I found today's blog post by Chik'n'Pastry so interesting I decided to try one of my own -- so without further ado, a list of the ten grocery items I'd take with me if I had to spend 2 years in Antarctica. I decided to stick with things I could buy at the regular old supermarket down the street.
Potatoes, and if I had to be specific about it, Yukon Golds. Aside from the fact that potatoes are my single favorite food on the planet, there are so many uses for them that I wouldn't get bored having them as a dietary staple. Fried, baked, mashed, boiled, I love 'em all.
Carrots. I wasn't even thinking of my health when I put these down as an immediate second to potatoes. They're good, they're good for you, and they can be prepared more than one way.
Chuck roast. We eat pot roast once a week already anyway, plus it can be used for stew with the aforementioned carrots and potatoes, and ground up if I was desperate enough for a burger.
Whole milk. Higher in fat, but since I'll be living in Antarctica I'll probably need the extra insulation. Can also be used to make butter in a pinch.
Cheddar cheese. Another source of calcium, and just good on everything.
Canned tuna. If I could only bring ONE thing with me, it would come down to a battle to the death between potatoes and canned tuna. I practically lived on the stuff when I was a kid. It's good for you, and it's delicious on its own or mixed into things.
Olive oil. Good for cooking, good for drizzling. And component 1 of a necessary condiment.
Eggs (or, if I could cheat just a smidge, a flock of chickens). I. love. eggs. They're yet another member of this list that is incredible versatile. They're the second component, along with olive oil, of mayonnaise, which by making my own would save a spot on this list. Interestingly enough, by the end of this list I'll have all the major components for making egg sandwiches, which comprised a fairly high percentage of my overall consumption while I was in college. And I still love them. Plus if I could have chickens rather than just eggs, then I would likely put aside my general squeamishness for killing things when a craving for roast chicken set in.
Frozen bread dough. Since I'm going with ingredients, this takes up less space than flour and yeast. Plus it's pretty darn versatile, if I could be certain that it would defrost properly in Antarctica.
Dill or Kosher Pickles. Another perrenial favorite of mine, that I would probably go nuts if I didn't have for two whole years.
And finally, some honorable mentions:
If beverages are not included with my trip to Antarctica, something on that list, likely the cheese, would get booted in favor of copious amounts of Diet Dr. Pepper. There are few things I require to live: oxygen, shelter, food, and DDP are among them.
I would also consider booting the cheese for canned crushed tomatoes, also delightfully versatile.
Caramel-swirl brownie mix would also be a contender; I was surprised that no sweets at all made the final list, but I wouldn't miss them as much as the ten other things I've listed.
Something on the lighter side today -- a response to this article on Yahoo's Shine section about purchases you shouldn't splurge on.
I'll respond to each item on the list individually.
Designer tights. Who in their right mind spends $20 on tights? Who in their right mind prices tights at $20!?!? THEY'RE TIGHTS. Tights are the clothing equivalent of cotton candy: they don't weigh much, they're not comprised of much, and they generally don't last very long. The article recommends not spending more than $10. I don't even remember ever spending that much on tights. The last time I bought them they was at Target, and they were on sale for $3. Regular price is $7. This should be a no-brainer, but apparently not. $20? SERIOUSLY?
Brand name food. This is where I disagree somewhat. Generic food brands have improved immensely, that I agree. However, there are some things that for $0.50 more are really worth the quality. I've yet to find generic process cheese squares that hold a candle to Kraft Singles. Generic Cheerios just don't make the cut for me, though for what it's worth I also like my Cheerios straight out of the box, so that's probably where some of the difference comes in. Generic milk? It may vary in other areas, but where I live the generic milk actually comes from the same local dairy, and is therefore the exact same milk, but cheaper. Shredded cheese? No real difference. Animal crackers? Not so much. They're still not crackers, and they still taste good. A bit of a warning on this one, though. Watch the ads and such. Often when the name brands are on sale, they'll actually be a better deal; sometimes the opposite is true. Check the unit prices on the price tags. If you can't find the unit price (sometimes they'll be ripped off or blocked by a sale tag or sticker), do the math in your head or use the calculator function on your cell phone.
Café Coffee. Though I don't drink coffee and live an hour from the nearest Starbucks, this is some pretty good advice. The same goes for raging Diet Dr. Pepper addicts like me: if a 20 oz. bottle is $1.25 at a convenience store and a 6-pack of the 20 oz. bottles is $4 at the grocery store, buy them at the grocery store. Cans are even cheaper, but less convenient when on the go.
Mail. This one is true most of the time. However, watch out for companies that charge 'convenience fees' for this kind of service. My satellite service, internet, and cell phone companies all have free online-pay. My car insurance company charges $3 to pay the old fashioned way and $2 for direct debit (there's no free way to pay with them, always a service charge). My energy bill is free to pay the by mail, but charges $3.50 to pay with a credit card online or over the phone. $0.44 for a stamp is a heck of a lot more convenient than $3.50. If you don't use them often, buy the 'Forever' kind that can be used, as their name implies, even after there's a rate increase.
