Here are ten delicious, natural, smart carbohydrates we enjoy at the Sisson household. For comparison, I’ve included unhealthy but popular items that I think these smarter choices can replace. The flavor and texture components aren’t a perfect match by any stretch, but I think there’s enough similarity that you’ll find it painless to switch to the healthier selections.
10. Baked, buttered, and salted acorn squash instead of french fries
9. Butternut squash instead of spaghetti
8. Sweet potatoes instead of potatoes (amazingly, a much lower impact on blood sugar)
7. Grilled eggplant instead of breaded chicken
6. Portabello mushrooms with soy sauce instead of hamburgers
5. Raw heart of palm instead of fried mozzarella sticks
4. Tempeh with chili sauce instead of white rice with jug “teriyaki sauce”
3. Green peas with shredded parmesan and olive oil instead of macaroni ‘n cheese
2. Artichoke hearts baked with a bit of cheddar instead of fried chicken nuggets
1. Caprese salad instead of pizza
What are your favorite healthy alternatives to refined carbohydrates?
This post was brought to you by the Damage Control Master Formula, independently proven as the most comprehensive high-potency antioxidant multivitamin available anywhere. With the highest antioxidant per dollar value and a complete anti-aging, stress, and cognition profile, the Master Formula is truly the only multivitamin supplement you will ever need. Toss out the drawers full of dozens of different supplements with questionable potency and efficacy and experience the proven Damage Control difference!
Organic is a loaded term that has different meanings for different people. I think most of us assume it means food and food products produced without the use of chemicals, inhumane living conditions when animals are involved, or environmental damage. But as we blogged in a post called Semantic Salmon, defining the label “organic” could mean that wild salmon – arguably one of the most natural, nutritious foods on the planet – would not pass muster.
So, what does organic even mean? After all, the USDA is considering opening the organic umbrella so far, seeing the word “organic” on a product will have about as much impact as seeing the word “natural” on a can of 7up.
While I’m at it:
(Sorry, the USDA link is a subscription-only but does show a worthy snippet. I’ll fish around for the whole thing in a sec…)
UPDATE: Here’s the USDA’s own report.
Kellogg’s plans to modify its unhealthy products aimed at children, such as Pop Tarts and some of their breakfast cereals. In Kellogg’s own estimation, at least half their products are missing important nutritional marks. To address the childhood obesity epidemic, Kellogg’s will be reformulating these unhealthy processed foods…except where consumers do not like the taste change, in which case, they’ll just stop marketing those products to kids.
Hmm. They’ve read a page from the failed New Coke playbook, as this article explains. I understand that Kellogg’s doesn’t want to upset or turn away its core users (intentionally loaded term), and I suppose ceasing marketing to children is a decent compromise. But I wonder how long it’s going to be before companies start taking more responsibility. We’re just selling what people want… And so, they dance around the problem – make the product slightly more healthy, or just market it to adults. Eliminating the problem would mean radically changing the products, likely ruining the brand and killing off the company. The company’s products are the problem.
Kellogg’s could announce that they’re completely abolishing all the beloved unhealthy products and will henceforward only be producing nutritious, high-fiber, lightly-sweetened, naturally-made, ethically-produced foods. They could create a campaign enjoining the public to get behind their huge risk, their about-face, their earnest attempt to change the world by caring about children’s health. Can you imagine the promotions, publicity and the wallop of terror to their competitors? Well, more likely, the cackles of glee, because Kellogg’s would never do this, nor would any other big food producer.
The products are the problem, sure. But people do like their Pop Tarts. Someone has to make the first move…
Kellogg’s, from the article:
“It means we have a lot of work to do,” said Chief Executive David Mackay. “If we can’t make those products taste just as good as they do today and make them as appealing, then we won’t reformulate them and we won’t advertise them.“
More on Kellogg’s products (Has MacKay had a change of heart?)
Lean is in the eye of the marketer (scroll down to point #4)
HT: Cardio Blog
I’m curious: Is there a survival benefit conferred to us by being stubborn, or is it just immaturity? (Or any one of a litany of emotional and psychological issues.) I’m starting to think there must be a benefit.
It’s amusing, this human lust for proving others wrong, this need to be justified. It’s as if “they” all witness the brain’s imaginary blotter of record and are apprised of how the points of personal justice add up. Ever caught yourself imagining “they” are watching?
Who are “they”, exactly, and why do we want to prove “them” wrong?
It’s obvious enough in the embarrassing daily scenes with which we have verbal feasts, our gleeful elation barely concealed (“Honey, you are not gonna believe what just happened with this guy at the bank. Total meltdown…”). It’s having the last word with the insouciant hot dog vendor. Arguing with the airline attendant for the sake of satisfaction. Debating automated service technology with the hapless phone rep.
