Scrap the Bagel and Grab A… Doughnut?

So this is happening.

Dunkin’ Donuts has announced that it will be adding a new menu item to its breakfast offerings: the doughnut breakfast sandwich. Yes, you heard that right—the doughnutbreakfast sandwich. And no, it’s not just doughnuts and jelly; it’s an actual breakfast sandwich, but the "bread" is a glazed doughnut rather than a bagel or english muffin. This thing has eggs. It has bacon. It comes with hash browns on the side. It’s legit, and it sounds totally disgusting.

At least they're not fully frosted doughnuts?
Image: Shutterstock

I like doughnuts, I like eggs, and I like bacon, but this new “sandwich” just makes me shake my head ruefully. This is why we’re struggling with obesity here in the U.S. and in many other countries. Why do we have to drown everything in oil and sugar, frying it just to be sure? Can’t we just save doughnuts and other sugary desserts for once-in-a-while snacks? Why do we have to add them to every meal?

I’ll concede that for people who normally just grab a doughnut or two with coffee for breakfast, this is probably a better choice than their normal meal—since it adds some much-needed protein and probably means they’ll eat at least one fewer doughnuts. If this were an in-betweener type of meal that was set up to wean people off of doughnuts and onto real food, it would have some merit to it. But I get the feeling it’s not one more way to get the good stuff it—it’s one more way to get the bad stuff in.

I’ll quit my whining for one moment to point out that the new sandwich does actually have fewer calories (360 calories) than the chain’s turkey sausage sandwich (390 calories). However, it also probably has a load more sugar, which in my book is far worse than a few more calories.

To be honest, it probably doesn’t taste too bad. Bacon goes well with sweet things, as do eggs. But the real problem is that, once again, a fast food chain is promoting the kind of eating that is causing major health problems.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. Obesity is the #2 cause of preventable death in the United States. According to Get Fit America, there are 58 million people in the U.S. who are overweight, 40 million of which are obese. Three million of those are morbidly obese. Eight out of 10 people over the age of 25 are overweight, and nearly 80% of Americans don’t meet basic activity level recommendations.

Those are frightening statistics.

And this new gimmick is only going to contribute more to them. I understand that Dunkin’ Donuts is not meant to be healthy food, nor will it ever be. It is a doughnut shop, and its specialty is just that. I respect that, and hey, I eat my weekly doughnut with delight (yay Fridays!). What bothers me is the fact that the company is making what should be a special treat into something that seems like it’s okay to eat every day, when it is anything but.

Read More

Average Sized Mannequin Photo Goes Viral

I’m sure I’m not the only person who’s ever walked by mannequins on display at a store and asked, “Really?” It’s not uncommon to see weirdly skinny mannequins sporting merchandise in size 0, safety pinned at the back because it’s still too big. Those clothes often end up being what I describe as “good on the rack,” but not really anywhere else.

The Gap's "Always Skinny" mannequin earned
the nickname "Death Camp Chic"

You know it’s a problem when your bones are literally bigger than what’s supposed to be a full flesh-and-bone representation. Of course, not all mannequins are like that. But the average size for mannequins in the United States is between sizes 4 and 6. This contrasts sharply with the average woman’s size, which is between 12 and 14 according to Women’s Wear Daily.

Mannequins are also blessed with abnormally long figures and limbs, some as much as 6 inches taller and 6 sizes smaller than the average woman, according to the Chicago Tribune. But lately some in the fashion industry have taken a stand against the promotion of anorexic figures, including major gurus like Vogue, which is run by editor Anna Wintour and contributed to by fashionistas like Lauren Santo Domingo.

But now a photo of two mannequins is making the viral rounds on the Internet—and the approval has been overwhelming. The picture depicts two mannequins from an unknown Swedish retail store sporting sets of purple lingerie. What’s special about them is that they actually look like real women. They have hips, breasts, and soft tissue. Their legs and arms look proportional. They are still slim, yes, but in a healthy way.

