anywhere (capers and worcestershire) or the burger stuffed with short ribs and smoked gouda. Or, after - to see who comes in after the show and to enjoy some of the best food in Minneapolis.

Waisted Gray Matter: Slim Your Way To A Bigger Brain!

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:48:00 +0000

I recently had a very interesting discussion with a Chemical Engineering buddy on delivering oxygen to the brain. (Admittedly, 30 years ago, we would have typically been working on the opposite process – especially in the course of a deep conversation.) As a medical device industry professional, Peter Horwich currently works in the area of tissue perfusion and oxygenation systems used in cardiopulmonary bypass procedures with companies like Guidant, Medtronic and small medical technology start-ups. Peter’s niche is in commercializing novel medical technologies in order to improve patient care.

According to Peter, "If you are like most people, the month of January usually begins the new year with a recommitment to exercise. Seems like every year, the amount of body weight to burn off is just a little bit more than previous. However, the importance of aerobic exercise has the potential to provide more than just a smaller waist line. Recent research suggests that regular exercise improves brain health and boosts memory capacity via the growth of grey matter (known as neurogenesis). Think of it like this: By running, you bring more oxygen to your tissues that result in burning your mid-line fat while also bolstering your memory.”

Peter believes the following article by Tamara Cohen of the Daily Mail does a credible job of summing up the current thinking:

We all know running is good for your body. But it can also do wonders for the mind, according to Cambridge University scientists. A regular jog leads to the growth of new cells in the area of the brain which boosts your memory, a study has found.

It is not clear why aerobic exercise triggers the growth of grey matter (known as neurogenesis) but it may be linked to increased blood flow or higher levels of hormones that are released while exercising.

Timothy Bussey, a behavioural neuroscientist at Cambridge and a senior author on the study said the team studied two groups of mice, one which had unlimited access to a running wheel while the other did not. After a few days left alone, they put both groups of mice through a series of memory tests on a computer screen. It displayed two identical squares side by side, and if they nudged the one on the left with their nose they received a sugar pellet reward, while the one on the right yielded nothing. The mice who had been running were almost twice as successful as those in the control group at picking the correct square. At the start of the test, the squares were 30cm apart, but got closer and closer together until they were almost touching. This part of the experiment was designed to test how good the mice were at separating two very similar memories. The human equivalent could be remembering what a person had for dinner yesterday and the day before, or where they parked on different trips to the supermarket. The greatest improvement was seen in the later stages of the experiment, when the two squares were so close they nearly touched, according to a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The sedentary mice got steadily worse at the test because their memories became too similar to separate.

Dr. Bussey told the Guardian: 'At this stage of the experiment, the two memories the mice are forming of the squares are very similar. It is when they have to distinguish between the two that these new brain cells really make a difference.' He added: 'We know exercise can be good for healthy brain function, but this work provides us with a mechanism for the effect.'

The scientists also tried to wrongfoot the mice by switching the square that produced a food reward but the running mice were quicker to catch on when scientists changed them around.

Brain tissue taken from the rodents showed that the running mice had grown fresh grey matter during the experiment. Tissue samples from the dentate gyrus part of the brain, one of the few regions of the adult brain which can grow new cells, revealed on average 6,000 new brain cells had been created.

Previous studies on people with depression have found their symptoms can improve if they exercise regularly. Some antidepressant drugs work by encouraging the growth of new brain cells. It is also thought exercise might also reduce stress, which inhibits new brain cells through a hormone called cortisol.

The Cambridge researchers joined forces with colleagues at the US National Institute on Ageing in Maryland to investigate the effect of running. A few days of running led to the growth of hundreds of thousands of new brain cells that improved the ability to recall memories without confusing them, a skill that is crucial for learning and other cognitive tasks, researchers said.

Something to think about... but I'm still an ardent subscriber to Cliff Clavin's "Buffalo Theory" on brain function:

“Well ya see, Norm, it’s like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. So when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.

The human brain works that way too. It only operates as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. So, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That’s why you always feel smarter after a few beers.”

Now THAT'S what I call solid science!

Review: Trivail (Robinsdale)

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:15:00 +0000

Travail (Robinsdale)
Travail was opened in August 2010 by 2 young chef-restaurant-owner-wanna-be's (via the defunct Victory 44). Although it is, hands down, the best thing going in Robinsdale (42nd and Broadway) - and the food was inventive and well crafted, it was inconsistent and over the top in its presentation. Hats off to these guys for their courage but, Travail is an operationally amateur effort and lacks the service, snap and warmth of other chef-inspired competitors.