Ah, to bathe in the hormonal rush of stubborn! We know such reactions are immature at best, rude at worst. Often, stress has pushed a sane and polite person to the brink. But gosh, sometimes it just plain feels good. He who has not sinned, pick up the first numbered line ticket (or press 1 for English).
But proving “them” wrong goes beyond insecure displays of frustration with trivialities to major life choices. We all have stayed in relationships, romantic or otherwise, that don’t really “fit”. We chew on situations that have long since expired. We cling to a role that no longer serves anyone, least of all ourselves. We stay, and stay, and stay. Why? And to play my own devil’s advocate, is this really so bad?
(A caveat: Though I am a proponent of change, I’m not saying anyone has to change a less-than-ideal situation – only the individual really knows the reason, or reasons, for staying. We’re all controlled by forces and emotions of which we have yet to become aware. Getting into the many reasons people don’t change would make for a very tedious post, and it’s Monday and I know we’re all just getting perked up at this point. Also, I hope it’s clear that I’m not talking about persistence and diligence. Those are admirable qualities, and in this instant-gratification culture I think there’s too much giving up. I’m talking about harmful pride and stubbornness.)
I think that beneath all the “reasons” – both the superficial good ones and the comfortable lies – the root issue is simply that we are determined to prove “them” wrong. I’ll show them! Because when you’re wanting to prove “them” wrong, you’re really just wanting to prove yourself wrong. “Mistakes” cut into the old ego like the dickens. We’d rather save face.
Now we’re at the real question: why do we want to prove ourselves wrong?
We’re all blessed with instincts, some stronger than others. But from an early age, we’re taught to suppress our instincts. Authority knows best; the rules are always right; if it looks good on paper it must be good. As a result, we give words a chance when actions are not commensurate. We believe pundits, politicians, mass marketing, cheating lovers. We doubt ourselves before others (and it’s the last people who ought to doubt themselves who are the first to do so).
They say when you ask for advice, you already know the answer. I believe when we try to prove others wrong, we’re really just trying to prove ourselves wrong, because we already know the answer. And we’re loath to make a mistake. We’ve been taught that mistakes are bad.
I believe in the the maxim “a wise man keeps his own council” – but what confidence this takes! Ignoring our instincts is not only a recipe for an unfulfilled life but exerts a harmful level of physical stress that is probably cumulative and maybe more destructive than all the pizza and Twinkies we worry about. So why is living this way – it’s more like just-barely-existing – so commonplace?
A bit of a qualifier: I’m assuming you believe in the power of instinct as I do (if not, go read Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink). And I’m asserting, rather unoriginally, that proving “them” wrong is just psychological projection – whether in the form of tirades, meltdowns, lectures, denials, reproach – because we’re uncomfortable with experiencing our own feelings or confronting what we know to be true deep down.
Is suppression of instinct mere social conditioning, a necessary evil for the good of the group, or does it benefit the human species in some deeper way? Remember, a “benefit” in evolutionary terms is not always rosy. It would seem the evolutionary mechanism at work, if there is one, is a harsh one. While I don’t go in for the “America causes cancer!” fear-mongering, I do think it is clear that our modern lifestyle is grossly out of step with our genetic blueprints.
So, I really doubt there’s an evolutionary benefit to being stubborn (denying the truth to yourself). In fact, being an idealistic science nut, I believe the opposite: flexibility and willingness to change are the things that keep you alive, keep you healthy, and push the limits of longevity. And I believe that’s why we have instinct. Instinct is the evolutionary mechanism, not saving face for the good of some abstract lofty social notion or some emotion like fear.
Proving ourselves wrong: though it can feel “good” in the short term, in the long term, it just hurts everyone. It slices at your self-esteem. It beats you down. Many have been doing it so long, they don’t even realize what a battering they’ve subjected themselves to. I don’t think it’s natural, I don’t think it benefits anyone, and I don’t think it’s necessary to keep society churning. I think it’s an outdated social superimposition. Even if it is “natural”, aren’t we innovative enough to find a way of living that is both beneficial to society and the individual? Ignoring what we know to be true creates a dissonance, and projection is bound to result. This festering reactivity tears the individual down, turning adults into unsatisfied, miserable infants.
We’re going to have to move away from the hierarchical structure that teaches people to subvert their own intuition for some supposed survival benefit or “the good of all”. It’s fear-based, and it’s just not healthy. “Keeping people in line” with guilt, shame, and regrets may have been effective in the Middle Ages, I guess, but we don’t need it. That was society out of balance with nature, yet we’re still clinging to it psychologically.
Stop proving yourself wrong – it’s not benefiting anyone, least of all you. I don’t believe that life is a Hegelian zero-sum game. I believe we’re smart enough to make life a win-win.
Foibles. Scruples. Mistakes. Welcome to life: don’t let the regrets hit you on the way out.
More Monday Moments:
© 2014 Mark's Daily Apple