Balance of Food

We are going through a transition. The archives are still here, but for updates, go to http://balanceoffood.typepad.com/. So if you want to know how to overcome the temptations of the food around us, check us out.

The following was originally published on BuzzFlash.com. It's another cross between politics and food.

There is a prerogative for First Ladies (all women so far) to choose the topic where they will focus their time once their spouse becomes president. Laura Bush has spent her time, has spent her, uh, what has she been doing? So I am not trying to force an issue for Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, or Cindy McCain to consider, but whomever ends up being the First Spouse should really think about working on reducing obesity levels in the United States. The Type 2 diabetes numbers and obesity levels are rising. Health care costs are significantly affected. As the cost of food rises, the increase may force families to eat worse instead of better -- cheap, processed food isn't usually the best choice and more expensive, healthier options may be out of range for more and more Americans.

While we may currently have the fittest president ever (body, not mind), the role models for reducing obesity, well, have been, well, we have had celebrities that have lost weight, does that count? But the three remaining contenders have a background to speak to an audience that may be more likely to listen to them about obesity. Cindy McCain was caught (or her intern was caught) in a plagiarism scandal when "family recipes" turned out to be lifted from the Food Network Web site. I suppose we're all related in a humanist way, but I don't know how related Cindy McCain is to Giada De Laurentiis or Rachael Ray. I have thought we were past the point of being obsessed with the recipes of the First Lady, hoping that ended with the distraction of Hillary Clinton and chocolate chip cookies in 1992. But when I found out that Cindy McCain suffered a stroke in 2004 and was focused on eating well, exercising, and reducing stress, my tone changed a little. Plagiarism is still a bad thing, but this was a golden opportunity to have Cindy talk about the merits of eating better as a society. If she has modified dishes to be healthier, then we would like to know what she is doing.

Bill Clinton, the man known for jogging to McDonald's in the 1990s, had quadruple bypass surgery in 2004, and no longer jogs to get fast food. The Alliance for a Healthier Generation is a joint initiative of the William J Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association (AHA), and Clinton worked hard to reduce the high-fructose corn syrup laden soft drinks from schools. Already an incredible advocate, Clinton would be am ideal role model about improving the health of this country. One man in particular who is on board with Clinton's initiative is fellow former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a presidential candidate himself. I have actually read Huckabee's diet book, "Quit Digging your Grave with a Knife and Fork," Huckabee lost 110 pounds after being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. As for Michelle Obama, I'm not aware of any personal health issues in her life. And she is in great shape, as we saw recently on the "Colbert Report." But as an African-American woman, she might be a better role model for how obesity levels are hitting minority communities. Also as a mother of young children, she can best address the more than 12.5 million American children and adolescents who are overweight. The role of the First Spouse may have its limits, and we haven't seen any relevance from the post in the last seven years. But the obesity issue is a major health care and quality of life issue in the United States. And every little bit will help.

I don't normally do movie reviews. I leave that to Roger Ebert and the other professionals. But I have to make an exception for "King Corn." The movie will be part of the Independent Lens series on PBS (starts tonight, check your local listings and look for the rebroadcast in case you miss it tonight). Yes, it is a documentary. Oh, don't fall asleep. It's a fun documentary, even though it is filled with important information on what we eat. If you've read Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma," a lot of this isn't new. Pollan is frequently in the movie as an expert. Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney take us through growing an acre of corn for a year. We learn all about the process of growing corn, how they can only make money by receiving money from the U.S. government, and what we do with that corn. The best part of the movie is when they try to make high-fructose corn syrup at home. HFCS is so prevalent in our society yet you can't buy it by itself in the grocery store. So they try to make it; doesn't sound appetizing, but I don't want to ruin it for you. I pestered a co-worker to let me borrow his copy, and was glad I got a chance to see it. And I am taping it off the PBS series to have a permanent copy. Ellis and Cheney do a good job of explaining the semantics of the modern-day farmer. They even interview Earl Butz, then Secretary of Agriculture under Richard Nixon, who started us off into the spiral of high-fructose corn syrup and the obesity levels we currently enjoy. So do me a favor: watch the movie and then come back (in the comments section) and let us know what you think.

We all have it. "If it weren't for [blank], I would eat a lot better."

Could be chocolate, French fries, or crème brulee. But the "blank" also represents emotional factors and issues. One of mine comes through around this time of year: sports.

Whether it was last night's NCAA final or Opening Day of the baseball season, sports and non-healthy food go together well. Add in the start of the Stanley Cup Finals, and you have the recipe for a few pounds.

Now I didn't go to either Opening Day or the NCAA final, but the temptation isn't limited to being at the event. This goes back to childhood. Sports was an excuse to eat, to snack, to stock up on unhealthy snacks, to take corn chips and a "cheese" product and make nachos.

Even if you weren't a sports fan, you could always stock up on chips and soft drinks around major sporting events, since the prices would be more tempting.

The food had to be crunchy or sports-related (hamburgers, hot dogs). It had to be sweet or salty with plenty to drink.

As for going to the ballpark, sneaking food is a solid way to go to cut down on the temptations. You don't have to bring in celery sticks – you can go for air-popped popcorn or apple slices. You could have a healthy snack and eat perhaps a hot dog instead of a hot dog AND nachos.

But that isn't always practical. If I go to a night game, dinner time is right around the time where I am getting to the game. And this is after a stressful day of work. The game is supposed to reduce my stress, which lends itself to eating more junk food.

Or if you have been good lately, the ballpark is a great chance to let loose. And in the reality of life, even if we haven't been good, we still feel the need to let loose and eat the tempting ballpark fare.

This article has some suggestions on what to do. But when you are there, temptations become bolder.

There are some ballparks, especially Chicago's South Side ballpark, where somehow they pipe in the smells, as if the temptation of being at the ballpark wasn't enough. You were tempted by the sirens of smells: hot dogs, nachos, chorizos.

I have come a long way from the days of truly eating in association with baseball. When I was 17, we traveled 2 hours in the pouring rain to get to a Cubs-Mets doubleheader. We had to wait for a few hours to get into the ballpark. My breakfast that day was a box of chocolate covered donuts and a Big Gulp from the 7-11 near Wrigley Field. Yes, I still remember that detail to this day. Lunch was something either at 7-11 or more food in the ballpark. Dinner was likely on the way back, not so healthy either.

Now, I have to search out somewhat viable choices when traveling to the game. Last year, I smuggled peanut butter and natural fruit spread sandwiches to an early season game. I have had the turkey sandwich instead of hot dogs. I have found a great taco salad with actual dark green lettuce in Milwaukee's Miller Park.

I still have nachos and hot dogs sometimes. I'm only human after all. But I don't drink Big Gulps anymore. I limit what I take in, even if it isn't always healthy. Being aware is a lot of what goes into the battle to do better. So eat sensibly and play ball.

No April Fool, but no column this week. In trying this weekly format, sometimes, vacations become necessary. Then again, vacations can be research as well. So go back and read some of the archives, and we'll see you next week. Happy eating.

Readers of the Balance of Food know how much we hate high-fructose corn syrup. So when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom proposed a surcharge on all drinks with high-fructose corn syrup, we were thrilled.

“There’s a well-established nexus between obesity, which is caused by high-fructose corn syrup, and the increased health care costs for the city,” mayoral spokesman Nathan Ballard told the press. Unfortunately, the soda proposal would affect only large retailers, not mom-and-pop stores. The tax does come at a crossroads with our philosophy of not using punishment to convince people to change their behavior. But high-fructose corn syrup is that bad. And the idea of people choosing a soft drink made with cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup is too delicious to pass up. The chances of this happening aren't that high, and we are talking San Francisco. But this proposal is a way to open the dialogue. Unfortunately, that dialogue includes those that defend high-fructose corn syrup. One of those organizations (no surprise) is the Corn Refiners Association. The organization teaming up with them is a surprise: the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Sometimes, CSPI goes overboard. Okay, a lot of times. So when they are underwhelming on a major topic, it is startling to see. The organization has been in favor of small taxes on soft drinks to help pay for healthier elements, including bike paths, nutrition education, and other obesity-prevention programs. But it portrays high-fructose corn syrup as being equal to sugar.

"We respectfully urge that the proposal be revised as soon as possible to reflect the scientific evidence that demonstrates no material differences in the health effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sugar," wrote CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson and Corn Refiners Association president Audrae Erickson. "The real issue is that excessive consumption of any sugars may lead to health problems."

I love a sentence that says nothing is wrong with our product, but too much causes health problems. Sally Squires of the Lean Plate Club at washingtonpost.com said this in a recent online chat:

"High fructose corn syrup is an added sugar. And as an added sugar, it's certainly something that we all need to limit. But even the leading scientists who first worried about high fructose corn syrup have now said that it is no better nor worse than any other added sugar."