Cocktails. I agree with the sentiment, but not the advice here. Why not drop the alcohol period? I was a rare drinker before the economy went to hell, and dropped the bottle of wine I occasionally bought to cook with once I started tightening the budget. I've never really understood people who consider alcohol a necessity for a fun evening. But hey, if you do, so be it, and remember to designate a driver and all that. Be safe!
Finally, a piece of my own advice. If you use a lot of over-the-counter cold medication or painkillers, buy generic. They're legally obligated to contain the same active ingredients (read: the stuff that makes you feel better) as their name-brand counterparts. The only differences are in the fillers/flavorings and fancy packaging. Generics are often labeled by their more formal names or active ingredients, so learn to look for those: Tylenol = Acetaminophen, Advil = Ibuprofen, Aleve = Naproxen, etc. It's the same thing, just with a different name. If you're confused, ask a pharmacist, they're there to help!
The article that brought this issue to my attention can be found here.
The website for the diet in question can be found here.
The 'As Seen on Extra' video can be found here.
The 'Mike and Juliet' video can be found here.
A bit of background/personal perspective first: I'm 23 years old, 5 ft. 4 in., and weigh about 140. I say 'about' 140 because my weight tends to go up or down 10 lbs. depending on the time of year, how I'm feeling, what my schedule is, etc. If it's on the high side I tend to watch my intake a bit more, try to get a little more exercise, but nothing too specific. If it's on the low side I wear my skinny jeans. All in all, I am not particularly concerned about my weight. This is why it pains me to see absurd diets plastered all over the internet, 'news' shows, etc. I know that not everyone can have the same attitude towards weight that I do, and I've seen it personally, but this is a new level of absurdity. I'm going to bullet point this as much as possible to avoid a big, angry wall of text.
The basics are as follows:
You may drink anything you want as long as it doesn't have calories (i.e. water, diet soda, and... that's about it).
You may have five bites of any food at lunch.
You may have five bites of any food at dinner.
You should take one multivitamin per day.
You should average a bite of 'quality' protein per day.
Great big bites are not allowed, your overall intake should be the volume of 'two regular-sized Snickers bars.'
The reasoning behind this is that you will reset your body's expectations of portion and intake, much like if you were getting a gastric bypass or lap band procedure, but without the icky surgery part.
Let's look at a few of the things I, as a Jane Notadoctor, find grossly wrong with this diet.
In the 'Mike and Juliet' interview, Dr. Lewis says 'I actually recommend skipping breakfast.' When questioned about this, he changes the subject back to gastric bypass. Since I have no desire to drop $22.45 + shipping to buy a copy of the book, and there aren't many specifics on the website (other than the link to buy the book), this will remain one of my largest concerns with the diet as a whole. Almost every week you see something new about how important breakfast is. The Mayo Clinic has something to say about it. A Google Scholar search for 'importance of breakfast' brings up about 140,000 hits. Speaking from experience, I feel like crap if I don't have at least a little something for breakfast. When questioned about the lack of breakfast in the interview, Dr. Lewis' only response is that Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine states that an obese person could survive a year without food.
In the second part of the 'Mike and Juliet' interview, an internist (Robert R. Segal M.D. of NYU) and a registered dietician (couldn't catch her name because of the applause, it sounded like Terri Gands or something similar) basically voice every concern I have over this thing with professional voice and the proof to back it up, including but not limited to the scary lack of nutrients and the plethora of health problems that could stem from following this kind of plan. What boggles my mind is that the interview is featured on the diet plan's website, as if it's supposed to be some sort of positive support. Maybe they think people following the plan will be too weak from lack of nutrients to make it past the first part of the video with the doctor touting the benefits of the diet to the second part of the video where the nutritionist and internist throw a fit.
While the doctor keeps touting this diet as the non-surgical answer to gastric bypass, that in and of itself is only supposed to be used in situations of extreme or health-endangering obesity. While some of the before-and-after photos on the site show people who may have legitimately needed to lose weight, others, in particular the first one, look as though they may have been at a perfectly healthy weight to begin with, and nowhere near the BMI of 35 or higher that would begin to qualify someone for gastric bypass.
And finally, some thoughts for comparison.
WebMD has a BMI calculator that will also tell you how many calories you need to cut to lose weight. A normal caloric intake is 2000 calories. At my height and weight, if I wanted to average a 2-pound-per week weight loss, I should still be ingesting 1200 calories a day. If the 'two Snickers bars' worth of food you ingest on the diet each day was comprised of actual Snickers bars, you'd only be consuming a total of 560 calories and 28 grams of fat. And you thought candy bars weren't a health food! If you consumed nothing but butter, and figured the 2-Snickers equivalent at 1 and 1/2 sticks per day, you'd be consuming 1200 calories. So apparently butter can be your ticket to weight loss!
