My history with artificial sweeteners is a sordid one. Several years ago, my quest for a certain aesthetic led to the frequent consumption of things that were not quite food, intended to mask the unpalatability of my diet at the time. These things were sprinkled on my oatmeal, consumed from shaker cups both pre and post workout. They filled in myriad blanks, stimulating my taste buds where food was lacking.
Those days are past, and happily so. Rather than chase that ghostly artifice, I now know the sweetness of yams, carrots, and fuji apples. Indeed, these are the sorts of things that now fill my (organic cotton, if that tells you anything) grocery bag. There was nothing purchased on my last trip which was not a nearly unaltered plant - unless you consider tofu and rolled oats heavily processed. (And no, paleo crowd, I have not become fat or diabetic in the last few years.)
I should confess here that, quite shamefully, I still fall victim to the odd diet soda. There is a local, organic coop that carries only stevia and erythritol sweetened varieties, of which I try to exclusively partake. But I am not as fastidious as I'd like, and both coke and sprite zero have crossed my lips at least once in the last several months. I do plan on changing that, however, if for no other reason than to deprive the Coca Cola Corporation of my meager funds. Thankfully, I have nearly unlimited access to coffee, a beverage more rich in caffeine and health promoting compounds - not to mention, much tastier.
But that's me. There are those for whom coffee and artificial sweeteners are not separate entities, but in fact go hand in hand. Coffee, sans skim milk and a pink, blue, or yellow packet, is nigh undrinkable. And these people may well be disappointed in my coffee shop's restocked condiment bar, which lacks that artificial rainbow.
To be clear, this was not my choice, but that of my owner. For the sake of consistency, I will not carry these things, because the breakfast cafe he owns doesn't either. While my taste dictates doing away with all of them, so too would it banish the real sugar, and probably all the syrups too. Still, I'm happy to defend my owner's call.
I could point out that these packets contain dextrose and maltodextrin, both simple carbohydrates with a glycemic index similar to white sugar. I could note that all of them seem to kill rats - albeit in monster doses. Assuming that my customers are not rats, I could cite a study which shows aspartame consumption to alter postprandial insulin levels and glucose regulation - in humans. (If this makes you wonder why I drink this stuff at all, well, me too.)
Furthermore, it's not as if we're lacking for sweeteners. We still have local honey, raw and white sugar, and now carry stevia packets as well. The brand we carry lacks any additives, and thus doesn't perfectly mimic the taste of sugar, nor the immense sweetness of the chemical creations. But it does come from a plant, not a lab, and has actually healed damaged beta cells in diabetic rats, increasing both insulin production and sensitivity. Also, it doesn't affect serum glucose or insulin levels in humans. Because of this, it's recommended by a number of European and Asian governments for diabetics. (But not ours, suspiciously. Another tangent for another time, and probably a different blog.)
Finally, I could suggest that, just this once, they try their coffee black. But let's not get carried away.
Showing posts with label diet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diet. Show all posts
January 28, 2012
December 10, 2011
A Mocha For Breakfast
If I can piggyback a bit, the New York Times certainly has the room to carry me. And Mark Bittman is a big reason why. He's authored many cookbooks, and frankly, more useful food polemics than the more famous Michael Pollan.
His latest deals with breakfast cereal, or in other words, America's morning bowl of candy. We're told it's the most important meal of the day (for some reason), but people are often too busy (they'd say) to prepare something themselves. As such, they pour crisped up something or other from a box, douse it in milk, and consume.
I'll stop there, because there's no reason to write the linked article again. What I will do, however, is draw a parallel with coffee.
There is an ever increasing body of scientific literature that links coffee drinking with lower incidence of just about everything you want to avoid. It probably does some good things too, especially if you're about to go run. But while the evidence is growing, it's unfortunately irrelevant for most coffee drinkers. That's because, when most people refer to their morning coffee, they are, in fact, talking about a bucket of milk and sugar.
Before I go any further, I should say this: There is nothing wrong with people making that choice. I ate a cookie yesterday, and do not feel as if I've contributed to the metabolic epidemic in this country. Eat what you like; drink what you like.
It is a little troubling, however, to see the number of people for whom a mocha is breakfast. It's not that they can't enjoy such a drink - just that it's better served as a treat, rather than a meal.
