Everyday Systems

I read this yesterday in the current issue of Town and Country magazine. I'm not a regular reader, but Ina Garten was on the cover and I'm a huge Ina fan.

Ina Garten and Nora Ephron wrote: NORA: You see, there is something called the "informational cascade," which is when something is said so often that people end up believing it although it isn't true. I don't know why it isn't called the "misinformational cascade," but it isn't. That's why I have a fairly emphatic piece in my new book that takes a position against the egg-white omelet, which is something that horrifies me. I am very proud of that piece. It turns out that egg yolks do not raise your cholesterol in the way we all believed. I see all these people eating egg-white omelets that have no taste, so I felt that I had to straighten them out. What's bad for you is eating too much.

INA: I was once at the Three Guys coffee shop on Madison Avenue, and the guy in the booth behind me was ordering an egg-white omelet, toast without butter, and a decaf coffee -- that poor guy. I'd rather live less than live so blandly, and as it turns out, you don't live less.

NORA: As it turns out, life is a lottery. You could be killed by a car, so you can eat egg yolks.

There is so much misinformation out there about diet as it pertains to both weight loss and health. Some of it is based on faulty research and some because someone gets a strange idea.

Add life to our years, not years to our life. (Ayn Rand I think?) I was once an egg white omellet eater, as well as oatmeal, skim milk, juicing (does anyone know what beet juice does to the body?), low calorie hot chocolate.

Aristotle said, "Take the middle road." I'm glad I found it.

Over43 wrote:(does anyone know what beet juice does to the body?)

Um. are you speaking elimination? Yea, I do. Kinda scary until you realize what it is.

I thought I'd busted an unknown artery in my intestines.

Over43 wrote: I thought I'd busted an unknown artery in my intestines.

I did, too, but it started with my urinary tract.

I agree with Ina--I actually feel bad for people when they order food like that. They're clearly misguided, and I wish there was a way I could point that out without sounding like a jerk or snob.

marygrace wrote:I actually feel bad for people when they order food like that.
They're clearly misguided,
and I wish there was a way I could point that out without sounding like a jerk or snob.

I think it's important to always REMEMBER...
PEOPLE are NOT ALL THE SAME.

Personally, I do not think it is a misguided choice.
There are benefits in choosing an Egg white omelet.
I personally eat both of these omelet choices, depending on the circumstances.

Some egg-white omelets are quite tasty,
and some people also very much like the way their body feels
after eating protein with little or no fat.

Also some people choose to COUNT CALORIES,
and an egg-white omelet has almost as much protein
as a whole-egg omelet with only about 1/4 of the calories.
It's....
1 whole egg = 80 calories vs.
1 egg white = 15 calories

Don't forget....Lower fat and lower calories in one meal
can allow one more leeway..fat and/or calories...in another meal.

BrightAngel wrote:

marygrace wrote:I actually feel bad for people when they order food like that.
They're clearly misguided,
and I wish there was a way I could point that out without sounding like a jerk or snob.

I think it's important to always REMEMBER...
PEOPLE are NOT ALL THE SAME.

Personally, I do not think it is a misguided choice.
There are benefits in choosing an Egg white omelet.
I personally eat both of these omelet choices, depending on the circumstances.

Some egg-white omelets are quite tasty,
and some people also very much like the way their body feels
after eating protein with little or no fat.

Also some people choose to COUNT CALORIES,
and an egg-white omelet has almost as much protein
as a whole-egg omelet with only about 1/4 of the calories.
It's....
1 whole egg = 80 calories vs.
1 egg white = 15 calories

Don't forget....Lower fat and lower calories in one meal
can allow one more leeway..fat and/or calories...in another meal.

True, it's not always a misguided choice. But I've watched many, many people chose the low-fat, low-calorie, etc. version of a real food out of fear or a genuine misunderstanding. Almost everyone in my husband's family is still convinced that fat-free is always the best choice--they buy things like Egg Beaters, fat-free packaged cookies, fat-free BREAD, and the like. Why? Because they "don't want to get fat." When I try to correct them, they look at me like I have three heads.

