September | 2011 | Smoke Yourself Thin!

A new type of food is not quite trendy yet, but starting to show up. A Mission taqueria gets busted, has to use only American crickets in its tacos from now on. An upscale restaurant in Sausalito has a multicourse dinner pairing “finely sourced and exquisitely cooked edible bugs” with a tequila tasting. Mealworm stirfries, moth larvae tacos, chili and garlic locusts, chocolate covered scorpions. This is likely closer to what cavemen ate, not corn-fed CAFO-raised cheap muscle meat wrapped in styrofoam and plastic, with a vegetable thrown in here and there. Some claim the fruit is different, didn’t used to be sweet, that’s been intentionally bred in by us. Likely, similar to how cows were domesticated from wild ox 8 to 10,000 years ago. Fruit is sweeter, vegetables less bitter, animals selectively bred from the original, wild animals, to things such freaks of nature (or human selective breeding) as the commonly eaten turkey. But, I don’t pretend to know what our ancestors ate, as I am no anthropologist, nor are most of the people who claim to know what “grok” ate, which in their romanticized version, contained little starch, no grain, little fruit, small amounts of vegetables. I doubt it, they likely ate roots and all the fruit they could find. And insects. Grubs. And the ones who couldn’t get fruits/veggies, got to eat nice things like eyeballs for vitamin C, like the Inuit, who many use to show that there’s no need for plant food. There’s a taqueria open late near my old house that sells eyeball tacos. OK, paleos, get sustainable, get real. Insects and eyeballs. Or else, just admit that you’re biased and believing in “paleo” because you like meat, okay? Geez.

And no, I’m not a part of any vegan conspiracy. I’m not even vegetarian. I’m not into low-fat. I don’t eat tons of processed carbs. There’s a whole spectra between these groups, not everyone falls into such strict categories. Why does everyone want to be so bloody extreme?

tarantula quiche?

While sick this weekend, I entertained myself by reading about the Ancestral Health Symposium that took place at UCLA recently. It seems to be Weston Pricers, low-carbers, and “paleo” eaters, many of whom seem to think the root of all bad health is fructose (including fruit), and/or gluten, and/or soy, and/or omega-6 mono-fats, and/or fiber, etc. I found out about it from a blog I read regularly, written by Stephen Guyenet, who has lately been writing about a theory of obesity, regarding food reward. I don’t fully understand it, but don’t completely disagree, and the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Food reward isn’t quite the same thing as taste or palatability, but seems to relate more to hyperpalatability and maybe dopamine receptors, foods that override satiety signals for whatever reason. I’ll have to go read it again to try to understand it fully, but I’ve been thinking if it relates to me. For example, why will I overeat some stuff, and not other stuff? It’s not taste. I like spicy Korean ramen, will add LOTS of veggies and a few shrimps, cilantro, and I’ll eat the whole thing, which is two bowls. Soup I made yesterday, lots of veggies, shell beans, ham, ww orzo, I can barely finish one bowl. Is it the ramen noodles? Personally, I think it’s the MSG, I’m a big umame fan. Similar to how I eat whole grain bread with my egg/cheese/bacon/spinch/mushroom, I won’t eat more than one. If I ate white bread, I could probably eat two. Same with pasta, I’ll never overeat whole wheat pasta, even with piles of cheese. These examples could just be due to fiber, not reward, I’ll have to go read the series again (ugh).

Anyway, Gary Taubes and his acolytes don’t seem to like the theory too much, deviates too far from “carbs cause insulin spikes cause obesity” which is apparently the one and ONLY cause of obesity, despite billions who eat white rice or other starch based diets, and aren’t fat. As a scientist, I am offended by GT**, and his cherry picking, conclusion jumping, tunnel vision, not to mention the arrogant attitude. I could go on, but I’ll just say I don’t like evangelism of any sort, religious, nutritious, political, anything. I’m much into the gray, not comfy with black/white or extreme thinking. (**In all fairness, I will give him credit for leading me away from the idea that low-fat was a good thing, so thanks for that)

Which brings me to another misunderstood concept, that of moderation. Obviously, moderation is subjective, but many don’t do it at all. Overheard at party, some guy talking to my ex-landlord’s girlfriend–“Moderation is a glass of wine every other day or three, not a bottle per night”. Not to her, apparently. At a dinner party about a month ago, sitting at a table of about 10, fixed price meal (expensive, small portions, my new kinda restaurant but should be tasty), dessert time, and the chocolate cake is mediocre. I take a bite, decide it’s not worth the calories, put down my fork. The very skinny woman (of course) is surprised, so I tell her I used to be fat, I can’t eat cake often, and this one isn’t tasty enough to bother. She looks at me like I just picked my nose and ate it, says she can’t imagine dinner without dessert. The guy next to me asks her if she’s serious, really does she eats dessert every night, and she says most meals, doesn’t everybody? It seems most of us eat it once/week or two. Ieat chocolate cake maybe once a month, and usually I try to split it. The skinny woman thinks that’s outrageous. I eat fried chicken maybe 3 times/year, pizza every week or two, usually that I make myself (ww dough, I may overeat it a little but not like pizzeria pizza), at least a little white sugar and flour nearly every day, that’s how I do moderation, though not everyone will agree.

My weight has been stable now for about a year, settled about 55 pounds less than my highest weight. I would still like to lose more, and I think I know how I can do that now. In last post, I was wondering if I overcompensate for exercise by eating too much, and I do. It’s not because it makes me hungry, it’s mostly because I think I should eat more so I don’t bonk in kickboxing class, or justification for a hard workout and being hungry afterwards. When I don’t go to the gym, I don’t eat until I’m hungry, which isn’t very often. My maintenance level is supposedly 2200 kcal/day, and I’m probably a few hundred cal below if I don’t go to gym. Preventative, or prophylactic eating, if you will. So, no more 1000 cal burritos after the gym on Monday nights, I’ll just save that for Saturday afternoon, if I don’t have dinner plans, as I won’t get hungry again, except for maybe some fruit before bed.

I read somewhere that the studies that saw exercise doesn’t help weight loss are based on 250 kcal, maybe what a person can burn in an hour’s moderately paced, flat walk. I do 3 cardio classes, 3 strengh training classes, 1 yoga class in a normal week (three sessions-not convenient to get to). I approximate I burn 2500-3000 extra/week, just from the gym, not including biking/walking/shlepping up the stairs all day. I think it helps me, or at least enables me to eat without uncomfortable restraint, not to mention serious mental/emotional benefits. I’m not going to give up my cardio classes, I’m just not going to eat extra (unless I’m truly hungry). I think this, and really limiting my alcohol (sorry, boyfriend, get used to it), will enable me to lose this last stubborn 10 (2o?) pounds.

Kind of a random post, but random thoughts have been brewing. Those Weston Pricers and their “neolithic agents of disease” make me want to go eat some ice cream out of spite, but I don’t have any and would prefer some watermelon, thus disproving reward theory, just me and my n=1 experience! Wait, it doesn’t work like that? What?!?!