We won't be going back soon, but it is worth checking out - especially if you are in the neighborhood.

Antioxidants: What are they? What do they do? Why does that matter?

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 20:17:00 +0000

First, The Chemistry Lesson: Oxidation is one of, if not the most common chemical processes. Things like fire (turning carbon into carbon dioxide), rust (turning iron into iron oxide) and metabolism (the oxidation of sugar into CO2 and water) are all ‘oxidation’. The easiest way to stop oxidation is to keep the oxygen away: In the case of fire, smother it or, in the case of rust, paint it. In the case of metabolism, it becomes a little tougher and more complex.

Antioxidants all share an ability to ‘block’ oxygen. Most of what we think of as antioxidants in food (which we used to call preservatives, by they way) actually become the sacrificial lamb by using up the oxygen themselves.

Rancidity, staling, dull colors, ‘warmed-over’ flavor and ‘cardboard-ish’ flavor are all examples of oxidation problems in food. However, the one that is currently getting everyone all whipped up is a very specific reaction that produces free radicals as a byproduct of oxidation.

Free radicals are just ‘unpaired’ molecules (and molecules really don’t like to be unpaired) so they run around looking for something to hook onto – and they’re totally compulsive about it until they do. (It’s like teenagers in love: they can’t stand to be out-and-about not holding hands.)

Free radicals are problematic because this “need to hold hands” makes them ‘super-oxidizers’. What we think of as ‘nutritional’ antioxidants (vitamins C, A, E and others with long names, which are usually enzymes) are just compounds that do a good job of holding hands with free radicals – thereby rendering them harmless. (Much like the sense of relief I feel if that nipple-pierced freak at the mall is holding hands with someone other than my daughter.)

We worry about free radicals because their super oxidizing capability is linked with cell degeneration (aging) and other screwy cell behavior (cancer) caused by the rapid oxidation of sensitive biological molecules. This incredibly complex chemistry is, at best, only barely understood - which is the best argument I can think of for staying away from antioxidant supplements. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that some enzyme-type antioxidant supplements (superoxide dismutases) may actually cause the problems they are claiming to prevent.

On the other hand, there is a solution: Plants do a great job of producing antioxidants that are effective against free radicals. They evolved to this for good reason: Their cells often have only one season to survive drought, pests, disease and other stresses – so they protect them by producing great antioxidants. Coincidentally, these same antioxidants also act to protect the pigments in bright, richly colored plants.

Bottom line: The most effective way to combat free radical cell damage is to consume the antioxidants obtained from eating bright, richly colored fruits and vegetables. According to the USDA, the 10 foods with the greatest antioxidant content are Red Beans, Blue/Cran/Black/Straw/Raspberries, Apples, Cherries, Plums, and Black Beans. You can be sure that other colorful plants (beets, carrots, pomegranate …) are great sources of antioxidants too!

Ann and Den's Restaurant List

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:57:00 +0000

We've been ask for our 'list' so often, we thought it'd be a good idea to start publishing it on Chons CaFe. Here are the current "Top Five". Look for the "Top Ten/Next Five", and so on, as well as updates and highlights, in the future!

Top Five

112 Eatery (Downtown Mpls)
Chef’s Chef, Isaac Becker and his wife Nancy St. Pierre’s firstborn (and a great example of the talent that the D’Amico system cranks into the Twin Cities restaurant scene). A sincerely personal and well disciplined staff serves not-very-expensive culinary creations. Easily the best food in town for the last half-dozen years.

Personal favorites: Tagliatelle w/ Foie Gras Meatballs, Scallops – and, if you’re hungry (or on an expense account): Nori Encrusted Sirloin w/ Ponzu. Ann goes almost exclusively for the Sweet & Sour Crab Salad.

Lucia’s (Uptown)
Lucia Watson is the 25 yr reigning queen of the 'local-vores' - she does an absolutely great job of proving that 'locally grown' doesn't mean 'plain'. If you are lucky enough to spot Lucia, she can tell you the 'people' story behind every menu item. Or - ask Steph the bartender, Robert the server - or anyone there - they'll give you the low-down. The bread alone (from Lucia's bakery, next door) is worth the trip!

Personal favorites: We recommend you start with the Rosemary Spiced Nuts, whatever else you do. I can make a meal of the bread and soup. Ann doesn't even order - they just bring her a Cheese Plate, honey and some greens.