In all seriousness, food is great. It's delicious, it's nutritious, and it helps our bodies do the things we need to do each day. This video, concerning another questionably safe diet, echoes my sentiments pretty clearly. (The language in this video is a bit peppery, so if anyone's actually reading this and you're at work or around small children, you've been fairly warned)
There are plenty of healthy options for weight loss, some that will even make you a good deal healthier than you were before. The USDA food pyramid site is a good place to start. Our First Lady also has a good deal to say about healthy eating -- in case you've been living in a cave for the past year, it's her primary platform. Let's Move.gov is the website, and it's got lots more links.
Before I move on to a new topic, I thought I'd add one bit of new information to the whole Family Guy controversy of which I was not aware during my original post. The character with Down syndrome who uttered the Palin-related remark was voiced by an actress named Andrea Fay Friedman. I'd not taken the voice itself into consideration since most of the voices on the show are done by the same core cast or regular guest stars, and while I generally do watch the credits to see if anyone new and/or interesting pops up, this particular piece of info eluded me until it was featured in an article on The Insider.
Why, if you've not already clicked the link to the article, is this important? Ms. Friedman has Down syndrome. If I'd thought anything about the voice beforehand, I'd probably thought fleetingly that Alex Borstein did the voice, much like she did with Marlee Matlin in I Dream of Jesus. But no, it was an actress (and an accomplished actress at that - she's a motivational speaker, too) with Down syndrome portraying a character with Down syndrome, and she thought it was funny. Go fig.
Rather than redescribe the whole controversy I'm about to discuss, I'm going to provide links to various articles on the subject. I'm not here to tell you a story, I'm here to give my opinion about a story.
A brief disclaimer before I begin: I am not the parent of a child with Down syndrome. I'm not a parent at all. I do, however, have nothing but the utmost respect for those who care for people with Down syndrome and for those who are born with it, live with it, and achieve success in everyday life. I've had the privilege of knowing just one person with Down syndrome, and she was a great, kind person.
That being said, here are my thoughts. First of all, I highly doubt Mrs. Palin actually took the 30 minutes to sit down and watch the full episode in question. Why is that important? First of all, she seems to only be offended because there was a vague reference to her in the dialogue. There's no mention of anything specific by either her or her daughter in interviews, just what seems to be a canned response to any offensive remark regarding Down syndrome.
Taking it a step further, I thought they were being more politically correct than usual (if Family Guy is ever PC to begin with). We're talking about a show that's had two episodes deemed too offensive to air -- When You Wish Upon a Weinstein (which was eventually aired), and Partial Terms of Endearment (which was supposed to air this season but was deemed to offensive and relegated to DVD release only). Not only that, but there have been episodes that HAVE aired that have been far more thoroughly and directly offensive than this one, and to boot, this isn't even the first time this particular subject has been brought up -- there's Petarded, for heaven's sake, and a recurring character called Opie:
I'm assuming this image belongs to Fox. Thanks Fox!
And it's this week's episode that finally incurs the wrath? Seriously? It's not even the first time they've taken a shot at Palin! During the 2008 campaign, Road to Germany contained this scene:
I voted for the other guy and I still thought they went too far with that joke. And yet looking back I see almost no backlash from that, and none from Palin directly.
I watched this episode 24 hours or so before any of the controversy arose and, quite frankly, found the remark in question dumb, but not offensive, as though one of the writers had said 'let's throw a Sarah Palin joke in there somewhere for the hell of it.' I even made a comment along the lines of, 'But it's her son that has Down syndrome, and he's a baby... that doesn't really make any sense.' To be frank, if there was anything in the show that was even borderline offensive, it was the Down Syndrome Girl song, and even that wasn't so bad.
As of this morning, the National Down Syndrome Society has made no comment at all regarding the episode. They do, however, have a statement on their site condemning the use of the 'r-word' often associated with Down syndrome in any derogatory or inappropriate context. Considering the recent controversy over this topic, time might be better spent addressing that rather than a brief remark on a cartoon show.
I tried this whole blogging thing back in college when it first came to popularity; it suited me in the same way that keeping a journal in my younger years did -- my life is really not that interesting, and when something interesting does happen, it's so far removed from the last interesting thing that anyone trying to keep up with my blog had already given up. If you made it past that rather long first sentence, I applaud you.
A few months ago the bright idea popped into my head that rather than journaling my own personal experiences, I'd start a blog to condense all my commentary on modern issues into one convenient location. I always have a sincere desire to post my response to various articles I see in my daily perusing of the internet, but I find the whole 'commenting' thing frustrating. Half the time my feelings are just going to be lost in a 200-something deep pile of people making simple 'I agree' or 'I disagree' posts or trolls posting about stupid and mostly unrelated topics or bots posting about how I can get discounted handbags and millionaire spouses if I go to their trojan-riddled, keylogging sites. All this combined with my poor fiancé having to bear the brunt of my rantings over this, that, and the other, has led me to this.
Will more than a handful of people ever actually read this? Probably not. However, at least it keeps all of my opinions, crazy though they may be, wrapped up in a neat little package.