Unfortunately, the CSPI and Sally Squires are mistaken for a number of reasons. Perhaps they are technically correct, but their "truth" is misleading.

* If you compare equal amounts of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup – but since HFCS is so cheap (thanks to being cheaper in cost thanks to subsidies on the sugar market and financial advantages for large corn-processors, including Archer Daniels Midland), often there is more HFCS in a product than sugar if sugar were used. * The "urban myth" mentality to justify the use of HFCS isn't mythical. The "experts" quoted by CSPI and Squires apply it to the sweeteners themselves, not to how the subsequent products are used by consumers. Soft drinks with HFCS don't quench your thirst like soft drinks with sugar. Remember when commercials for soft drinks spoke of quenching your thirst. They don't anymore because, well, they don't. Since they don't quench thirst, consumers drink more of the product. Those who remember 12 oz. servings, and small drinks in restaurants are astounded to see 24 oz. and 28 oz. bottles for sale. And a lot of those people are drinking that much in one setting. * The correlation between obesity levels and use of HFCS could be labeled as coincidence. But there is no other major factor with food other than the introduction of HFCS. And even if you think it is a coincidence, shouldn't the use of HFCS invite a few experiments to see what is behind the jump in obesity levels? * The other "urban myth" is that HFCS causes people to overeat. Because HFCS is so overtly sweet as compared to sugar, it becomes a feeding cycle of virtually endless consumption. And proof of that is in the final point, which is: * A study against HFCS. "A new study suggests that a diet with high fat and high fructose corn syrup may cause severe liver damage in people with a sedentary lifestyle." The amount of high fructose corn syrup was equivalent to 8 cans of soda a day, but only 4 24-oz. bottles, the amount of fat was about the same in a typical McDonald's meal. One of the scientists cited preliminary research to suggest fructose suppresses the body's feeling of fullness, meaning that the mice on the diet did not know when they were supposed to stop. Nutritionists and dietitians are very fond of saying no food needs to be banned. But high-fructose corn syrup isn't really a food. There is a lot of political pressure to not go after HFCS. That is all the more reason to go after HFCS as a key factor in making consumers obese. Defenders of HFCS have shifted the blame from a key factor to being the only factor. We aren't saying HFCS is the only factor. We are saying HFCS is a key factor. And San Francisco's efforts should be the beginning of a dialogue, not the end.

It's just another Microwave Monday.

One area where I have not come close to conquering is work lunches. I can do awesome breakfasts, sensible dinners, and quality snacks. But the Monday-Friday lunches are my blind spot.

When I worked from home, lunch was easy. Going to work meant inconsistent lunches, either too much money or not enough food or not-healthy fare.

When I worked from home, I often would fix fish sticks or hot dogs, easy stuff at home, but not easy to do at work. And I hated the idea of buying lunches or trying to fix something while I desperately tried to get ready for work.

I "blame" this syndrome on having to fix my lunches since I was about 10. Most children that I know of had their parents (okay, let's be honest, mothers) fix their lunches until junior high or, sometimes, high school. But my mother gave up when I was about 10. So I had to spend my mornings fighting off my brother (the reason for my mother giving up on helping make lunches), making breakfast and a lunch. When time ran out, lunch got the short-shrift.

Lunches at the elementary school weren't great to begin with. But they were reheated because our school didn't have a full kitchen.

I don't have to fight off anyone as an adult. I still struggle to make breakfast and I still don't enjoy making lunches especially in the morning.

In my current day job, I decided that Wednesday and Friday were eating out days. The pressure of making three lunches was a lot better than five lunches. But sometimes I struggle with even three lunches.

I don't make stews, which would be a logical way to go. Sandwiches are great when I'm home, but throwing it together in a hurry and keeping it refrigerated for several hours isn't appealing. Leftover spaghetti could work, but it tastes better at home.

I stick with tuna as a standby, since it's portable. Sure it's boring but if I can eat it for lunch at work, you can't be picky about boring.

I recently tried yet another revision to cure my troubles at weekday lunch time: Microwave Monday. I would buy microwave dinners as my entrée for lunch on Mondays. I don't have much recent experience with microwave dinners since I am one of the 7 percent of American consumers who don't own at least one microwave (some people own more than one?).

Microwave Monday is a great idea. Don't have to think about fixing something on Monday, when I'm barely awake. But the small amount of effort doesn't get me much at lunchtime.

The dinners are either not enough food or too unhealthy or both. I tried "mashed potatoes" and they were horrid. The sodium levels were frightening. I didn't feel full or satisfied.

I have a few left in the freezer, so I may still do a few more Microwave Mondays. Yes, if I fix a salad or eat a few cherry tomatoes and have some fruit, microwave dinners could be a part of something substantial. But the better solution would be to get more energy, preparation, and perhaps even imagination to come up with better, tastier, healthier, and more satisfying workplace lunches.

This week's column refers back to this past week's "The Simpsons," which airs on the FOX television network. Since it's so rare that TV focuses on nutritionists and dietitians, I thought it would be fun to look at one show's look into that world.

I love nutritionists and dietitians, but quite a few of them have this "cheerleader" mentality or the "Miss-Know-it-all" ideal. Yes, they should be excited and knowledgable, but the stereotypes do exist for a reason. And I was curious to see how "The Simpsons" writers would look at this world.

Homer gets put on yet another diet – perhaps he is true to some in that nothing seems to work, but it is a cartoon, after all. Marge gets a nutritionist, Betsy Bidwell, who used to weight 400 pounds.

Bidwell tells Homer in an upbeat, cheery voice that you can go from "fat to all that" with little substitutions. One of Bidwell's substitutions is instead of eating French toast, eat a bell pepper.

That was funny, since a bell pepper reminds you so much of French toast. The bell pepper joke gets carried on through a montage where Homer is eating bell peppers at the ballpark, from a vending machine, and blended into a drink at Moe's.

Yet at the next weigh-in, Homer has gained 7 pounds. We find out throughout the episode that Homer is, of course, cheating on his diet – at a buffet, eating chips and salsa out of a briefcase, consuming lamb in a motel shower. He even goes to "Pudding on the Ritz" with 300 new daily flavors.

Though "The Simpsons" is meant to be parody and over the top, there are truths in there. Nutritionists and dietitians do sometimes live in this ideal world. And people do know what they should do, but don't always do it.

The happy medium lies in the middle, but even that can be difficult to figure out where the two sides should meet. If your nutritionist or dietitian weighed 250 pounds, you might not be inspired no matter what they say. If your nutritionist or dietitian resembled Keira Knightley in shape, you might think they know what they are doing, but also think you can't ever get there.

The Betsy Bidwell example of going from 400 pounds to where she is now isn't typical for nutritionists, or anyone else.

So patients should set realistic goals, and nutritionists should slowly introduce bell peppers. As nutritionists and dietitians will say, you didn't get to your weight overnight and it will take time to get closer to where you need to be.

And for the nutritionists and dietitians, some of whom I consider to be friends, if the portrayal of "The Simpsons" upsets you, or even this essay, understand that we are trying to be helpful in improving the perception of nutritionists and dietitians.

Last week, I looked at trying to save some money with food purchases. But another kind of food consumer isn't looking for bargains, but for specialty products – quality instead of quantity.

I do fall into both camps – on some products, I shoot for low prices, so I can indulge in some nice products. However, I have a nasty situation where as soon as I fall in love with a product, it disappears from the market. My whole wheat spaghetti quests can get a little bizarre, but I found a guy who can get some great whole wheat spaghetti. I fell in love with a brand, shortly thereafter, you couldn't find it in the U.S. (the pasta was brought in from Canada. Then I got hooked on another brand – it was awesome, made with flax. That one has disappeared for the moment. I don't eat that much cheese. But when I do, I like it to be good quality cheese. I grew up with the green Kraft "parmesan" can. Ewwww! But in the last couple of years, I have used a local cheese shop to get great stuff where the taste difference is noticeable. Unfortunately, the cheese shop is disappearing. When I lived in Battle Creek, I was very poor, but I found a deli there to get some good cheese. When people are required, forced, or encouraged to eat less, doing so becomes a huge burden. But one good solution to make you feel better about the situation is to invest in good quality foods. I do have access to a produce store that has good quality at great prices. Even something as simple as quality garlic can make a difference in a dish. And while you can pay more (per pound) for some cheeses than you can for most steaks, sometimes doing so is worth it. When generics first hit the market, those who made them wanted to have some idea of how to determine when consumers would use generics. The sad truth is that, well, it depends on the consumer. Some want to pay $3.50 for quality potato chips while others want good produce regardless of the cost.