Average-sized mannequins from a Swedish retailer
are receiving praise for being realistic.

A few worry that making larger mannequins will promote obesity, but to that I say “Pah!” The mannequins aren’t obese; they are a more realistic depiction of what women actually look like. How does seeing a super skinny mannequin help us picture clothing on our own bodies? How does it make us feel when those clothes don’t seem to fit in quite the same way?

The picture surfaced earlier this week on the Women’s Rights News Facebook pagewith a message attached: “Store mannequins in Sweden. They look like real women. The US should invest in some of these.”

And I have to say, I agree. What do you think?

Read More

Fast Food Accounts for 11% of American Diet

Image from wisegeek.com
Fast food accounts for 11% of the American diet

We try to eat healthy as much as possible at home. We consume far more fresh produce than I ever did in my youth (when most of my veggies came from cans) and most of our meals consist of about 75% veggies and 25% meat. Sugar, salt, butter, cream, and all those delicious but overly-used additions are used sparingly. And while we might order the occasional pizza on a Saturday night, I honestly can’t remember the last time we made our way through a fast food drive-thru.

I count myself lucky in that fast food has never settled well with me. My stomach is especially sensitive and I’m a picky eater, so even as a teen I didn’t usually find fast food all that appetizing. But we still ate it from time to time because it was cheap and easy to come by.

Image from impawards.com
We are still a "Fast Food Nation"

But the sad truth is that many don’t feel the same, or they can’t afford to. Fast food accounts for more than 11% of the total American diet, according to federal health officials. And though that’s down two percent from a few years ago, that’s still a frightening amount, especially for young people.

The decisions we make as young adults can affect our health for the rest of our lives, and struggling with obesity in our 20s can put us at a high risk for metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar levels, and abdominal fat), diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease, among others.

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), people aged 20 to 39 got 15% of their daily calories from fast food, while those older than 60 came in at just 6%. Young black people aged 20-39 were even higher, with 21% of their daily calories coming from fast food.

Image from livingachangedlife.blogspot.com
FRUIT is fast food!

And it seems that obesity only compounds the issue, as a survey of weight groups revealed that obese young adults got the highest percentage of calories from fast food—18%. For the most part, income didn’t seem to have much effect on how much fast food people ate. That means at this point it’s more a battle with bad habits and ease of obtainment than anything else.

I’m all for having food that’s available quickly, especially since sometimes I’m on the road or in a hurry and need a quick bite. I’ve been happy to see some fast food establishments offering more healthy options in the past few years, and I hope that trend continues. Obesity is a dangerous problem that should be addressed, particularly by those establishments that are largely responsible for the issue.

Do you eat fast food? If you do, do you choose to do so because it is 1) inexpensive, 2) quick, 3) easily obtained, or 4) because you enjoy it?

Read More

Why I Eat Whole Fats Over Sugar

I have a confession to make: I don’t buy “low fat” foods. Like, ever. I order my lattes with whole milk and I buy Greek yogurt at the store. When I read the labels on the back of my food, I look for one thing above all else—and unlike many people, it’s not the amount of fat or calories. It’s the sugar content.

Image from pcmlifestyle.com
Low fat options usually include more sugar

Certainly, I look at other things besides the sugar content (ingredients list and sodium come next), but that’s where I start. As someone who tries to be conscientious about my health and what I feed my body, I find that my main concern when choosing food is how much sugar I’m putting into my body.

Why? Fat has for a considerable amount of time been labeled as the culprit for making people… well, fat. That claim certainly has some basis to it. Fat contains more calories per gram than sugar does and it’s very nutrient dense, which means that large amounts of it can reside in small amounts of food.

That can be both good and bad. “Good” fats reside in many natural foods, like nuts, avocados, seeds, and dairy products. Our bodies need fat to function properly because it helps protect our hearts and organs, feeds our metabolism, and gives us energy. These natural fats also help sustain our bodies for longer and fill us up faster, which means that we can eat smaller portion sizes and last longer on them.