Bar La Grassa (Warehouse District)
Isaac and Nancy (see 112 Eatery) took a big risk about a year ago - and it's a big hit! A great selection of both fresh and dried pasta creations - from traditional to very interesting (like urchin on torcio). I particularly like that you can order nearly every item in half-size. (Not that I eat half as much - I just get twice as much variety.) Currently, the place-to-be-seen, La Grassa is packed even on Mondays - and for good reason.

Personal favorites: The Lobster and Egg Bruchetta followed by Spagetti Carbonara - but, play around - there's lots to choose from, the items change often, and I've never been disappointed.

Biella (Excelsior)
Whoever thinks you can't find great Italian in a romantic setting outside the 494/694 loop, hasn't been to Biella! A romantic neighborhood feel, in a quaint Main Street setting. (The space housed the town bike store for years: high cielings with nice brick-and-plaster ambiance.) The menu isn't extensive, but has some real winners. Chef Raul Templanuevo really works miracles - especially given the stingy nature of the amiable-crumudgian owner, Mark Nazigian. We always sit at the bar because Dave "takes care of us" - but, if you are making a reservation for two, which I highly reccomend Thursday-thru-Saturday, request the window seats.

Personal favorites: The Scallops are the best anywhere. After that, I go for the Mussels and Chorizo in White Wine and Chimichiri or the Seafood Fettuccini. Ann is hooked on the Sauted Calimari in Harrissa.

Cafe 28 (Linden Hills)
Take a nice walk around Lake Harriet and then stroll a couple more blocks up Linden Hills Blvd to the old fire station on 43rd. Simple fare, locally grown with emphasis on sustainable and organic. Pretty kid friendly too. (Not sure that is always a plus.) Todd Haug, of Surly Brewery fame, is co-owner - so the beer list, while not the most extensive, is the best I've seen/tried. If you can locate the manager, Cory, ask him for an aria - he's a very accomplished Pavarotti-wanna-be - who's not shy about belting one out as you have a belt.

Personal favorites: Tofu Tacos in Salsa Verde make the top of my head glow. Gotta love'm! The Pork in Adobo is also a killer. Ann: Champagne Pear Salad.

Calories In, Calories Out - One More Time for the Slow Learners

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:59:00 +0000

About a year ago, we blogged:

"Calories in = Calories out. Always. That's just the way it is. A calorie, is a calorie, is a calorie: Calories are all the same - regardless of where the come from or when you eat them..."

Many of you took great exception to that statement, arguing about "eating before bed" and "fruits and vegetables" and "what about Atkins!". However you can't argue that all calories don't provide the same amount of energy - because they do - by definition.

Enter Mark Haub, Kansas State University, professor of Human Nutrition. His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food or when it is eaten.

The proof is in the pudding (or, in this case, Prof is in the Twinkies): CNN: Twinkie Diet Professor

Commodity Recalls: A Reversal of Fortune.

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:24:00 +0000

The standard (and far too familiar) Scenario #1: I learn that the infant car seat I just bought has a safety defect. I return my defective unit to the store and get a brand new, safer version. The consumer wins and the manufacturer loses. Fair-mindedness prevails.

Now think about what happens when a commodity food item is recalled.

• Products like hamburger, spinach, eggs, chicken, fish, produce, fruit, etc. are undifferentiated – i.e., consumers don’t necessarily associate them with a brand or particular company.
• On top of being ubiquitous, they are also perishable.
• And - they don’t cost much.

This combination of perishability, interchangability and low cost creates quite a different equation for the consumer.

Scenario #2: I learn about a hamburger recall. I don’t bother to find out whose hamburger, or which retailer, or what dates, I just toss my hamburger in the trash and buy more next time I go to the grocery store.

Here’s the micro-economics of what just happened: My demand for hamburger just doubled. (I bought twice as much this week as I normally would because I tossed the first round last week.) At the same time, the supply of hamburger can’t increase quickly. (Commodity food supplies react slowly because they have to be grown, which takes time.) In addition, in some cases, whole producers are taken out of the market, reducing the supply even further.

The Law of Supply and Demand says “Increased demand in the face of reduced supply causes prices to rise.” (This assumes price elasticity, of which commodities are a classic example.)

This is, in fact, exactly what often happens with commodity markets: prices can take an unprecedented rise right after a major recall. We saw this recently as a result of the egg recall for salmonella contamination: The recall was first announced on August 13th. By September 1st, egg prices had risen 40% and prices eventually almost doubled by November.

Unlike the first scenario this causes a reversal of fortune - one not in the consumer’s favor. You buy more and pay more while the manufacturer enjoys a period of windfall profits.

Just food for thought…

I See Sea Salt...