I may have to find another place to find that spaghetti, and yes, hope I can find a place with high-quality cheese. But it will be "worth" it.

So let us know what foods you would be willing to pay more for at the market?

This week's column has an additional political bent, not in a Democratic or Republican kind of way, but in the economy and how it affects food prices. This is also a piece I wrote for BuzzFlash.com (yes, I have a relationship with the Web site). You can read the whole column here as well.

We didn't have to read the stories online or in the newspaper to know grocery prices are going up. We know just by going up and down food aisles in the grocery store. In the wholesale prices for January just released, food prices rose by 1.7 percent, the biggest monthly increase in three years. In particular, prices for beef, eggs, and bakery products were all up sharply.

If the food involves corn, the price of that food will go up. And there are lots of those foods, thanks to our obsession with corn, as profiled in "King Corn" or Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma." And given that we are in a presidential year, where you would think there would be pressure to help the economy, well, good luck. We have an incumbent in the White House who isn't concerned with the price of food. After all, it became a Bush family rule in 1992 that no family member would ever be asked the price of anything in a grocery store ever again. In 1992, "it's the economy, stupid" was the cry. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton actually battled on the economy, and who would make things better. In 2008, Iraq and illegal spying dominate headlines, and even on an economic level, credit card debt, college debt, bankruptcies, energy costs, and health care costs have bigger headlines than the price of food.

So don't expect much help when it comes to your food bill in 2008. Now we should point out that our food prices have been kept low for political purposes for some time. The cost of high-fructose corn syrup isn't much in pennies, but filling up foods with fillers such as high-fructose corn syrup cost us more in weight and health bills. But wages have also been low, and so when food goes up (as well as gasoline), it makes an impact on consumers. When you aren't sure whether you want to burn the gas to save 40¢ on a gallon of milk, money is tight. So the food prices will climb higher, but is there anything we can do about it? There was the story of a friend of a friend who says he survived for 3 months of gefilte fish, water, and day-old bread. This was back in the recession of the early 1990s and he was a college student. I can't vouch for the story since I didn't see him do it. But I met the guy, and it wouldn't surprise me at all. But you don't have to resort to those extremes. The good news is there are things we can do, but it won't be easy. Thanks to the unstable economy, people who are struggling already know how to survive with a bit of creativity. Buy in bulk, use double coupons, and switch to generic brands. Is there more we can do? Here are a few tips: * Spend more time in the outer walls of the grocery store. Grocery stores put produce, meat, bread, and dairy against the walls. The less time you spend in the food aisles themselves, the better you will eat and the lighter your food bill will be at the end of the trip. * If you live in a large enough area, hit an ethnic grocery store. You will be surprised how cheap and good the produce can be. * Grow your own food. Depending on where you live, this may not be viable for half the year. But if you have time and not much money, a few homegrown treats can stretch a food dollar. * Buy foods with more fiber. Pick the whole wheat or whole grain breads and spaghetti. Foods with fiber make you more full and you eat less, therefore stretching out how much you spend. * Beans and rice. Let's face it: Beans and rice are cheap and can stretch your food bill out. * Cook more at home. Eating out can do damage to a food bill. * Finally, eat less. Most of us could stand to consume less food. If a pound of spaghetti normally lasts 4 servings, make it last for 6 or 8 servings. If you can double your use from a pound of spaghetti, even if the price goes up, you still save money.

I bought my first container of skim milk. To some, that shouldn't be a radical statement. I don't have a breakdown of milk statistics, but thousands buy skim milk on a regular basis. But not me. When I got my act together, I was drinking whole milk when I drank milk -- 4% fat. According to this Web site, a glass of whole milk is 150 calories and 8 grams of fat per 8 oz. glass (see chart below). Since I was virtually eliminating soft drinks, I switched to a regular diet of milk, so I would have something to drink at the table. So while eliminating my security of blanket of sugary soft drinks, I was also making a change I thought I would never do -- 2% milk. I thought like most neophytes that 4% and 2% weren't that far apart. But that method is deceiving. 2% milk has about half as much fat as whole milk. Like most of my changes, it was very difficult getting used to 2% milk. But in time as my tastes for a number of things were forced to change. About a year into the "new me," I went to 1% milk. And 1% milk is where I have stayed. But like a lot of people in the upper United States, winter weight is creeping into my life. And I'm starting a new relationship with a woman that I really like. I saw her drinking fat-free milk. Okay, it was organic fat-free milk and she made hot chocolate with it. But even without the twinge toward possible romance, it was a sign that I needed to make the final plunge. Despite the need to eat better, and to eat better than I have lately, giving up certain foods of childhood and young adulthood becomes difficult. I've made so many jokes over the years about skim milk. "Would you like a little milk with your water?" "No fat, no taste, no milk." I'm smart enough to know that I need fat throughout the day. And I do use olive oil most of the time when cooking. But in drinking skim milk 3 times a day vs. 1% milk, it's a savings of 7.5 grams of fat. Normally, I buy milk in gallon jugs. For the experiment, I went the half-gallon route. As for the taste, skim milk tastes pretty flat. But so far, it isn't horrible. The ultimate test for me is cereal. After trying it on raisin bran, it was okay. The normal joy of loving lapping the milk from the bottom of the bowl is lost with skim milk. Skim milk is almost like the serious 9-5 worker and whole milk is the babysitter that let you stay up a half hour later provided you behaved. I'm not greatly concerned about the calories: the difference between 1% and skim with 3 glasses a day is 60 calories. But saving that 7.5 grams of fat wouldn't hurt. At least, I know now that skim milk won't kill me. The 1% habit has one huge drawback for someone who travels on foot to get most groceries. Convenience stores don't carry 1% milk. You can get whole, 2%, and skim, but not 1%. I suppose you could buy 2% and skim and combine them into one Frankenstein-like 1% hybrid. Too much work, but in a blizzard situation, you just never know. But I'll leave that for a future column. * Whole Milk - 150 Calories - 8g Fat * 2% Milk - 120 Calories - 4.5g Fat * 1% Milk - 100 Calories - 2.5g Fat * Skim Milk - 80 Calories - 0g Fat

Bad enough trying to diet when it's just you and only you involved. But imagine the audacity of trying to get 1.1 million people to go on a diet for a whole year.

Oklahoma City mayor Mick Cornett has that audacity, personally going from 217 pounds in April 2007 to his current weight of 179 pounds, a 38-pound weight loss. So he figures if it worked for him, why not his city? But Oklahoma City wasn't going to be the easiest place to start. In 2007, Fortune magazine crowned the city as the fast-food capital of America. Oklahoma is 9th in adult obesity, at 26.8% of adults being officially obese. And the Oklahoma City chapter of Overeaters Anonymous has fewer than 100 members. The "good" news in Cornett's plan for the 1.1 million people in the metropolitan area is that they only have to lose less than 1 pound per person to reach the goal of 1 million pounds. But that takes some of the fun out. These are people apparently in seriously bad shape, and all they have to lose is 1 pound each. But the pressure of diets will force some residents to gain weight, so the average needs to be about a pound to reach Cornett's goal. Diets are considered successful for long-term success if you lose ½ pound per week. So hopefully, in a year's time, the residents of Oklahoma City can take advantage of this quest and make some significant progress. The hope is that the residents won't think of it as a diet, but more as a matter of changing approaches. My relatives are from the Southeast, but I do know there are similarities in eating patterns between the two regions. It's great for Cornett that he lost 38 pounds, but he shouldn't expect his fellow Okies to shoot for that rate. These are people who need motivation but not pressure, a fine line for sure. When I first started to lose the weight when I made the transition, I wondered to myself what goal I should set. I had read that losing 10% of your body weight is a great goal in the beginning. The beauty of a percentage is not confining it to 10 or 15 pounds. If you are 300 pounds, 10% is 30 pounds and yes, 270 is still big. But losing 30 pounds when you're 300 can make a difference.

Cornett lost 17.5% of his body weight when he went from 217 pounds to 179 pounds, a rather impressive figure.

I started at 180 – I realize that's not huge, but for me it was. I was thrilled when I hit 162, because that 10% figure never left my mind. The 162 mark was still higher than I wanted to be, but I knew when I hit that mark, I was in better shape. So good luck to those in Oklahoma City. Don't let the huge numbers influence you. Eat a little less, walk a little more, and soon 10% will be in your sights. And Cornett will have reached his goal to make Oklahoma City a little bit healthier.

I was going to write about Fat Tuesday. I had a nice column all set to point out the obvious. Indulging in Fat Tuesday makes sense if you are going into a period where you will cut back.