Image from freegreatpicture.com
Nuts contain natural "good" fats that our bodies need

Sugars can also occur naturally, but that’s not usually what I’m looking for when I read labels. I’m looking for added sugars, like high fructose corn syrup. It’s in an astounding amount of foods (Did you know ketchup has it? How about most Chinese foods?). Unfortunately, the more sweet foods we eat, the more we seem to crave sugar—and unlike natural fats, these calories are empty.

It’s not just a little sugar, either. An Arizona Raspberry Iced Tea contains 66 grams of sugar in a single can. Most sodas have similar amounts. These things often don’t fill us up, either, which means we eat several hundred calories’ worth of sugar only to get hungry again shortly.

Furthermore, daily consumption of sugar forces our bodies to constantly release insulin to manage blood-sugar levels and the storage of sugar. Besides having excess sugar turned into stored (bad) fat, sugar also causes a number of other health problems like tooth decay, iron and magnesium deficiencies, arthritis, sleep problems, digestive problems, and weight gain.

Of course, fat isn’t all good. If you gorge yourself on avocados, nuts, or coconut oil, you’ll probably gain some weight. But the point is, you’re less likely to do that than to overindulge on sugary foods.

Image from sugarstacks.com
Sugar is packed into sweet snacks like soda

One last thought: fat often helps give our foods flavor and substance. For example, I don’t like skim milk in part because it just tastes like water with a tiny bit of milk flavor mixed in. When you take that fat out, most of the time it ends up being replaced with something. Any guesses what that might be?

Bingo. It’s sugar, all right. Low-fat varieties of coffee creamers, flavored milk, and even yogurt often have higher sugar content than whole-fat ones. In my mind, I figure that while one may be higher in fat (and even calories), if it keeps me full for longer, I’ll be less likely to get hungry and have to snack before my next meal.

I don’t deny that there’s merit in watching our fat intake, and I do so especially with processed fats. But I do think that the mentality that “fat” is the main culprit for weight gain is a false one. In our sweet-toothed country, I point my finger at sugar.

Read More

Do Late Lunches Mean Less Weight Loss?

Does your lunch time affect weight loss

A new study from the International Journal of Obesity has suggested that those who eat lunch earlier in the day may have better success with weight loss than those who eat later. The study surveyed a total of 420 people in a weight loss program and found that those who regularly ate lunch before 3 p.m. lost about 25% more weight than those who ate later.

As someone who snacks about every three hours, with slightly larger snacks around breakfast and lunch, missing meals isn’t something I often do. My body is used to having small, constant amounts of food coming in to refuel it—so a late lunch is pretty miserable for me. But others don’t have the same routine as I do—my boss regularly waits until after three to eat and even then it’s just a bowl of ramen noodles (sodium and carbs). For those or you who find yourselves relating to her, I wanted to discuss the implications of eating late.

3 p.m. lunch may bee too long of a wait

Numerous studies have been done over the years on the effect of meal times and sizes. Some suggest that the biggest meal should be breakfast, and meals should gradually decline in size, making dinner the smallest. Other studies say that eating every three hours is best for our bodies, as it keeps meals small and generally lighter than a heaping platter. But none of these studies have definitively nailed down the single best pattern. And that includes this one.

When reading into studies, make sure to keep in mind all the variable factors. One such factor to consider is how much time the participants were going between meals. This study doesn’t chart that, but it’s an important consideration to make. One thing we do know about meal times is that when we go too long in between meals, it can affect the metabolism, slowing it and hindering weight loss.

A cute lunch box is essential in life!

Participants also likely had other different behaviors, including the comparison between calories consumed and burned. Not getting enough sleep has also been linked to higher rates of obesity and lower success in weight loss. The researchers themselves have recognized that these findings are preliminary and require further research to determine how much meal-timing influences weight loss.

Certainly, it’s not a bad idea to space your meals out equally and keep your body from going into “starvation” mode. But how much of an impact it actually has remains to be seen. Eating right and exercising regularly are still kings of the weight-loss world. 

Read More