They don't count calories, they don't know anything about nutrition. So they aren't making one low-fat choice (egg whites instead of eggs, for instance) at breakfast so they can have a higher-calorie meal at lunch, say. They just choose low fat or fat free all the time because they're terrified of fat.

Edit: When I met my husband, he too was fat-phobic, since that's what he learned from his mom. Pretty much all he ate was brown rice and salsa or Life cereal with nonfat milk. Now he eats the food I cook (all-natural, from-scratch vegetarian food that has however much fat is needed. Sometimes that's very little, sometimes it's a lot, but it all seems to balance out over the course of a few days), and hasn't gained any weight from eating foods with fat. In fact, in the year and a half we've been married and eating pretty much all of the same foods, he's actually gone from a size 30" waist to a 29".

marygrace wrote:

BrightAngel wrote:

marygrace wrote:I actually feel bad for people when they order food like that.
They're clearly misguided,
and I wish there was a way I could point that out without sounding like a jerk or snob.

I think it's important to always REMEMBER...
PEOPLE are NOT ALL THE SAME.

Personally, I do not think it is a misguided choice.
There are benefits in choosing an Egg white omelet.
I personally eat both of these omelet choices, depending on the circumstances.

Some egg-white omelets are quite tasty,
and some people also very much like the way their body feels
after eating protein with little or no fat.

Also some people choose to COUNT CALORIES,
and an egg-white omelet has almost as much protein
as a whole-egg omelet with only about 1/4 of the calories.
It's....
1 whole egg = 80 calories vs.
1 egg white = 15 calories

Don't forget....Lower fat and lower calories in one meal
can allow one more leeway..fat and/or calories...in another meal.

True, it's not always a misguided choice. But I've watched many, many people chose the low-fat, low-calorie, etc. version of a real food out of fear or a genuine misunderstanding. Almost everyone in my husband's family is still convinced that fat-free is always the best choice--they buy things like Egg Beaters, fat-free packaged cookies, fat-free BREAD, and the like. Why? Because they "don't want to get fat." When I try to correct them, they look at me like I have three heads.

They don't count calories, they don't know anything about nutrition. So they aren't making one low-fat choice (egg whites instead of eggs, for instance) at breakfast so they can have a higher-calorie meal at lunch, say. They just choose low fat or fat free all the time because they're terrified of fat.

Edit: When I met my husband, he too was fat-phobic, since that's what he learned from his mom. Pretty much all he ate was brown rice and salsa or Life cereal with nonfat milk. Now he eats the food I cook (all-natural, from-scratch vegetarian food that has however much fat is needed. Sometimes that's very little, sometimes it's a lot, but it all seems to balance out over the course of a few days), and hasn't gained any weight from eating foods with fat. In fact, in the year and a half we've been married and eating pretty much all of the same foods, he's actually gone from a size 30" waist to a 29".

I agree, I think it's misguided. Without fat, food is bland and tasteless and you're never really full. The old "fat is bad!" fad from the 80's is so busted by now, and yet people still trudge on.....eating "diet" milk and low-fat cookies....and wonder why they're as fat, or fatter, than ever. What's even worse is, the process used to make things "low fat" is often bizarre and adds loads of chemicals. Check out the label on real peanut butter: the ingredients are peanuts, and salt. NOW check out the label on the "reduced fat" peanut butter; you'll find a laundry list of chemicals, stabilizers, additives, and God knows what else added just to make it taste like the real thing (which it does NOT.)

Fat is not the enemy. The French eat loads of fat, and they are much thinner than we are (try selling the idea of skim "milk" or non-fat "cheese" to an older French person, and see where it gets you.) The enemy is gluttony and general over-eating, which comes about from huge portion sizes, a certain amount of greed ("I'd better get a HUGE meal for that 2 bucks!") and the fact that most of our foods are tampered with in order to get us to eat more of them. As I always say, eat REAL food, not the foul-tasting "low fat" parodies of it. Just eat less. An egg isn't going to hurt you, and I think trying to "save" calories for later in the day (why? so you can over-eat then?) would be, for me anyway, counterproductive. I might add, the best thing about No S is that you do NOT have to count fat or calories, so even the concept of it here seems out of place.