Ash Wednesday, in the Catholic tradition, requires a reduction in food. Not sure of the origins, but I know a lot of Catholics abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday. The Fridays in Lent are also set aside to abstain from meat. And of course, Lent usually requires some sacrifice. So indulge in Fat Tuesday only if you plan to observe Ash Wednesday. Don't use it as an excuse to eat a lot. I realized I had to shift my focus when I found out that Earl Butz had passed away. Earl Butz was remembered as being agriculture secretary under presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Butz's career was cut short thanks to two off-color jokes that got him fired. However, Butz's legacy lies in high-fructose corn syrup. Butz didn't invent high-fructose corn syrup, and might not have been able to tell you much about it. But the farm policies Butz implemented has led to the disaster of our current domestic farm policy, where farmers are forced to grow more corn, even though the prices have sharply declined over the years.

To get a better idea of Butz's damage, you should watch "King Corn," a documentary focused on why corn is so dominant in our lives. The two young filmmakers want to ask Earl Butz about the changes in agriculture policy. Unlike Michael Moore in "Roger and Me," they get their "Roger Smith."

Butz talks about the cheapness of food, and how that is a good thing, how we spend less of our income on food than other countries. Unfortunately, the young filmmakers don't get too aggressive to ask whether that is a good thing.

For those who have read Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma, you have encountered similar themes on the food we eat. It's good to get cheap food, but not if it costs us down the road.

The meat we eat is cheap but not as healthy for us as the beef our parents and grandparents ate 40 years ago. Corn, antibiotics, and hormones are all things that shouldn't be in cows. And a policy that gives farmers less money to grow more corn, and forces them to accept it or go broke, and then uses the surplus corn on ethanol (who uses too much energy to produce) and food that makes us unhealthy.

So maybe it's "sweetly" ironic that Earl Butz died around the time of Fat Tuesday. We might have cheaper food, but we are a fatter nation, bringing more significance to Fat Tuesday. Because thanks to Earl Butz, we have a Fat Monday, Fat Tuesday, Fat Wednesday…

All you can eat for one set price: how can that be a bad thing? Well, most AYCEs are detrimental because they are heavy on carbohydrates. The Pizza Hut luncheon buffet leaps to mind. Now there are AYCE salad bars and nights where chicken wings are 10¢, but those aren't true AYCEs. We're talking about a meal (protein, carbohydrates, vegetables) for one price. Well, I wanted to try an up-and-coming AYCE that includes all three categories, but doesn't have to be carb-intensive. Brazilian steakhouses can be found in most major cities these days. These aren't anything like Ponderosa or Bonanza from the 1970s. Gauchos come out and bring you meat on a spit. They ask you how you would like your meat done, and they cut off the right temperature. For the experiment, I selected the Fogo de Chao in downtown Chicago. The set price is rather expensive -- $48.50 ($29.50 for lunch), so you better bring your appetite. I don't pig out much anymore, but I brought as much stomach as I could handle. The salad bar is lovely, a word rarely used for salad bars. It is true if your date is vegetarian, that you could take them for just the salad bar ($19.50). You do get some carbohydrates with the meal: rolls, mashed potatoes, fried bananas, and fried plantains. This is included, but I don't know whether you got seconds for free. I wanted to minimize my carbohydrates for this meal. So I had some of the fried bananas and a very reasonable amount of rolls. Had to save room for the meat. When you are ready for meat, you flip the disk on your table to green (red meant Stop). I was in guy heaven. When you order meat medium-rare, you know the center is medium-rare, but the ends can be more done. With this, the ends were medium-rare. I truly never had anything like it. I even had a couple of disagreements where I got rare and the server insisted it was medium-rare. It was rare, but also hilarious in the grand scheme since my arguments with waiters are usually over them claiming that a medium steak is medium-rare when it isn't. The cuts were a bit salty, which I did know going in. Not too bad, quite frankly. The first few pieces were borderline sinful. The quality dropped a little after that; if you liked something, it was difficult to get it back. But then again, how many meals do you get several different cuts of steak, chicken wrapped in bacon, lamb, pork, and sausage. But how much was too much? I wanted to go for it without bursting, but I haven't tried to do a meat-eating contest since I was a kid eating butter fondue and dipping pieces of steak in the hot butter. I ate a lot, could not even tell you how much, but I was busy for awhile. When it got close to the end, my disk was much more red than green. And when I had to truly stop, it was because I couldn't think about eating anything. Not the salad bar (on my second plate), not the carbohydrates (little eaten), and certainly not meat (couldn't imagine eating a steak for a week). In carbohydrate-dominant AYCEs, I can still think about food. After this meal, I couldn't imagine eating anything ever again. That was full. I didn't feel good about how much I had ate, literally. So even though I ate a lot of protein and likely saturated fat, I felt great about the rest of the meal: plenty of vegetables, proper sizes of fruit and carbohydrates. But I did eat too much meat. I did it once, and can't imagine doing it again anytime soon. I just can't do the AYCEs of my youth anymore. It's literally too much. I did love the joy but not the struggle afterwards.

Cartoon courtesy of Pearls and Swine Anybody who has been to college or a grocery store on a Saturday morning knows what free food is. The samples (and subsequent coupons) in a grocery store aisle are a great way to learn about a new product.

But everything we eat is part of our food consumption for the day. After all, everything counts. The "free" granola samples have calories. The popcorn in the bar has calories. The chicken wings at the event have calories.

This doesn't mean free food is bad. As a part of your daily consumption, free food can be fun and psychologically enjoyable. But you have to be careful to subtract from the rest of your daily eating.

If you are aiming for 1,800 calories, and you eat 300 calories in the grocery store and 500 calories during happy hour, that leaves you with 1,000 calories to be spread across three meals, and that doesn't include the drinks at the bar.

There is also the psychology of the free food. It's free, so you are inclined to eat more than you otherwise would. But that can be dangerous to your overall diet.

If you honestly don't run across extensive amounts of free food, then an occasional indulgence isn't a big deal. It might even be your indulgence for the week. But many people have such temptations as a regular part of their lives.

I recall one such evening on a business trip to Atlanta. I was getting reimbursed for my food expenses on this trip at $40 a day. Breakfast and lunch were covered that day, so I could spend all the money on dinner.

But I decided to get my money's worth. After the meetings, I attended an Atlanta Braves game where I had my share of ballpark food. I had a good-sized, ballpark meal, probably a hot dog or two and nachos with a soft drink.

I had plenty of "food money" even after filling myself at the ballpark. So I decided to do a late dinner at a steak place in downtown Atlanta. There was no reason to be eating at that hour except that if I didn't, the money would have been lost. Essentially, the steak dinner was "free." But if I didn't eat it, I couldn't get the meal tomorrow.

So when I got back to the hotel late that night, I had consumed a lot of food. A regular dinner, plus steak, fries, and a couple of trips to the salad bar with more soft drinks. I can't even begin to think how many calories I had, and that didn't include breakfast or lunch.

I got to bed a little after 1 a.m., but unfortunately, my sleep was short-lived. About 4:15 a.m., the fire alarm went off. Twice. Besides being unnerved (we were pretty high up in the hotel) about the fire alarm, for some reason I had a difficult time getting back to sleep.

Having that much food resting in your stomach would make it difficult to go back to sleep. I finally drifted off to sleep about 6 a.m.

I certainly paid a price for having eaten all that food. I also probably gained a pound or two from that night, something I certainly didn't need at that point of my life. Even if there wasn't a fire alarm, I still ate too much food.

When I started to eat better, it was psychologically difficult to let go of the idea that even though it was free, I didn't have to eat it. Boy that was tough.

So now I do sample in the grocery store and may munch on a pretzel in a bar. But I factor that into the rest of my calories and cut back somewhere else in my diet -- most of the time. I do find that by being aware of it, so even when I do "cheat," I don't do as much as I used to do.