Perhaps more troubling is that these are the sorts of coffee drinks most likely to be consumed by the younger crowd. Teenagers do not drink black coffee. They do like milkshakes though, even with trace espresso tossed in. This is a lifetime taste we're encouraging, and perhaps, some damaging consequences are being facilitated.
Of course, none of this is really my concern. Nor, in fact, will it be a revelation to anyone. No one orders a mocha thinking that it's the healthy choice. Perhaps I'd be better served not to undermine my sentiments so soon after expressing them, but in this case, it can't be helped. What to eat and drink is a free choice, as it should be. But sometimes, the better decision has to be noted.
His latest deals with breakfast cereal, or in other words, America's morning bowl of candy. We're told it's the most important meal of the day (for some reason), but people are often too busy (they'd say) to prepare something themselves. As such, they pour crisped up something or other from a box, douse it in milk, and consume.
I'll stop there, because there's no reason to write the linked article again. What I will do, however, is draw a parallel with coffee.
There is an ever increasing body of scientific literature that links coffee drinking with lower incidence of just about everything you want to avoid. It probably does some good things too, especially if you're about to go run. But while the evidence is growing, it's unfortunately irrelevant for most coffee drinkers. That's because, when most people refer to their morning coffee, they are, in fact, talking about a bucket of milk and sugar.
Before I go any further, I should say this: There is nothing wrong with people making that choice. I ate a cookie yesterday, and do not feel as if I've contributed to the metabolic epidemic in this country. Eat what you like; drink what you like.
It is a little troubling, however, to see the number of people for whom a mocha is breakfast. It's not that they can't enjoy such a drink - just that it's better served as a treat, rather than a meal.
Perhaps more troubling is that these are the sorts of coffee drinks most likely to be consumed by the younger crowd. Teenagers do not drink black coffee. They do like milkshakes though, even with trace espresso tossed in. This is a lifetime taste we're encouraging, and perhaps, some damaging consequences are being facilitated.
Of course, none of this is really my concern. Nor, in fact, will it be a revelation to anyone. No one orders a mocha thinking that it's the healthy choice. Perhaps I'd be better served not to undermine my sentiments so soon after expressing them, but in this case, it can't be helped. What to eat and drink is a free choice, as it should be. But sometimes, the better decision has to be noted.
October 24, 2011
Coffee's Advocate
Another day, another study suggest that - more than make life worth living - coffee might well save it. This is not particularly noteworthy, in and of itself. The study only notes a correlation, which proves little to nothing. What's more, the mechanism is unclear, and the gap in consumption is massive. So what we've learned, really, is that people who drink a lot of coffee tend to have once type of cancer less than people who drink almost none. As such, there is no call to action, and it's said that people shouldn't start drinking coffee if they don't already enjoy it.
Were this one isolated case, I'd agree. Taken by itself, this one study isn't significant enough to support advocacy. But taken on the whole, there's a massive (and growing) body of evidence that suggests coffee deserves to be considered alongside fruits and veggies as potent natural medicine. And those, of course, are advocated for (however ineffectually).
Fruits and veggies are justifiably considered nutritional necessities, containing vitamins and phytonutrients that do innumerable good things inside the human body. But for all of the studies that suggest this, there are precious few that provide a causative link. And like the above study, taken on an individual basis, one might not think an apple a day worth eating. But we know better. We can take the cumulative knowledge, and glean from it that people should eat colorful plants, often at the exclusion of less nutritive things.
Thus, increase consumption of fruits and veggies; decrease consumption of less nutrient dense pseudo-food is considered sound advice.
In that same vein, I offer the following: Increase consumption of coffee, tea, and water; decrease consumption of sweetened liquids.
That, I think, is reasonable advocacy. No one needs to like coffee. But no one needs to like kale, either. You'd still be better off eating a side of that than french fries. So too can people make wise choices in their quest to hydrate and caffeinate. Coffee is a good one. So is tea, and of course, water. Anything sweetened, on the other hand, is probably not a good decision - whether it's sugar or sucralose/asparatame/neotame/etc. doing the sweetening.
Were this one isolated case, I'd agree. Taken by itself, this one study isn't significant enough to support advocacy. But taken on the whole, there's a massive (and growing) body of evidence that suggests coffee deserves to be considered alongside fruits and veggies as potent natural medicine. And those, of course, are advocated for (however ineffectually).
