Humans don’t like monotonous diets—which means Rob Rhinehart’s supposedly nutritionally-complete beverage Soylent has a lot to overcome if it’s to catch on.
Let’s take a moment to celebrate the true heroes—those who cast off the Rollie EggMasters, the Pasta Boats, and the Xpress Redi-Set-Go’s of modernity. Those of us who, if pressed, could survive the apocalypse with just one appliance.
In a world of quick-fix solutions, let us marvel at the coffee-maker chef.
In 2009, Katja Wulff was just a straw-haired Swedish college student with a dream in her heart and no stove in her dorm. Her solution: To prepare noodles in her coffee maker.
How to avoid working through lunch, and diseases related to social isolation.
SAO PAULO—I have only been in Brazil for a few days, but I am ready to make one ignorant American overgeneralization: This country loves its buffets. I have dined buffet-style for almost all of my meals here, and the times that I didn’t, the restaurant had a buffet option available.
Walking around a Sao Paulo neighborhood the other day, a fellow reporter here was taken aback by one particular restaurant buffet offering. The sign in front noted that the price for a lunch buffet was five reais (about $2.25) higher for men than for women. When a waitress was asked about the discrepancy, she responded, plainly, that it’s because men eat more than women.
In a way, she’s right: Women have, on average, smaller bodies than men, and thus require fewer calories in a given day. To maintain weight, a 26-year-old, moderately active man should eat about 2,600 calories per day, while a woman of the same age and activity level should eat 2,000.
Read more. [Image: Boellstiftung/Flickr]
According to a new study, nearly one in three U.S. adults with a chronic disease has problems paying for food, medicine, or both. That doesn’t have to be the case.
Read more. [Image: northcharleston/flickr]
A nod to the fact that popular media is not totally lost, Katz borrows from the writer Michael Pollan, citing a seminal 2007 New York Times Magazine article on “nutritionism” in concluding that the mantra, “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants” is sound. “That’s an excellent idea, and yet somehow it turns out to be extremely radical.”
Though Katz also says it isn’t nearly enough. “That doesn’t help you pick the most nutritious bread, or the best pasta sauce. A member of the foodie elite might say you shouldn’t eat anything from a bag, box, bottle, jar, or can.” That’s admittedly impractical. “We do need to look at all the details that populate the space between where we are and where we want to be.”"
Leading scientists recently identified a dozen chemicals as being responsible for widespread behavioral and cognitive problems. But the scope of the chemical dangers in our environment is likely even greater. Why children and the poor are most susceptible to neurotoxic exposure that may be costing the U.S. billions of dollars and immeasurable peace of mind.
Read more. [Image: Jackie Lay]
Eating a meal, any meal, reliably makes an animal, any animal, calmer and more lethargic. This means humans, too. Hunger makes animals alert and irritable, which explains why couples always fight about where to eat dinner. This emotional response encourages the animals to find food.
But all this is only in the broadest, most primal “eating = good, not eating = bad” way. The details of the relationship between foods and moods end up being a little contradictory and a lot complicated.
What we tend to think of as “emotional eating” is a specific kind of eating and a specific kind of emotion—eating sugary, fatty, carb-y, unhealthy foods as a coping mechanism for feeling upset. In reality, “emotional eating” is a much broader term.
“We eat for a variety of different emotions and we eat in a variety of different circumstances which are in turn connected with emotions,” Meryl Gardner, a marketing professor at the University of Delaware, says.
Read more. [Image: stevendepolo/Martin Cathrae/seriousbri/flickr]
“To remain relevant,” U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg said in a press statement today, “the FDA’s newly proposed Nutrition Facts label incorporates the latest in nutrition science as more has been learned about the connection between what we eat and the development of serious chronic diseases impacting millions of Americans.”
Like so many of us, the FDA just wants to remain relevant. Today is the fourth anniversary of Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign, and with it comes the unveiling of new food nutrition labels. The Nutrition Facts required on food packages for 20 years hven’t changed significantly since 2006, when trans fat was added to the label.
At first glance, the new one is not much different. Apart from the giant calorie number.
Read more. [Image: FDA]