The old adage of the salad dressing being one part vinegar to three parts oil with a few herbs and spices feels as ancient as black-and-white TV. A sweetener and salt are rather prominent on salad dressing labels these days. And in "light" dressings, water is the primary ingredient. After all, water dilutes the fat content, making it "light." Forgetting the obsession of putting sugar in everything for a moment, it's not really clear why a salad dressing, a product to put on vegetables, needs to have a sweetener. But if you are going to have a sweetener, it should be sugar, not high-fructose corn syrup. I'm not normally crazy about "light" dressings, but for pasta salads, it works really well. Here is the label of the "light" dressing I have bought for awhile. Five basic ingredients in this order: water, vinegar, sugar, soybean oil, and salt. Could do without the sugar and salt, but overall, not too bad. Unfortunately, the manufacturer (which I'm not identifying here) changed the recipe for the dressing. Here is the updated label: Five basic ingredients in this order: water, high-fructose corn syrup, distilled vinegar, vegetable oil (canola and/or soybean), and salt. To start off, the sweetener is now the most prominent ingredient behind water. Think about this: it's dressing and vinegar and oil can only get as high as 3rd on the list. The new formula also has a higher sodium count (490 mg vs. 400 mg) and more sugars in the total carbs (4g vs. 3g). A change for taste? No. Health? Not at all. Cost? Probably. Political pressures drive down the cost of high-fructose corn syrup, and instead of raising the prices, it's "easier" to reduce the quality of the product. Now that I see the changes, I am done buying this product. Increased sales? Not in this household. I won't buy salad dressing with high-fructose corn syrup, and won't buy a dressing that puts the sweetener ahead of vinegar. And that includes the new spray bottle dressings. A nice idea in theory, except that you do need some fat with the salad. The most prominent one is Wish-Bone (yes, I'm calling them out) that features high-fructose corn syrup. And again, the order is water, then high-fructose corn syrup. Ken's has a line of spray bottles that do feature sugar, which helps. But if you truly need a spray bottle, buy an empty one, put in a flavored vinegar, and go to town. Mix in some oil, but play around with the traditional 3-1 ratio. Salad dressings are supposed to enhance the flavors of the salad, not drown them in sugar and salt, or even worse, high-fructose corn syrup. Dress your salads, don't overdress them.

So on January 8, you probably have made your diet-related New Year's resolutions -- and broken them. Well, good.

You shouldn't have made resolutions anyway. Resolutions are for things you hope to accomplish, and if you don't, it's not a big deal. Following better nutritional habits shouldn't be geared toward January 1 or New Years Day, especially after you have likely just come down from the sugar and gluttonous high that was "the holidays." They are a year-round experience.

In the advertising world, jewelry stores hit before Christmas, car places hit before New Years Day, and diet centers advertise in the beginning of the year. "Starting a diet?" "Want to lose weight in the New Year?" "Follow us."

Weight Watchers is being nicer about it with an "anti-diet" mentality, but it still feels like the vultures are waiting to set out on the unsuspecting public.

This is why it's a really bad time to start focusing on the diet mentality. The Washington Post's Lean Plate Club issues a mantra of maintaining over the holiday period. Perhaps you should extend that a few weeks into January. After all, even if you are up 4 pounds over the holidays, the extra time gives you a chance to go for more after-dinner walks or fewer trips back to the kitchen for more food.

The Globe and Mail noted that "According to a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, only one in four people who start a diet - be it low-carb, low-fat, even Weight Watchers - are able to stick to the plan closely for a full year."

So see -- you are already behind the 8-ball. Might as well enjoy the situation.

Another reason to avoid the herd mentality: More room, more space for when you do get there. Why go shopping at 5 a.m. on Black Friday when it would be the same if you shop 3 weeks later at 7 p.m.? Let the crowds go by. Even if you do get to the gym, you might not get your favorite piece of equipment. Wait a few weeks and you can just about have the place to yourself.

So you might wonder what I need to do in the New Year? Well, I have neglected the lifting I need to do to build my arm strength. And I'm probably hovering between needing to lose 7-10 pounds. But a calendar reminder won't help. It needs to get done and it will get done; if I lose half that figure by spring, I'll be in good shape. The sooner I start doing the free weights, the better off I will be.

If you need a date to help you focus, pick another starting point. Try the Super Bowl (February 3) or the Chinese New Year on February 7 (if you need a New Year theme) or Ash Wednesday (February 6), which is much earlier than normal this year.

So when your friends, family, or co-workers have set their New Years goal, and blown it you are still smiling because you haven't started yet, and you know that you are still further ahead.

I don't usually spark food trends. I follow them, sure, but I don't start them. An exception has been whole wheat spaghetti. Now whole wheat spaghetti is hip, even accepted in certain circles. But it hasn't been easy to pull away from the white-flour classic. These hybrids that you see in the store are the worst of both worlds. You don't get the fiber you need, and the taste is different than you are used to getting. My success with whole wheat spaghetti has come with a price. You have to eat your way through the initial product launches. I do tend to be a spaghetti-a-holic, so shifting from the classic white-flour was a major step. But at the time, I thought adding more fiber would be a good thing, only if the taste would back it up. The results weren't good for the first few times. It wasn't horrible, but the taste was a little off. I didn't particularly like the only brand I could find at that point. I wanted to keep trying, but I was willing to wait until I found something else. Then stumbling in the "diet" section of the grocery store, I came across Pritikin whole wheat spaghetti. It was not what I had been eating, so I tried it. Much better, I thought. Still, the price was significantly higher than the regular white-flour spaghetti. I also experimented around this time with Dreamfield's. Not quite whole wheat, but close in taste to what I had. Still, I wondered if whole wheat was going to be my future. I liked the Pritikin enough to keep buying it, but I still hadn't made the total transition to whole wheat spaghetti. By the time I had to make the series of life-long changes, I feared spaghetti would be gone for good. But when I realized that if I switched to whole-wheat spaghetti for good, I could keep being a spaghetti-a-holic, but with whole wheat and smaller portions. Unfortuantely, good ol' Pritikin: soon after I started eating it, the brand went away. (This happens a lot to me.) The good news was by then, I found quite a few brands that I liked. The taste of whole-wheat spaghetti is so good that I honestly would rather have the whole wheat brands. And it's great knowing I'm getting increased fiber. And now there's whole grain spaghetti. Not just whole wheat but numerous combinations of grains. So far, the taste of those has been just fine. Perhaps you need a transition. Avoid the whole-wheat blends (part whole wheat, part white flour) you see on the shelf. The transition can be buying one package of whole wheat spaghetti. Oh, one key tip: cook at least 1 minute earlier than the minimum time on the package. Even if you eat the same amount of spaghetti, you will get more fiber. But since you'll be more full by eating whole wheat spaghetti, you might end up eating less. The cost differential has come way down, and if you do eat less, you'll find the costs to be similar. You likely wouldn't make this move unless the taste and costs were similar. When you add in the increased fiber, and heartier taste, whole-grain pasta (whole wheat or otherwise) is a smart way to eat better without too much sacrifice.

Today (and every Tuesday), we will run a new column on how to navigate the delicacies of trying to find the Balance of Food. We hope you enjoy the new segment. All pictures are © to the author of Balance of Food unless otherwise noted. Please give us any feedback you would like.

After a few years of linking to fun food stories in the extreme, I am shifting the focus of the Balance of Food. Most of what you see will be weekly essays navigating through the difficult daily task of balancing food and nutrition. I will add my personal perspective so hopefully you can learn better from my steps through life.

This piece from Greg Beato in Reason magazine highlights the phenomena of gigantic meals. As we have discussed here before, it's just a combination of the extremes Americans take and a backlash from "rabbit food." But Beato did shine a spotlight on one challenge meal. Challenge meals are essentially free if you eat them in the alloted time. Usually, it's a steak or giant hamburger at stake, but some offers include sides. The challenge at the Big Texan Steak Ranch in Amarillo, Texas is eating a 72-ounce sirloin steak, baked potato, salad, dinner roll, and a shrimp cocktail in 60 minutes or less. Minus the steak, you have a pretty nice meal. With the steak, you need talent and a little luck. Beato notes that meal has as many calories as 10 Big Macs. And Big Macs have more calories than you might think. Moderation!

Normally, I try not to pay attention to food I get on airplanes -- mostly so I don't start crying. But with my first trip on Southwest, I was curious as to what I would get. Known for its peanuts, I was disappointed to find the peanuts coated in several sources of sugar. I didn't write them all down, but there was sucrose and brown sugar. "I can't eat this," I thought to myself. "Way too sweet." Fortunately, my hunger didn't rest on getting anything significant from my "travel snack box." The thin salami probably went over well with many travelers, but it had no appeal to me. I saw smoked salmon jerky in Oakland, and the idea of eating processed salami wasn't appetizing. The 100-calorie pack of "Chips Ahoy" was intriguing in that I had never tried them. What a waste. Yes, it's only 100 calories. But they had no taste. None. I would have liked one Chips Ahoy cookie, regardless of how many calories it would have provided. At least there would have been taste involved. Finally, the piece de resistance: breadsticks, sort of, and processed cheese. Woooo! After the rest, this was manna. It was lifeless, tasteless sticks of white flour, but the cheese was a little fun. I loved my trip on Southwest, but I will stock up on sandwiches. I had a Potbelly from Midway (Chicago) and a tremendous roast beef sandwich with extra horseradish on sourdough from San Francisco airport (Jackie's Deli?). Much much better eating fare.