Fruits and veggies are justifiably considered nutritional necessities, containing vitamins and phytonutrients that do innumerable good things inside the human body. But for all of the studies that suggest this, there are precious few that provide a causative link. And like the above study, taken on an individual basis, one might not think an apple a day worth eating. But we know better. We can take the cumulative knowledge, and glean from it that people should eat colorful plants, often at the exclusion of less nutritive things.
Thus, increase consumption of fruits and veggies; decrease consumption of less nutrient dense pseudo-food is considered sound advice.
In that same vein, I offer the following: Increase consumption of coffee, tea, and water; decrease consumption of sweetened liquids.
That, I think, is reasonable advocacy. No one needs to like coffee. But no one needs to like kale, either. You'd still be better off eating a side of that than french fries. So too can people make wise choices in their quest to hydrate and caffeinate. Coffee is a good one. So is tea, and of course, water. Anything sweetened, on the other hand, is probably not a good decision - whether it's sugar or sucralose/asparatame/neotame/etc. doing the sweetening.
October 7, 2011
Carbs: A Love Story
Managing a coffee bar has the obvious advantage of providing one with free coffee. The only limiting factor, really, is how much of a loss you're willing to stomach in order to caffeinate yourself. It can be a tricky balance to strike, drinking enough coffee to get work done, but not so much that you end up in the red. I usually limit my consumption to one or two mugs a day, with perhaps a double shot of espresso somewhere in there.
But today, I focused my gastronomical efforts on carbs, more than coffee. Carbohydrates have had their reputation sullied in the last decade or so, and not wholly without reason. Americans get most of their surplus calories from added sugar, which is of course a carbohydrate. Those of us who can do math (calorie balance, anyone?) never really fell for the Atkins hype, however, and stuck by our potatoes and oats.
And, occasionally, less wholesome options. Coffee bars tend to have some manner of baked goods, and mine is no exception. In fact, it's very much the rule. There are scones, muffins, cinnamon rolls, cookies, granola bars, breads, bagels, and I think that's all. It can be hard to keep track. Save the bagels, all of those are prepared by an in-house baker. The resulting pastries are massive, fresh, and exceptional.
And they have lots and lots of sugar. Normally, a have a decided aversion to the sweet stuff, the product of too much neurosis on my part. But normally, I'm not racing an ultra the next day. So, given these special circumstances, I decided to take advantage of yet another perk, courtesy of coffee bar management: Eating some of the stuff I was going to waste at the end of the day.
A few bites of raspberry-oatmeal bar and oatmeal-cranberry cookie later, and I felt a surge of sugar whisking through my veins. I tried to will it in to storage, attempting the alchemy of converting glucose to glycogen. I wondered how anyone could make a daily habit of ingesting these things without bouncing off the walls, then realized just how tasty they were, and decided that I could probably get used to it. The (vegan) oatmeal-cranberry cookie, specifically, could easily become a dangerous habit. It utilizes mashed banana to compensate for the lack of eggs, and the result is more moist and sweet than any yolk could produce.
And hey, both items have oatmeal and fruit in the name. How bad could they be? Right? Right?
But today, I focused my gastronomical efforts on carbs, more than coffee. Carbohydrates have had their reputation sullied in the last decade or so, and not wholly without reason. Americans get most of their surplus calories from added sugar, which is of course a carbohydrate. Those of us who can do math (calorie balance, anyone?) never really fell for the Atkins hype, however, and stuck by our potatoes and oats.
And, occasionally, less wholesome options. Coffee bars tend to have some manner of baked goods, and mine is no exception. In fact, it's very much the rule. There are scones, muffins, cinnamon rolls, cookies, granola bars, breads, bagels, and I think that's all. It can be hard to keep track. Save the bagels, all of those are prepared by an in-house baker. The resulting pastries are massive, fresh, and exceptional.
And they have lots and lots of sugar. Normally, a have a decided aversion to the sweet stuff, the product of too much neurosis on my part. But normally, I'm not racing an ultra the next day. So, given these special circumstances, I decided to take advantage of yet another perk, courtesy of coffee bar management: Eating some of the stuff I was going to waste at the end of the day.