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:01:00 +0000

I’m starting to see sea salt everywhere – and am starting to wonder why. As a ‘gourmet’ ingredient, it definitely has some interesting flavor attributes and, in some instances, provides nice color and texture characteristics. But, is it actually GOOD for you?

In reality, sea salt and table salt are basically the same thing: Sodium Chloride. Sea salt is made by evaporating sea water. Table salt is mined from the earth – which ended up there when the ancient seas evaporated. From that perspective, they are identical. Both are even excavated using the same equipment: front-end loaders and dump trucks. The big difference comes from what happens after they are scooped up.

Traditional table salt is purified to remove trace minerals and impurities that occur in seawater. Some of these impurities are, arguably, good for you: iron, sulfur, magnesium. Some impurities are definitely not: lead and mercury, for example. In addition, table salt manufacturers add iodine, an essential nutrient which isn’t found in sea salt. Products marketed as sea salt are often sold ‘as is’. Whatever was in the water, ends up in the salt.

All things considered, I tend to fall back on the ‘evolutionary’ argument to make the decision: The salt we evolved on looked more like the sea than it did Morton’s. Therefore, sea salt probably has some nuances that better provide for our nutritional needs.

On the other hand, the idea that sea salt has lower sodium is pure bunk.

Sea salt and table salt have exactly the same sodium content. But, because they have no agreed upon regulatory identity, products labeled ‘sea salt’ can contain just about anything. Claims like “100% Sea Salt”, “100% Natural”, “Organic” and “Pure” are all fair game and are used with impunity. For example, the popular ‘low sodium’ sea salts achieve that claim by cutting them with other, non-sodium, salts – mainly potassium chloride. This is exactly how low sodium table salt is made. Because potassium chloride can be found in sea water (but at very low levels), the manufacturers argue that adding large quantities of it to ‘regular’ sea salt, means it can still be labeled “100% sea salt”.

Bottom line:
Sea salt is pretty neat stuff and a great addition to any pantry – as a seasoning.
Sea salt is NOT a particularly healthy alternative to table salt – especially in terms of sodium reduction.

Tuna: What's better - 'Oil' or 'Water'?

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 04:06:00 +0000

Oil by a long shot.

So I’ve been told emphatically by a colleague who oughta know – he has a BS in Meat Science and was Manager of Process Development for “Big Tuna”. (Tell ‘em Charlie sent you?). With over 500 tuna product tasting panels under his belt (literally), he claims that “No one in the [tuna] industry eats the water pack unless forced to. More water is sold, but oil is way better.”

So, what makes the water packed product so inferior? When the precooked tuna meat is retorted (cooked in the can) with water, the water moves into the fish, which makes the fish mushy and changes the flavor. The water also contains high levels of salt as well as a vegetable broth containing soy fiber. In effect, you’re getting watered down fish – and less actual tuna meat in the can.

With oil packed tuna, none of this happens. The oil surrounds the tuna meat, but doesn’t migrate into it. Much less broth is used or, in some cases, no broth at all – which means you taste the superior tuna flavor, not the veggies and soy.

The vegetable broth is added solely to create water retention in the fish cake – which increases the “press weight” (amount of “fish” in the can), which determines the weight claimed on the can label. With oil pack, you get more actual fish; around 3 ounces of tuna meat in a 6 ounce can.

Ok, but we all buy the water packed product because it’s a LOT better for you, right?

Wrong.

Once you drain the can, both the ‘oil’ version and the ‘water’ version are remarkably the same, nutritionally. In fact, the calorie and fat content are equal. The water pack actually has slightly more sodium and the oil pack has slightly more protein.

Then, why is the water packed product the big seller?

In the early 1970's the big 3 tuna companies started moving tuna operations off shore. (At that time, well over 95% of all canned tuna was packed in oil.) The US Government decided to get involved (surprise) and fix the off shore ‘problem’ by imposing a special tariff on incoming tuna. In true bureaucratic fashion, the regulation referred to “canned in oil”. The tuna industry decided to beat the tariff by promoting the health benefits of water pack… and over the years have managed to convince us of exactly that. The public now ‘knows’ that water packed tuna is the best!

By the way...according to my friend (who is no longer in the tuna industry - and, therefore, unbiased), the best tuna on the market is Genova's Tonno in olive oil. You can find it in the ethnic section of most large grocery stores....

Remember when EVERYONE was Lactose Intolerant?

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:34:00 +0000

You probably don’t remember it, but there was a time when everyone was lactose intolerant – you just have to think back about 10,000 years.