Heaven is such an overused word, yet heaven does apply here. I took a recent trip to San Francisco, where I got to sample In 'n' Out Burger, Carl's Jr., and the classic Jack in the Box. These pictures are from the actual locations I ate at in San Francisco. The first stop was In-N-Out Burger. This was my very first trip. This location is actually in the Fisherman's Wharf area. (You have to be fast-food hungry to eat burgers surrounded by fresh seafood.) I went with the secret menu. I went Double Double (two patties), Extra Toast (buns toasted longer), and Fries Well (well-cooked fries). I also got grilled onions and the special sauce. It was the fanciest burger I have ever had from a fast food restaurant. It tasted freshly made, the meat perhaps a bit overdone (as most fast food burgers are). I wasn't salivating for it, but it was better than most. The fries were truly well-done, but not as much fun as Steak 'n' Shake. I also got the chocolate milkshake, which I rarely do these days. That was good, for sure. Overall, a good fast food meal. I didn't feel weighed down by it like the more popular fast food places. Good thing that was true: I spent the afternoon going to Sausalito and walking the Golden gate Bridge and back. Carl's Jr. was next. Wheile I technically haven't been at a Carl's Jr., I have been at Hardee's, its not-so-distant cousin. The staff at In-N-Out was extremely pleasant -- you can tell they are paid well and take their responsibilities seriously. I had a difficult time communicating with the person taking my order. I had the portabello mushroom Six Dollar burger they had on special. I could taste the mushrooms, and again, like the In-N-Out burger, an above-average fast-food burger. The fries were OK and not so warm. Jack in the Box was the only one I had experience with previously. Regular readers know I have eaten in Jack in the Box locations in California, Texas, Illinois, and Missouri. But adding San Francisco to the list was appropriate to round out the trip. This was the truest urban location I had tried. My Texas experience was Dallas, but this was the most crammed space I had encountered. I had the sirloin burger, a departure from the usual sourdough burger I usually ordered. I do get the irony of not getting sourdough in San Francisco, land of sourdough. But I also got the sirloin burger to get the Holiday Jack car antenna ball ornament. The burger had a high quality to it, but got lost in all the toppings, including grilled onions. The food was typical Jack, though I probably would go back to the sourdough burger. Fries were good, but not great. I really wanted In-N-Out to be awesome, and it was good, not great. Carl's Jr. suffered on several fronts, though steps ahead of the two most classic chains. Jack in the Box is normally well above average, but this stop was not on par with the other Jack visits. The place I wanted to try but didn't was Custom Burger. They had high-scale burgers with quality toppings and lightly sea-salted fries. It sounded like what I really wanted these fast food places to be: a burger to make me salivate, fries hot and crisp. But if I lived in California, and needed a fast-food fix, In-N-Out and Jack in the Box would satisfy my needs.

I wrote a food-related piece for another blog (Last Chance Democracy Cafe), helping out a fellow blogger (he doubles as an attorney in real life). I was asked to write two Thanksgiving-related pieces, and made one of them about food. I pulled this paragraph from an article referenced in my blog entry.

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture's annual hunger survey released Wednesday showed that more than 35.5 million people in the United States were hungry in 2006. While that number was about the same as the previous year, heads of food banks and pantries say many more people are seeking their assistance."

Those of us with food get so much on our plates, while others don't have much or none. This isn't said to make you feel guilty for your Thanksgiving dinner you are about to plow into on Thursday. What it says to me is that we should think about this topic year-round, not just in late November.

Free samples are a way of getting nutrition without paying for it. Well, you can't get THAT much nutrition. In my "trying to be better" method, I don't cling onto free samples as much, since everything I eat, counts. But I do have some observations from recent episodes: * I tried this great organic granola, and I don't normally eat granola. I tried a flavor I wasn't used to (cherry vanilla) and it was extremely good. I took the coupon, but never found the product in the rest of the store. I suppose I would have tried harder to find the product if I could eat more granola, but it had so many carbs for 1/2 cup size. * I tried frozen fettucine alfredo. They did cheat a bit and added lemon chicken, but I could see that being a quick dinner. I am wary of cooked pasta since most companies don't understand al dente, the true way of doing pasta. The pasta should have a little bite. I love the "pasta nazis" who insist on this cooking shows that pasta must be cooked according to directions. Al dente means undercutting the time to the benefit of your taste buds, especially for whole wheat spaghetti. But this fettucine wasn't too bad. * I tried two different blueberry/pomegranate juice blends in two different stores. The first one was more about the blueberry/pomegranate taste, a bit intense with an edge toward a pomegranate taste, but I could taste the blueberry. I felt like I truly got both juices in a taste. The second one was a national company (Minute Maid) 100% juice blend. I was quite wary: don't trust juice blends since they tend to be dominated by high-sugar juices such as apple and grape. Sure enough, I read the ingredients and apple and grape were at the top. Still, I had to try it. I drank some, and the woman asked, "What do you think of the taste?" I said, "It has no taste." It really didn't: no blueberry, no pomegranate, no nothing. It was "drinkable" but I would buy the first one in a heartbeat. The first one was too strong, but at least I would know I would get the antioxidants. I could see someone tasting the Minute Maid brand, and thinking if they didn't like it, saying, "I don't like blueberry and pomegranate." Sure after trying that, I might have said the same thing. But since I had a more authentic version, I knew better. There will always be things we don't like. And a lot of people can't take the true taste of blueberry and pomegranate; they are intense. But make sure you are trying the real thing before you decide.

Does banning cupcakes solve childhood obesity and Type 2 diabetes? Not likely, but it was fun to watch "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" take on the subject. Reporter Rob Riggle pretends he's a doctor in the report. Huntington, NY is battling over whether to ban cupcakes. But the funny part comes from an "expert." Meme Roth, public health advocate, says in the piece that cupcakes are killing our children, and equates antifreeze with cupcakes. She agrees that eating a cupcake is like putting a gun in your mouth. Moderation, "chastised" in the segment, is the actual solution. Banning cupcakes only makes them more enticing (it's the American way). Besides, cupcakes taste good.

So what do you eat on the run? Didn't get much response to that question when I asked it earlier. It's probably since you didn't want to give up your secrets. ;) No, seriously, it's a tough pick. If you had the time, you would fix something to then have with you. Sometimes, I have to eat dinner by a certain time. Otherwise, it throws off my body chemistry (it's not good). I get frustrated with eating crap because I'm on the run. I could do fewer things, but life would be more boring.

I seem to make lousy food choices on vacation. I had in my mind to eat better than normal -- at least normal by traveling standards. There were certain meals that had to be done: ribs at Montgomery Inn and 4-way chili at Skyline. I would have had 5-way, but I'm not much into beans (the other 4 ways are chili, spaghetti, onion, and cheese). But there were choices made by stress and tension (yes, even on vacation). Two meals went not as well based on going against my hunch, or having my hunch thwarted. I even drooled over a Brazilian steakhouse that wouldn't have appealed to my vacation partner. I had one smart moment. I ate lunch at the Cincinnati Zoo. I needed a semi-normal meal. I wanted to find a place near the zoo to have "real" food, but trust me, not a lot around the zoo. I felt like I was destined for chicken fingers. The signs in the food hut pointed to baskets. Meat, fries in a basket. I was not encouraged. Then I saw hidden down below. Sandwiches. One with black forest ham and real lettuce. Yes, with fries in a basket and a pickle. But I still felt pretty good about that pick. And one golden moment. I've been a fan of Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives. We were driving back on I-65. I knew Lafayette and West Lafayette were the best shot for food. As we got closer, I remembered there was a place in West Lafayette from that show. But I could not remember the name of the place. So I figured we'd drive into town, find a good spot, and ask. My vacation partner was a little skeptical, but also willing to go for it. I asked the guy at the service station nonchalantly that we were trying to find a place to eat but I didn't know the name. Then sheepishly, I noted that I had seen it on the Food Network. "Oh, yeah. The Triple X." So that was the name. His directions were excellent, which was good since it was the first time driving through West Lafayette. This place was cool, and even if it was fast food, it was fresh, well-prepared, and yummy. I even indulged in a XXX root beer, knowing they made it with sugar, not HFCS. Very good. Difficult to get a good root beer with sugar. Yes, vacations are good for making bad choices for food. As long as I score a few victories, I guess it would even out.