A few bites of raspberry-oatmeal bar and oatmeal-cranberry cookie later, and I felt a surge of sugar whisking through my veins. I tried to will it in to storage, attempting the alchemy of converting glucose to glycogen. I wondered how anyone could make a daily habit of ingesting these things without bouncing off the walls, then realized just how tasty they were, and decided that I could probably get used to it. The (vegan) oatmeal-cranberry cookie, specifically, could easily become a dangerous habit. It utilizes mashed banana to compensate for the lack of eggs, and the result is more moist and sweet than any yolk could produce.
And hey, both items have oatmeal and fruit in the name. How bad could they be? Right? Right?
March 31, 2011
The Barista Diet, In Practice
You've tried everything. You've counted calories, cut carbs, flung fat - but you didn't get the results you wanted. The reason is simple: Most diets only focus on food, exercise, or the combination thereof. They focus on one part of your lifestyle, rather than the whole of it.
The Barista Diet is different. You don't just eat like a barista - you live like one. And after a few weeks of living like one, you'll start to look like one. Soon, you'll have concave cheeks, shaggy hair, and no legs to speak of. The Barista Diet isn't expensive - but you'll need to invest in some new belts.
But don't take my word for it. Or rather, do, because I don't have any doctors on board with this. Which is fine, really. Baristas are thin, doctors very often are not. Who are you going to believe?
Even still, The Barista Diet is based on sound science. Hidden behind every other diet's foibles and shenanigans is one simple equation: calories in - calories out. If there is a deficit, you lose weight; if there is a surplus, you might gain a little. Your activity levels often determine where these additional calories are partitioned.
But while The Zone focuses on golden ratios, Paleo diets ban modern foods, and the Skinny Bitches deny animal products, The Barista Diet is easy to follow - and you still get to enjoy your favorite foods.
The reason is this: You'll be so active, and eat so little, that you really can't help but achieve a calorie deficit. Weight loss is inevitable.
The simplest way to follow The Barista Diet is to become a barista. But those jobs can be hard to get, and frankly, you might have a real job already. No worries though, The Barista Diet can be practiced from even the most humble of cubicles. No matter your job or situation, you need only follow these basic tenants.
1. You've heard that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, but don't let that fool you in to giving it any attention. On The Barista Diet, you'll be waking up early, and jetting out the door almost right thereafter. Maybe you'll shower, but it's not encouraged. Once at work, you start attending to the things you would have started, had you showed up ten minutes ago. At a convenient interval, stop, and get coffee. This is also where you might grab half a bagel, scone, or some other assorted starch. Eat it as quickly as possible, and consume more coffee.
2. Once your day starts, you don't get a break, and you don't sit. If you work in an office, give away your chair. Don't stand still either. Whatever space you've got, pace around in it, even when there's nothing to do. When there are activities, attend to them with a bustling, neurotic focus, like a nicotine deprived smoker trying to lite a cigarette. Keep drinking coffee throughout the day, and have a separate cup of ice water on hand. If you didn't finish your handful of breakfast scraps, you may nibble on what's left. Otherwise, this is a fasting period.
3. Also during this period, you'll need to practice The Barista Diet's fitness routine. You move around a lot, and stand constantly, so your legs and core are already engaged. But those wispy arms need working too. If keeping a gallon of milk around isn't practical, find a moderately sized dumbbell, and bring it with you. Curl it randomly, and almost constantly, throughout the day. In between sets of curls, use that same dumbbell to do tricep extensions. Do as many sets of both as you can, as often as you can.
4. When your shift is over, it's time to head home, or often enough, somewhere else. Dinner is whatever you want, with one caveat - it must be payed for in cash. If you get tips, so much the better. If not, portion out a reasonable amount, depending on how awesome you were at work. Keep in mind, however, that you need that extra cash to pay for gas, parking tickets, beer, and cigarettes. Cheap sandwich places are encouraged, as is sushi, and most pantry staples.
5. Stay up too late, doing whatever hobby you have. The more hipster credibility it lends, the better. Thus knitting, reading Kafka, or writing cords for your music project are all excellent ideas. You should also consider frequenting bars, supporting your nocturnal brethren.
6. Repeat the next day, as often as you can.
March 25, 2011
The Barista Diet
With all humility, I think I can say that I'm in pretty good shape. I finished a trail half marathon in 1:39:08 last weekend, and have several 5k age group awards. Once upon a time, I could have lifted some moderately heavy things, but that's only now relatively true. (I'm about 145 lbs.)