RJLupin wrote:the best thing about No S is that you do NOT have to count fat or calories,
so even the concept of it here seems out of place.

Here, we must agree to disagree.
The best thing about No-S is the "HABIT" concept, and
I am not alone in finding counting calories to be a beneficial No-S add-on modification.

BrightAngel wrote:

RJLupin wrote:the best thing about No S is that you do NOT have to count fat or calories,
so even the concept of it here seems out of place.

Here, we must agree to disagree.
The best thing about No-S is the "HABIT" concept, and
I am not alone in finding counting calories to be a beneficial No-S add-on modification.

If it works for you, great. Me, I'm glad I don't have to do it. It involves writing stuff down, doing arithmetic, and measuring portions. Those are all things that I hate. I am very glad I've found in No S a diet that doesn't require me to do those things. Those things are all on my list of diet dealbreakers- if a diet requires that kind of thing, I won't do it.

I do use Egg Beaters, though. I like them because it means I don't have to deal with breaking or beating eggs, and an Egg Beaters omelet tastes about the same as a real egg omelet to me, anyway. I don't notice that I feel any different, no matter what I eat. I feel stuffed if I eat too much and hungry if I don't get enough, but how much fat is in the food doesn't seem to matter to how I feel after a meal.

Omelets for me are usually a vehicle for chilies. I like mine with enough jalapenos to make my eyes water.

INA: I was once at the Three Guys coffee shop on Madison Avenue, and the guy in the booth behind me was ordering an egg-white omelet, toast without butter, and a decaf coffee -- that poor guy. I'd rather live less than live so blandly, and as it turns out, you don't live less.

NORA: As it turns out, life is a lottery. You could be killed by a car, so you can eat egg yolks.

Ina's quote here really bothers me. Which seems odd because I very much agree with the sentiment of not sacrificing enjoyment of life for increased length of life. But here it just rubs me the wrong way. It just seems so snobby and self-righteous, although perhaps it wasn't meant that way. Perhaps the "poor guy" just doesn't like butter on his toast and prefers egg white omelets. Is it really so hard to believe? Or maybe he really is making a choice to sacrifice a little taste for some calorie savings? Or maybe he really is misinformed - at least as is defined by Ina.

Point is it's his choice what to eat and honestly food is such voodoo that Ina is just as much a victim of the diet informational cascade as anyone else. Eggs good or bad? Who knows. But pitying someone for choosing to eat fake eggs and butterless toast is about on the same level as disparaging someone for choosing to eat regular eggs and generously buttered toast.

I personally stopped putting butter on toast when I was about 8. Before I really thought much about calories or fat or whatever else. Mostly, I just didn't think it added anything, so why bother? And I use egg beaters all the time, but I don't actually think I am sacrificing any taste. When I scramble them I suppose the large quantity of salsa I add probably masks any taste difference. And when I'm out at a restaurant, I actually prefer the taste of eggwhite omelets to whole egg omelets. As to coffee, I think decaf and non-decaf coffee are equally disgusting. But I'd never say that I pity coffee drinkers...

[/quote]

Sienna wrote:

INA: I was once at the Three Guys coffee shop on Madison Avenue, and the guy in the booth behind me was ordering an egg-white omelet, toast without butter, and a decaf coffee -- that poor guy. I'd rather live less than live so blandly, and as it turns out, you don't live less.

NORA: As it turns out, life is a lottery. You could be killed by a car, so you can eat egg yolks.