First, let's start with a simple Latin and Chemistry lesson:
• ‘lacte’ is Latin for ‘milk'.
• in Latin, ‘ose’ means ‘sugar’.
• Lactose is a basic sugar, mostly found in milk. (lacte + ose. Get it?)
     o Glucose is the simplest sugar. It is the sugar your body uses for energy. (Maybe you’ve heard the term monosaccharide? That's usually a glucose.)
     o Sucrose (plain table sugar) is a Glucose hooked to a Fructose (Maybe you’ve heard the term disaccharide?)
     o Lactose is a Glucose hooked to a Galactose (Which makes lactose a disaccharide too.)
     o A lot of ‘ose’s’, but you get the idea.
• Milk can be up to 8% lactose. Egg whites are up to about 1% lactose.
• In making cheese, most of the lactose is in the whey - and cheese is made from the curd. (Little Miss Muffit-style.) As a result, cheese contains very little lactose.
• In ‘cultured’ dairy products, like Yogurt, the lactose gets used up as the culture (bacteria) grows. That’s why you’re supposed to look for lactobacillus on the label (milk + bacteria). As a result, yogurt contains very little lactose.
• In Latin, ‘ace’ means ‘cleave’ or ‘cut’.
• Lactase (milk + cut) is an enzyme excreted in your intestines that cuts lactose in half, turning it into glucose that your blood can deliver to the rest of your body for energy.

Once upon a time, only babies drank milk. The evolutionary process is a great economizer: Since adults didn’t need to digest lactose, those who didn’t spend resources making an enzyme (lactase) they didn’t need, reproduced more successfully. The result: EVERYONE before the Neolithic Period was Lactose Intolerant after infancy.

Once we migrated out of Africa, we began to concentrated more on agriculture, including the domestication of animals. Initially we used the milk from those animals to make cheese – it was easier to transport and store. (We can probably thank the Italians for figuring that one out.) As we progressed north, we became dairy farmers who used the milk as a primary food source. (The Germanic people figured out that you can extract a LOT more calories from an animal if you milk it for a while before you eat it.) Those whose intestines could excrete lactase (i.e. were lactose tollerant), had more food available (milk), reproduced more succesfully and became a bigger percentage of the population.

Today, the results of that evolutionary process are evident in how people from different geographic areas tolerate lactose:
• Nearly ALL Africans and Asians never had milk beyond infancy – and today nearly ALL (over 90%) are lactose intolerant.
• 70% of the people from near the Mediterranean (like Italians - the original cheese-heads) are still lactose intolerant.
• Those descendent from northern Europe have predominantly developed an ability to use milk into adulthood. Only 5% are lactose intolerant.

So, from a historical perspective, we didn’t develop an intolerance for lactose – we developed a tolerance.

(Claim on Technorati RF7S8X5PPN79 C75ZS8AQP6H9)

FDA warns about false claims made regarding turkey.

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:04:00 +0000

24 November 2009-U.S.

FDA Watch: Warning Letter Issued to Food Producers

In surprise move today, the The US Food and Drug Administration has written warning letters to United States turkey producers, the growers and processors of the popular Thanksgiving element, explaining that they have reviewed the general labeling of the industries’ frozen, uncooked turkey products and found that most labels contain "serious violations" of federal regulations.

The details of the FDA findings are in a letter dated earlier this week, from the Midwest director for the FDA to turkey producers who are purveyors of the central dish of America’s one true National holiday.

According to the FDA, turkey producers are breaking federal regulations on three counts: they are growing, processing turkey as an "unapproved new drug" and misbranding the product by making "unauthorized health claims" and “failing to inform the public” about health risks and dangers of consuming the product.”

The FDA letter to the food companies states:

"FDA's review found serious violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and the applicable regulations in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR)."

The FDA said that the frozen and unfrozen turkey product labels promotes it like a drug intended for use in the "prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease". The letter drew particular attention to phrases that say the product claims pertaining to cholesterol, and the other “healthy white meat.” Claims pertaining to the ability to lower cholesterol by "4 per cent in 6 weeks", that it can also reduce bad cholesterol by 4 per cent, and that it is "clinical proven" to lower cholesterol. The FDA went on to address that such claims are spurious at best when considered that turkey is rarely made without seasoning and never served as a stand alone dish.

The letter does not address the veracity of the claims, instead it addresses the point that by making such claims then the product is really a drug and should go through the proper channels for obtaining drug approval.