If this sounds like bragging, it isn't. The blogosphere is filled with more impressive models of fitness than I, both in terms of aesthetics and performance. There are those with 1:15 half marathon times, and others with 3% body fat at 200+ lbs.
It is merely a statement of fact, meant to make clear that, as far as regular folks go, I'm somewhat fit. This context is necessary, because I want it to mean something when I say that barista-ing is work. As in, it's genuinely taxing physical labor.
Or at least it can be, provided the bar is busy. Standing, moving, shuffling around behind a counter and out in front of it for 8 hours is enough to wear on even the most calloused feet.
Then there is the tamp. It varies, from bar to bar, but most advocate for at least 30 lbs of pressure, per tamp; some go upwards of 50. That, in and of itself, is not much. But neither is standing up. Either one, extrapolated out and with enough volume or frequency, can certainly be, however.
All of this is to say, I think I've solved the mystery of why baristas tend to be so thin. The job doesn't pay spectacularly well, first of all, so meals are typically infrequent, and equally insubstantial. And lunch breaks? That's a nice thought, but nothing more. Combine those factors with an 8 hour plyometrics session (hopping around behind the bar) and a zillion shoulder presses (the tamp), and you've got a best selling diet plan just waiting to be written.
December 14, 2010
This Post Has No Fat
There is certainly something to be said for splurging. Eating is a pleasure, after all, and one that ought to be indulged in by any sensible person. Even neurotics like me submit to their sweet tooth every so often; just this weekend, I consumed an altogether too large serving of some sort of heavenly Oreo dessert.
Those who know me might be raising their eyebrows right now. To say I'm an obsessively healthy eater is to grossly understate the facts. My self worth, at times, seems to be in direct opposite proportion to by body fat percentage. That was a joke, for the record; although it perhaps flirts a with reality a bit.
But the salient point is this: I eat junk food; you eat junk food; everyone eats junk food. And no one is doomed to a life of obesity because of this fact. Hell, no one is barred from underwear model style abs by this fact.
This all leads to something that could be a rant for most any barista. We'll call in the "Large mocha, with whipped cream, but oh, with skim milk, for the love of god" phenomenon. I've written rather extensively about whole milk, and why its saturated fat and cholesterol content isn't cause for concern before. But this is not the time or the place for intelligent discourse or reasoned argument. This is time for an exasperated "REALLY?" As in, "SERIOUSLY?"
*sigh*
I am trying to be nice right now; and I think that, mostly, I'm succeeding. But here's the deal: The <100 calories saved by substituting skim for whole milk is irrelevant when you're drinking some giant syrup laden waste bomb.
This is not to say that sugar bombs don't have their place. Think back to a few paragraphs before. Everyone has a sweet tooth that must be indulged. And if a hot chocolate, or a mocha, a chai, or whatever, is that thing, then have at it. But be reasonable with how often you drink it, and incorporate it in to an otherwise healthy diet. (And fitness is your friend. But that's a whole different blog.)
But for the love of whatever deity you fancy, do not presume that a skim vanilla latte is significantly different from a Coke. Both have no fat, but heaping mounds of sugar. Neither is a health food; but both can be consumed without wrecking a diet or a physique.
Finally, it is worth noting that black coffee is basically a zero calorie beverage, and that caffeine has repeatedly shown itself to be beneficial to exercise and weight loss. *wink, nudge*
Those who know me might be raising their eyebrows right now. To say I'm an obsessively healthy eater is to grossly understate the facts. My self worth, at times, seems to be in direct opposite proportion to by body fat percentage. That was a joke, for the record; although it perhaps flirts a with reality a bit.
But the salient point is this: I eat junk food; you eat junk food; everyone eats junk food. And no one is doomed to a life of obesity because of this fact. Hell, no one is barred from underwear model style abs by this fact.
This all leads to something that could be a rant for most any barista. We'll call in the "Large mocha, with whipped cream, but oh, with skim milk, for the love of god" phenomenon. I've written rather extensively about whole milk, and why its saturated fat and cholesterol content isn't cause for concern before. But this is not the time or the place for intelligent discourse or reasoned argument. This is time for an exasperated "REALLY?" As in, "SERIOUSLY?"
*sigh*
I am trying to be nice right now; and I think that, mostly, I'm succeeding. But here's the deal: The <100 calories saved by substituting skim for whole milk is irrelevant when you're drinking some giant syrup laden waste bomb.