As I have been struggling with remaining good, it was perhaps the appropriate time to see "Bad Habits," a film from Mexico. Anorexia, bulimia, and mother/daughter issues were full-on display in the film. Add in themes of religion and water, and you have a movie. What is a little surprising is that the perception of these issues is that they are mostly Caucasian. You don't think of Hispanics or African-Americans or Asians as having these issues as significantly as white girls. As a guy going through this, it's clear that females have a different perspective on body image and weight. Women have more outlets for their frustration, but they also have much more of a burden. The mother/daughter dynamic is powerful and disturbing. As the mother loses weight, she yells and screams at the daughter about needing to lose weight. When you look at the daughter, she looks average, but the mother gets excruciatingly thin. One "tip" from the movie involved a scene with two young children, a boy and a girl, about 7. Both are in this weight-loss, Jenny Craig type system. The boy teaches the girl that the way to lose weight is to take something you like, chew and chew and chew and then spit it out. It sounds so amazingly simple. We get the taste for things; we want our taste buds to experience the dish. Swallowing is the problem. I don't know whether that would work, and we are certainly not endorsing this technique. Just passing it on. And if it does work, let us know.

Good news for those of us who suffered with being picky eaters. You might be able to blame your parents, or some other relative. This story in The New York Times goes into more detail. According to the report in the story, 78 percent is genetic and the other 22 percent environmental. While I was quite a picky eater, I'm not even in the same league as the kids in this story. I wasn't confined to colors or textures, though some textures threw me off. I would also argue that I would have liked more foods, as a kid, if my father hadn't been more concerned about expressing his anger than in helping a confused child like more foods. (Therapy moment over.)

Could not resist this collection of recipes from Congressmen and Senators. Generally speaking, they aren't healthy, but hey, it's a chance to make something inspired by some of the 535 people in Congress. Besides Larry Craig's Super Tuber, perhaps the most disturbing one is Grape Dogs from Steven C. LaTourette. Here is the recipe: 2 bottles of Heinz chili sauce One 8-ounce jar grape jelly 2 packages of hot dogs, sliced into 3/4 to 1-inch pieces. Mini, bite-sized hot dogs can also be used. Heat chili sauce in a medium saucepan until boiling. Blend in the jelly and stir in two packages of your favorite hot dogs, sliced. Simmer on low heat for 20 minutes. Serve warm on toothpicks. Grape dogs can also be prepared in a crock pot. Not my cup of tea.

The image I notice that keeps bugging me is people eating food in a car. I don't blame them; when I had a car, I would eat in it. But we shouldn't have to rush through not-so-great food. We should take our time with not-so-great food. No, seriously. Even without a car, I still have times when I need to grab food that isn't great and wolf it down. The speed isn't so much the problem as the quality of food. So what do you sneak in your purse or briefcase or bag to keep you going when you are on the run? Let us know.

I love headlines like this. . . Yes, duck fat was involved in my Saturday indulgence. This restaurant called Hot Doug's serves French fries cooked in duck fat, but only on Fridays and Saturdays. To give you an idea on how popular this is, I actually waited about 20 minutes for a fast-food meal just to get inside the place. They also serve gourmet sausages, including buffalo. But the line is for the duck fat fries. There is a genuine difference in taste; they taste better, richer, beyond the normal fry. I also like how they are cooked well, where so many fries are not. There was too much salt, a usual complaint of mine. With the duck fat, there is plenty of flavor without resorting to TMS (too much salt). For a container that can feed 2-3 people, the cost is $3.50 and worth it. But it comes at a difficult time for me. I have had too much gastronomic fun this summer, mostly due to stress and depression. So I've been trying to be better. And I have been good, but I needed a treat. With my duck fat fries, I had a chicken sausage with mustard, relish, and cooked onions. For non-Chicagoans, we should point out that the relish is bright green for reasons that aren't clear to me. The dog was tasty at $3.50, the buffalo was $7. Maybe next time. But an occasional treat is vital to maintaining success weight-wise. And I got in a lot of walking on Saturday (this isn't convenient to get to). So have a little fun, duck fat not necessarily required.

As regular readers know, I have a love-hate relationship with fast food. And few categories of advertising interest me than fast food. Mark Morford writes for the San Francisco Chronicle on topics he sees fit. In this piece, he takes off on the Baconator ads from Wendy's. While I don't necessarily agree, I found this column to be hilarious. This is the thing that gets me. The imagery fast food restaurants use does not get me to go. Nostalgia can, definitely. But no major fast food place has a burger that is juicier than I can make at home. When I do it at home, it's fresher and no microwaves are ever used. It is cooked to the temperature I desire, a healthy medium-rare. And the toppings are going to be high-quality. The French fries are a different story.

Food thoughts from my vacation to Toronto. . . -- The city has a multiplex on Richmond Street where you can get fast food in the theatre. it's the first place I have seen this phenomenon. Burger King, Pizza Hut/KFC were in the multiplex. The thought of smelling a Whopper or Personal Pan Pizza while watching a movie didn't seem tantalizing. But I like the idea that you can if you want to. Then again, the prices might scare you. The Whopper cost $3.99 Canadian and a Whopper Value Meal was $9.99 Canadian. (For the first time in about 31 years, the Canadian dollar is virtually the same rate as the U.S. dollar.) I know Toronto is the most expensive city in Canada, but that seems a little high. -- The bargain end was a $.99 cranberry/lemon muffin at a local bakery in the St. Lawrence Market. Freshly baked and enough to last you until lunch, it was an unexpected treat. I almost got the peameal bacon sandwich: back bacon with a cornmeal crust on a soft roll. Tempting but not for breakfast. -- I indulged more than usual in French fries and Coca-Cola, since the Canadian rules applied. Ketchup that tastes like ketchup due to there being no high-fructose corn syrup. Coca-Cola for the same reason. I set good limits and followed them. -- When you are on vacation, sometimes you walk too much and realize you don't know what you will do for dinner. My first full day was like that: then again, I sat through 2 movies and a football game, so I was plenty tired. I was in the mood for steak. I stumbled upon a place that seemed OK, except. I walked in and I heard a really bad pop song on the radio. Didn't seem like the thing to hear in a steakhouse. I sat down because I was tired and didn't want to try somewhere else. I asked for water. The waiter gave me a choice that perplexed me. I said just plain water. He reasked his question. I confess I can't repeat it back, since I never understood the question. I think I finally answered his question since he left. The guy next to me tried to explain, but I didn't get it, except to know they were trying to sell me water I didn't want. So I left. It took me a while to find the other steakhouse I had noticed. It was The Keg, a place I had eaten at in Vancouver. What a difference. I sat at the bar, was treated really well from the start, filled my water glass a lot (I had walked a lot), and even turned on the Blue Jays game for me. The two ladies sitting at the bar were lovely company. The meal was perfectly done, not a single complaint. Nice to find when you are on vacation. -- I'm not the most adventurous eater. But in Toronto, there are so many different ethnic restaurants to choose from. I even saw a Somali place on the way from the airport. There are two Italian areas. Tried a place in each area and had nice success with both. Sometimes, just walking around the neighborhood is the best way to find a place. -- Poutine was everywhere. I have dealt with the oddities of what Ontario residents put on their fries. I didn't have it this trip, but there's always next time.

Mothers around the world struggle to determine their kids' lunches for schools. And most of the world doesn't have access to Lunchables (it's true). Here's a sample of lunches from around the world. The one common theme from these examples is that children's nutrition is vital to the learning process. It's difficult to imagine, given the horror stories we hear about 20-minute U.S. school lunch periods, of the idea of multiple courses, as in France and Italy. I'm not in school, and I swear every Sunday night, I wrestle with what to do about my own lunch.

Can you imagine ordering high-fructose corn syrup in a restaurant. "Yes, I'd like to have the high-fructose corn syrup on the side." "Can I get that with extra high-fructose corn syrup?" As the regular readers know, I try to stay away from HFCS and feel like I do a pretty good job. Then I came across that statistic in Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma." Of the 69 items at McDonald's, 45 of them contain high-fructose corn syrup. "Wow" doesn't cut it. The obvious items would include soft drinks, dressings, and ketchup. But then I realized the buns for the hamburgers probably have HFCS. I can't speak to the chicken nuggets and the French fries, but who knows. So unless you are in a restaurant that bakes its own bread, you are probably eating bread with HFCS in it. I like to bring my own ketchup when possible, but I know that many times, I just eat the ketchup there on the table with the HFCS. If you are trying to stay away from HFCS, whether it's a strong preference, concerns about health and taste, or even an allergy to corn, you really want to know whether a product has HFCS. The best advice is to eat as little as possible, or move away from the United States.

Yes, there is a candy bar, a little expensive, but you can combine bacon and chocolate. The candy bar from Vosges Chocolate offers applewood smoked bacon, Alder smoked salt, and deep milk chocolate. We wonder if there was a collision between the two food giants as demonstrated in the Reeses peanut butter cups commercials of a long ago era. As soon as I can come up with $7, I might give this a try. Then again, I could buy a pound of bacon and dip it in chocolate for about $7. Still, if someone offered it to me, I would eat some.