Ina's quote here really bothers me. Which seems odd because I very much agree with the sentiment of not sacrificing enjoyment of life for increased length of life. But here it just rubs me the wrong way. It just seems so snobby and self-righteous, although perhaps it wasn't meant that way. Perhaps the "poor guy" just doesn't like butter on his toast and prefers egg white omelets. Is it really so hard to believe? Or maybe he really is making a choice to sacrifice a little taste for some calorie savings? Or maybe he really is misinformed - at least as is defined by Ina.

I think you have to take it in the context of what Nora Ephron said previously. We've been taught that all of these things are bad for us -- and it turns out that neither egg yolks, butter nor caffeine are bad.

Sienna wrote:It just seems so snobby and self-righteous...
Pitying someone for choosing to eat fake eggs and butterless toast
is about on the same level as
disparaging someone for choosing to eat regular eggs and generously buttered toast.

I agree.

black beans, roasted yams, garlicky rice and fresh pico de gallo

rice with edamame, sugar snap peas, red bell pepper, green onion and cilantro, seasoned with rice wine vinegar and sriracha

corn bread, baked beans, and green beans with a mustard vinaigrette

Just wanted to point out that not all flavorful real food meals have to contain a lot of animal products nor do they have to be high fat. Also not all low fat meals consist of highly processed foods or are bland and flavorless. In fact the research that was done that created the impetus for recommending a lower fat diet was based on cultures that ate traditional foods, not highly processed chemically enhanced fake foods.

I'm not convinced that we are better off eating a richer diet (unlimited butter & heavy cream) as compared to eating a more traditional "peasant" style diet (traditional foods, plant based, lots of vegetable and fruits, some animal products).

My understanding of the egg yolk study(ies) is that they took people with high cholesterol who were following the SAD and found that adding a couple of egg yolks a week didn't raise cholesterol in that situation. Not exactly a stellar example of research, reasoning, or logic. My point is not that eggs are bad, but that I don't think it is proven that eating a high saturated fat diet whole foods diet is superior to eating a low saturated fat whole foods diet. I see the highly processed, low fat fake food diet to be almost a strawman.

overly beige wrote:In fact the research that was done that created the impetus for recommending a lower fat diet was based on cultures that ate traditional foods, not highly processed chemically enhanced fake foods.

I'm not convinced that we are better off eating a richer diet (unlimited butter & heavy cream) as compared to eating a more traditional "peasant" style diet (traditional foods, plant based, lots of vegetable and fruits, some animal products).

I was also influenced by that study and changed my habits because of it, but it's recently been largely discredited because of the way the various cultures were selected. And again, like many other studies relating to diet, it looked at only that one thing, not the diet in total.

I'm also a fan of traditional, peasant-style diets and many of them are plant-based. But many are meat-based. It just depended on what was available. They vary widely from place to place. Some are very high in fat; some are very low in fat. Some are heavily starch-based; some are not. A few consume very little plant foods. The one consistent thing between them is the absence of ultra-processed foods.

I don't think anyone is talking about a diet that uses unlimited amounts of butter and eggs, but there's also nothing wrong with using some on a daily basis.

One of the things that surprised me when I was reading about the diet of the people of Crete (one of the places studies in that huge study of how people ate -- and the one called the "healthiest") was that the people ate moderate amounts of full-fat cheese, yogurt, and eggs daily.

Even in our own history, the incidences of cardiovascular disease was less when our diet was higher in saturated fat. While both this and this probably need to be taken with a grain of salt, there's also truth there.

The interesting thing is that most cases of heart disease in the twentieth century are of a form that is new, namely heart attack or myocardial infarction—a massive blood clot leading to obstruction of a coronary artery and consequent death to the heart muscle. Myocardial infarction (MI) was almost nonexistent in 1910 and caused no more than 3,000 deaths per year in 1930. Dr. Paul Dudley White, who introduced the electrocardiograph machine to America, stated the following during a 1956 American Heart Association televised fund-raiser: "I began my practice as a cardiologist in 1921 and I never saw an MI patient until 1928." By 1960, there were at least 500,000 MI deaths per year in the US. Rates of stroke have also increased and the cause is similar—blockage in the large arteries supplying the brain with blood.