For example, as the letter explains, the claims indicate that producers have claimed that turkey is: "Intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia." And by claiming that the product lowers total and bad cholesterol, then it is also claiming to treat heart disease, for which total and bad (LDL) cholesterol are known risk factors. This is what puts the product in the "new drug" category, and the letter quotes several sections of "the Act" to support their case. The FDA said another reason that turkey is considered to be a "new drug" was because under another section of "the Act", it is "not generally recognized as safe and effective for use in preventing or treating hypercholesterolemia or coronary heart disease".

The letter’s second claim was the equivalent of a bombshell when the FDA took an aggressive tact on the known levels of tryptophan contained within the natural chemistry of turkey, both uncooked and frozen. Tryptophan is an essential amino acid, meaning that the body can't manufacture it. The body has to get tryptophan and other essential amino acids from food. Tryptophan helps the body produce the B-vitamin niacin, which, in turn, helps the body produce serotonin, a remarkable chemical that acts as a calming agent in the brainand plays a key role in sleep.

The FDA acknowledged that they had no evidence that turkey producers were artificially enhancing higher levels of tryptophan during the typical 20 week growing season, but the FDA made no bones about their view that turkey producers were not discouraging turkeys from engaging in eating habits and activities that may enhance the ability of young turkeys to produce dangerous levels of tryptophan, which in turn would be passed on to ultimate consumers of turkey.

The FDA said that the dangers of high levels of tryptophan are well-known, particularly around the Thanksgiving holiday season when excessive amounts of turkey are consumed by vast portions of the American public. Turkey producers “turn a negligent eye” from the glut of turkey consumption, according to one unnamed source close to the FDA. “Turkey producers are no different than pushers on the street” (sic) referring the lack of conscience in distributing a “laced” product. Further parallels were made to a turkey being the equivalent of “a massive syringe, willingly being placed in the mouths of ravenous Americans by their own hand…” Ironically, sociologists point out that postprandial Thanksgiving day sedation (and its dangers) likely has more to do with what else is consumed along with the turkey, in particular massive doses of carbohydrates in deceptive forms and excessive alcohol consumption. This observation correlates with the FDA’s third claim.

On the issue of misbranding, the FDA said that turkey producers bear "unauthorized health claims in its labeling" and cites text on the various producers' websites, which under the Act is considered to be part of the product labeling, as being faulty in this respect. The labeling should include disclaimers and warnings akin to "WARNING: eating large quantities of this product can produce drowsiness, feelings of lethargy, excessive bloating and gas." While the FDA has not elaborated, FDA precedence would likely also lead to similar warnings of “WARNING: do not operate or use heavy machinery or operate a vehicle after consuming this product” or “ WARNING: consumption of this product mixed with alcohol and carbohydrates could result in adverse health and social consequences.”

The letter also refers to another labeling omission about the excessive trimmings and ancillary dishes typically served with turkey. Dressing with high levels of gluten and salt, yams with sugary marshmallows and brown sugar, green beans with mushroom base and salty dried onion toppings, cranberries laced with high concentrations of pectin, sugar and red dye #40, potatoes with copious amounts of starch and preservatives (although garlic and chives do have certain health benefits) and the kiss of death, turkey gravy which has highly concentrated levels of tryptophan itself, cleverly disguised in turkey drippings and fat. Space does not allow for a detailed description of potential life-ending versions of desserts that quickly follow the ritual gluttony or the fluids used to “chase down” the collective meal or the desire to forget the conversation with the participants that you are dining with.

The FDA said the lack of adequate warnings about consumption, use, side effects and use of the product while being consumed with ancillary products fails to meet the authorized format because, for example, like the other claim, it does not mention the obvious warnings, nor does it address the overall context of the healthy (or lack thereof) diet.

In what could otherwise be categorized as an unprecedented coda, the agency also took issue with the added phrase "Have a Happy” before the seasonal references to Thanksgiving on most packaging without actually citing a violation or potential violation as a basis. As the FDA letter explains:

"The claim authorized through the notification procedure of “Have a Happy” does not emphasize the relationship between perceived happiness that one may have prior to consuming the food and stark contrast to how one feels within a half hour after consuming it, not to mention how they feel about it a week later when consuming leftovers." Thinly veiled references to "mislabeling" appear to be the motivation as the "claim" of "happy" is an intended outcome as opposed to a seasonal greeting. Third party sources have commented that anything relative to “Have a Happy…” and the FDA in the same sentence clearly has no idea of what they are talking about.