An excellent letter to the editor on the role government plays in our horrible diets. The letter to the Chicago Tribune is from Connie Diekman, president of the American Dietetic Association. If you've read Michael Pollan's "Omnivore Dilemma," you have some understanding of a system that feeds corn to animals that can't normally digest corn. A system that is pro-corporation, anti-farmer, and ultimately, anti-consumer health. As she points out, "Today most Americans are overfed and undernourished. And the nation's farm policies, which tilt the equation for farmers to produce more commodities for industrial users and processors rather than nutritious foods for people to eat, contribute to this lamentable situation." The overfed and undernourished line is so obvious. Yes, food is cheap, but it costs us all in the end. And the food is cheap because corn products are subsidized. Notice that the price of milk is climbing due to the rise in the price of corn. This is about high-fructose corn syrup and so much more.

Dunkin' Donuts is following the train of fast food restaurants and calling for virtual elimination of trans fats. The chain has noted that its trans fat levels will fall below half a gram per serving.

The chain says its menu will be "zero grams trans fat" by Oct. 15 across its 5,400 U.S. restaurants in 34 states.

While difficult to imagine the doughnuts would ever be healthy, they technically will be healthier. So when you do get an occasional craving, it will be less bad for you.

State fairs don't always offer nutritional fare. In fact, they usually lower themselves to borderline disgusting levels. This New York Times article has a lot of fun with the fare at the Indiana State Fair. But what is truly precious is this picture that went with the article. We want to give full credit, not smaller type, to Darron Cummings/Associated Press for this picture. It's that good. Be sure and look carefully at the picture since it gives you the recipe for Deep-Fried Pepsi balls. As if you don't already have enough sugar and fat, you can get your Peps i balls topped with cinnamon sugar, drizzled Pepsi syrup, and whipped cream. I would prefer Deep-Fried Coke or Dr. Pepper, but only if I could get the syrup without high-fructose corn syrup.

Let's make it clear that as much as we bash McDonald's, we will praise them when they do well. According to the CSPI, despite the fact that New York City banned trans fats, you are still getting some in your French fries. But in the CSPI test where it had independent laboratory analyze the samples, McDonald's did significantly better. Burger King scored 3.3 grams of trans fat and Wendy's had 3.7 grams of trans fat, while McDonald's had 0.2 grams of trans fat. (Wendy's did have a significantly larger amount of fries.) You are asking: "Gee, they banned trans fat. Why is it still there?" The likely answer is that partially hydrogenated oils are being used in the par-fry process, where French fries are pre-fried before they are shipped to the restaurants. While technically fulfilling the law, Burger King and Wendy's are certainly violating the spirit of the law. And consumers are getting misled. Kudos to McDonald's for doing it right in NYC. Now, do it everywhere else and we'll truly be happier.

Those who have tuned into this blog knows I'm not crazy about high-fructose corn syrup. Whether you think it's horrible or wonderful (well, maybe not wonderful, but OK), you should at least know how much HFCS you eat. If you regularly eat ketchup or regular U.S. soft drinks, you probably get healthy doses of HFCS. But virtually all hot dog buns have it. I noticed a blueberry syrup at the breakfast bar at a Midwestern family restaurant over the weekend. The first 2 ingredients were high fructose corn syrup and corn syrup. Yes, the word "syrup" is in both, but the blueberry part was a bit further down. So take the opportunity to read a few labels -- look to see how much HFCS you eat, or at least, to see how many food items you eat that contains HFCS. As much as I try to avoid it, I know I do consume some, but it's mostly ketchup in restaurants and most hot dog buns. I used to down tons of soft drinks, so I'm sure I have consumed multiple pounds. I don't honestly have an idea of how much. All I know is I feel better now that I have sharply reduced the amount. I would love to reduce it more, but that would require substantial changes.

Summertime and fair time are great times to eat fun disgusting things. Today's latest find comes from the Iowa State Fair: Potato Lollipops. As the state fair admits, the lollipop "features four thick slices of Russet potato deep-fried and on-a-stick with a variety of dipping sauces." It's good when you walking around to be able to have the food on a stick, especially with the dipping sauces to be held in the other hand. The great thing about potatoes is that they are fun to eat covered in some other fat, fun flavor. For example, this Chicago chain features fries covered in melted bleu cheese, bacon, green onions, a cup of Alfredo sauce, and garnished with tomato. (What is that tomato doing there?) The Iowa State Fair is also offering as a new entry this year, the X-Treme Fries – covered with chili, cheese, and topped off with jalapenos. And this entry is a reminder that other countries have an unique view on what should go on fries.

As this article points out, the United States has dropped from 11th to 42nd place in the last 20 years in the world rankings on life expectancy. This cartoon above from Andrew Wahl illustrates why, perhaps, this has happened. All he is missing is the chili and/or nacho cheese stains on his shirt. Note: I do have a relationship through my day job with Wahl. Then again, it's a great cartoon.

When the Atkins craze hit, the one thing that really annoyed me was the products. How you not only needed to follow this carb-deprivation plan, but also you had to do it with those products. The sincerity of a diet program can be measured in whether it tries to sell you food. Now, Curves is at it with breakfast cereal. I saw the two flavors: Whole Grain Crunch and Honey Crunch. I see from the Web that they also have chewy granola bars in Chocolate Peanut and Strawberries + Cream. I have not looked at the ingredients for the bars, but of course, I had to read the ingredient list for the cereal. I saw one ingredient that shouldn't be in a breakfast cereal: sucralose. The honey version had sugar and sucralose. So we have an extra sweet cereal, which will make you want to eat more. If anything, breakfast cereal needs to be less sweet. If you need that much sweetness in the morning, have a piece of whole wheat toast with natural fruit spread. I understand the idea of "extending a brand" with marketing. Weight-loss centers apparently don't make enough money. But at least put out a product worthy of your audience. Not to talk up brands, but Special K is a cereal targeted at diet-conscious women. It doesn't have to resort to cheap tricks such as artificial sweeteners. There are other reasonably healthy cereals that could accomplish the same idea (Cherrios, Wheaties) that have the whole grains the Curves cereal promises without artificial sweeteners. And this doesn't even take in healthier, lesser-known cereals. If a diet center helps you get into better shape, good for you. But this cereal isn't going to help.

Now that slow food is becoming part of the food conscience, I'm still not sure where I stand. This is one of many articles touting the praises of slow food. I do think locally grown food tastes better since it's picked at its ripest point. But the obsession with which slow food fans treat food isn't terribly realistic for the modern world. If we hold it up as an ideal, great. If we try to pressure the working mother of 3 small children that processed foods are evil, it won't work. Lead by example; speak positively of the virtues, and more converts will come around. Slow food isn't a bad philosophy, but it won't work as a religion.

We don't normally talk about exercise, since we are more concerned with food. However, just about everyone walks. So I thought it would be fun to run the list of the Top 100 walking cities. I have no idea of the criteria, and certainly weather has to be a factor, yet Madison, WI, won the top spot in the upper Midwest. Still, Austin, San Francisco (love those inclines), Charlotte, and Seattle round out the top 5. Chicago finished 62nd, one spot behind Los Angeles. People from LA tell me the city is not friendly to walkers, but to beat out Chicago says something since Chicago is very walkable. This site is good to see how walkable your area is, especially if you don't live in a big, fancy city.

Like most men, I fall asleep on the couch while watching TV. Saturday night, I woke up from my unplanned nap and Extra was on my TV. BTW, this is proof I was sleeping because I had to think for a second what was on the TV that caused Extra, a show I would never normally watch, to be on. Being still a little tired, I didn't change the channel fast enough. But when they started talking about diets, I started to pay attention. This guy had invented a set of discs called Portion Pals. You get 5 "food management discs" for $17.98 plus tax and shipping. Apparently, Halle Berry and some rap artist use it, too, hence Extra's keen "journalistic" interest. There is a lot of money to be made in the diet industry. And this fell right in the middle of the pack. The demonstration of the product in the middle of the segment (commercial??) wasn't terribly awe-inspiring. The suggestion was that you put a piece of meat on the disc to then cut away to the proper size. The image of a deck of cards is quite useful, especially when you have a deck of cards. If you already have a deck of cards, the cost (including tax and shipping) is $0. If you don't have a deck of cards, you might have to buy a pack (retail cost unknown, but less than $17.98). And as an extra non-TV bonus, you get cards to play games, such as poker, solitaire, and hearts. These products are advertised as "America's #1 Weight Loss Tool." Unfortunately, the "tools" are those trying to sell such a cheezy product. Despite the celebrity use, you can accomplish the same thing with much less money and more pride. Generally speaking, the portions you eat, your neighbors eat, and America eats are larger than you should eat. If you cut a portion in half, even if you have no depth perception whatsoever, you will be better off.