Turkey Producer spokesperson, Jonathon J. Johnson, Jr. provided some confusing commentary at a press conference this morning stating that “as far as we know, the turkeys are in good health and generally happy until two weeks before Thanksgiving.” “We cannot comment on the use of drugs by any of our turkeys.” “We have nothing further to add... (unintelligible) ...we’re happy...(unintelligible)… bender; I have to go now.”
PETA spokesperson, Drew Laney released a statement applauding the FDA for its criticism of the turkey producers, but attempted to draw blood on the FDA by demanding that they immediately enact a “Cease & Desist” on the entire industry to avoid further loss of life, health risks and obvious dangers. Laney's release elaborated that this would have a benefit to humans as well.

Turkey producers have 15 days to reply with an explanation of how they intend to "correct the violations" and to ensure that "similar violations do not occur". While the FDA has written off this years’ Thanksgiving holiday as having too much momentum to provide a meaningful impact on changing labeling practices, the FDA is aiming to bring sweeping changes to the turkey industry prior to the upcoming Christmas/New Year’s holiday consumption season.

- submitted anonymously (Think I could get a job writing for the Onion?)

Get low to the ground – and start listening!

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Sullivan) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:29:00 +0000

I believe eating ‘low to the ground’* is something our bodies naturally want – and, perhaps, even need. Given our busy lifestyles, it’s nearly impossible to hear (or even listen to) a body all cranked up on drive-thru food and over processed foods that need to be loaded with colorings, added flavors, preservatives and fillers just to make them palatable. I know, through personal experience, that the longer I went without eating manufactured foods, the more I began to hear my body. Sounds a bit extreme - but it actually happens. I didn’t set out expecting or looking for this either. I did it as a health plan – as a way to eat more naturally. However, as a by-product of doing so, my body started talking to me. Kind of like a car telling you to change its oil, get new brake pads or get more gas. (I love the expression “I run like a well oiled machine”. I think that’s true.)

I listen to my body on other subjects all the time: When I’m tired, I rest. When my knee hurts, I walk instead of run. When I’m stressed, I try to exercise. Why wouldn’t eating, one of the most basic things we do for our bodies, be exactly the same? One way our bodies talk is through the language of cravings. I crave certain foods when I am tired or stressed – or energetic. If we teach our bodies - by giving them nutritious food for a while – and then listen – they will start to tell us what we need. A body hyped up on fast food and preservatives will probably crave more of the same – it just doesn’t know any better. But given 3-4 weeks ‘low to the ground’, the body will start to crave nutritious foods.

I know, with schedules and families to feed, it’s hard to stick to such a pure regimen, but just starting to think in these terms can make a huge difference. You can be as extreme as you like: how far you go is up to you. Simply being conscious of what you put in your mouth is a healthy start…
…it’s all just food for thought!

*Think of ‘low to the ground’ as foods locally grown, minimally processed and probably eaten by your ancestors.

Ann Sullivan is a self-proclaimed “Food Anthropologist” and an avid health and fitness activist. After 20 years as a wife and stay-at-home-mom, preparing meals to satisfy the masses instead of her inner voice, she has started listening – and is discovering an entirely new level of nutritional health and personal satisfaction.

My Thoughts on Umami - by Tilak Nagodawithana, Ph.D.

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:52:00 +0000

I once met an elderly lady in the grocery store who was looking for the “no MSG” printed on the soup label to make sure she was not buying the product which everyone tells her is nutritionally unhealthy. I inquired if she had any reaction to consuming MSG-containing foods such as tomato, cheese, mushroom, meat, fish or Chinese food and the answer was negative. If this compound is facing so much negative publicity, let us see why it is so, considering the fact that this organic compound is present in almost all foods we consume.

MSG is the sodium salt of glutamic acid which is the most abundant amino acid in all proteins. Japanese found early on (Ikeda in 1908) that the active ingredient in sea tangle, which they used extensively to enhance the savoriness in soup is the sodium salt of glutamic acid. In the 1960s, Kuninaka found that in human taste sensation, there exist a remarkable synergy between glutamate (MSG) and 5’-nucleotides (5’-IMP and 5’-GMP) present in mushroom and bonito. Today, these three products which enhance the flavor and brothiness of less savory products are referred to as umami compounds. Although there has been great deal of studies conducted on the properties of these three compounds, the mechanism by which it enhances savory flavor is not worked out yet.

However, extensive studies have revealed that the receptor sites for these three umami compounds are different from the receptor sites related to primary taste stimuli, namely, sweet, sour, salty and bitter. Because of this unique nature, it is now considered as the fifth basic taste.

During evolution, why did living forms develop specific receptors for sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and umami in the oral cavity? A simple explanation is to address nutritional problems and promote sustenance. For example, sweet receptors can detect much needed calorie foods; Salt receptors can provide Na ions to maintain sodium balance; Bitter perception can help avoid poisonous material; avoidance of excess sour compound to prevent tissue damage; and Umami receptors for living things to get attracted to the much needed proteins and amino acids for synthesis of enzymes and other nitrogenous compounds to maintain the biological functions. If Glutamate (MSG), which is a key Umami compound, is totally avoided from our food, which in essence is a way to completely avoid consumption of the much needed protein, the consequences can be disastrous. If that had been the case in evolution, the elderly lady I met in the grocery store may not have been there to read the label, in the first place.

How To Get Enough Calcium

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:11:00 +0000

Everybody needs Calcium, right? If you aren’t getting enough in your diet, just drink some milk or take a supplement, right? Wrong!

First off: If you are eating even close to a balanced diet, you’re getting plenty of calcium. It’s everywhere and in all kinds of foods – dairy, of course – but also in green vegetables, fish, nuts and fruit.

Here’s the gem: Calcium uptake isn’t a function of how much extra calcium you ingest. It is a function of how much muscle mass you have. It makes perfect sense: When you build muscle mass, your body says “I’d better strengthen my bones to support these muscles”. You release chemicals that signal for the absorption of more calcium.

The lesson: Take all the supplements you want. Unless you start moving around – or, better yet, lift some weights, they’ll do you no good at all. Stop mega-dosing. The best way to avoid osteoporosis is a diet rich in calcium and regular light weight lifting.

Calories in. Calories out.

noreply@blogger.com (Den Sullivan) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:48:00 +0000

Like Scotty says on Star Trek, “I can’t change the laws of physics!” He’s right, and you can’t either.

A ‘calorie’ is a measure of the ‘work’ done. In physics, Work = Force x Distance. Here on earth (because of gravity), you can pretty much equate “Force” with “Weight”. So a calorie will move a certain amount of weight (like your body, or a dumbbell) a certain distance (like a mile, or from the floor to over your head).

All foods provide calories that we use to perform work (i.e. move weight over a distance). Carbohydrates and Proteins provide about the same amount: 4 calories per gram. Fats provide more: 9 calories/gram. (An easy way to calculate the calories in a food is to remember “PFC 494”. To calculate calories, add the grams of Protein x 4, Fat x 9 and Carbs x 4.)

Even though all foods can be used for calories, they can be used for other things too - and they get converted into calories in different ways.
· Carbs are only used to generate calories.
· Proteins provide the building blocks for life: to create muscle, tissue, organs, bones, nerves, etc. Your body will also burn proteins (to make calories) if there aren’t any carbs around or if it has extra proteins, but that’s kind of like burning the furniture to heat the house. It’s your body’s last choice.
· Fat stores calories. Your body can get calories directly from the fats you eat – or from the fat you have saved up all around your body.

Calories in = Calories out. Always. That’s just the way it is (back to the laws of physics.) A calorie, is a calorie, is a calorie: Calories are all the same – regardless of where they come from or when you eat them – and there is only one way to get rid of them: by doing work! If you eat too many, your body stores them as fat. If you don’t eat enough, your body will get the calories it needs from stored fat.

Dieting, although not easy, is simple: If you use more calories (by moving weight over a distance) than you take in as food, you lose weight. Period. Simple.

Myths about calories:
· Myth #1: Eating before bed-time will make you fat. It won’t - any more than eating at any other time of the day. The laws of physics on this (Work=Force x Distance) make no mention of “time of day”.
· Myth #2: It matters how fast I run or how long I work out. Actually, it doesn’t matter. There is no mention of ‘time’ or ‘speed’ in the calorie equation either – so, interestingly, the number of calories your burn has nothing to do with how long or how fast exercise. It’s all about the weight and distance. In other words, running a mile burns as many calories as walking a mile. Or, when burning calories with weights, the amount of weight matters and the number of reps matter – but how fast you do it doesn’t matter. Of course, you cover more distance if you run fast, but it takes less time – so they cancel each other out.
· Myth #3: Calories from fat are bad. No, they are the same as all other calories. Fat just has a lot of them in it.

Fun Facts:

Other familiar terms that measure “calories” include Watts, B.T.U’s, Horse Power, Joules, Foot-lbs, etc.
There is ONE other way to burn calories: By creating HEAT. So - do you burn more calories in the winter? Yes! But, compared to the calories you expend doing work (part of which creates heat too), they are nearly insignificant - and pretty constant except when you are moving.