This is not to say that sugar bombs don't have their place. Think back to a few paragraphs before. Everyone has a sweet tooth that must be indulged. And if a hot chocolate, or a mocha, a chai, or whatever, is that thing, then have at it. But be reasonable with how often you drink it, and incorporate it in to an otherwise healthy diet. (And fitness is your friend. But that's a whole different blog.)
But for the love of whatever deity you fancy, do not presume that a skim vanilla latte is significantly different from a Coke. Both have no fat, but heaping mounds of sugar. Neither is a health food; but both can be consumed without wrecking a diet or a physique.
Finally, it is worth noting that black coffee is basically a zero calorie beverage, and that caffeine has repeatedly shown itself to be beneficial to exercise and weight loss. *wink, nudge*
November 1, 2010
Of Iron and Ethical Eating
I've always had a certain respect for vegetarians. Though some see them as overly sentimental, or perhaps needlessly orthorexic, I see people willing to sacrifice for their values. And I do mean sacrifice.
There is the fact, first of all, that meat tastes good. Some will argue with me on this point, but I'm a firm believer that just about every person has some animal flesh they enjoy consuming. There's just too much of it out there, and too many flavor and texture profiles, for that not to be the case.
But I think the larger sacrifice has to do with health. Now this, admittedly, goes very much against the current trend. Bill Clinton and Mike Tyson are now vegan, and everyone from Hollywood to Harvard is advocating for a diet higher in plants, and lower in animal products. If we're speaking purely about environmental and global economic issues, then I have no qualms. But, though I'm no nutritionist, I find the idea that abstaining from meat entirely is not a practice that confers optimal health.
Ok, fine. Whatever. What does this have to do with coffee? I'm getting to that, actually.
A vegetarian diet, almost by definition, is going to be deficient in several nutrient categories. Protein is the most discussed, and oddly, the easiest to meet without meat. There are plenty of decent protein sources that aren't animal flesh available to vegans, and even more if you allow milk and eggs. Granted, plant sources tend to be less concentrated, lack certain amino acids, and be less bio-available. But even still, vegans are not generally in any great risk of suffering from protein deprivation.
There is vitamin B12, which is not readily found in any plants. It is, however, in most fortified things and multivitamins. And since coffee has nothing to do with this, I'll say no more.
Iron is another story. People only really think of this nutrient in the context of women -- typically, those of middle age or more. But everyone needs it, especially if you're an avid exerciser (and I think everyone really ought to be). The best sources, however, are meat. Nuts and soy have some, as do legumes, but the phytates contained in these foods make the iron much more difficult to absorb. By some estimations, vegetarians need as much as twice the amount of iron meat eaters do, in order to compensate for this fact.
Now here's where coffee comes in. Coffee is, in general, a healthy beverage. I've said as much before, and I firmly believe it to be true. But even healthy things have nits to be picked, fringe concerns which might be magnified in certain contexts. Vegetarianism is the context in which coffee consumption might have one deleterious effect. Coffee, when consumed around the time you're eating food, makes iron less available to the body. If you're a meat eater, this isn't really a problem, as there's enough iron in your food that you can get away with not absorbing all of it. But for vegetarians, this can be an issue.
Not enough of one, however, that coffee need be avoided. The easiest fix is to consume your beans and spinach separately from your coffee. But if you're like me, and drinking the stuff all day, this isn't too practical. Thus we have the best option: A multivitamin with iron, or an iron supplement. Granted, supplemental iron is non-heme, that is, from a plant. Thus, it is the less bio-available variety. But chances are, the dose is significant enough that, provided you aren't subsisting on coke and fries, a vegetarian diet can supple enough iron, even in the face of rampant coffee consumption.
Of course, you could just eat the steak.
There is the fact, first of all, that meat tastes good. Some will argue with me on this point, but I'm a firm believer that just about every person has some animal flesh they enjoy consuming. There's just too much of it out there, and too many flavor and texture profiles, for that not to be the case.
But I think the larger sacrifice has to do with health. Now this, admittedly, goes very much against the current trend. Bill Clinton and Mike Tyson are now vegan, and everyone from Hollywood to Harvard is advocating for a diet higher in plants, and lower in animal products. If we're speaking purely about environmental and global economic issues, then I have no qualms. But, though I'm no nutritionist, I find the idea that abstaining from meat entirely is not a practice that confers optimal health.
Ok, fine. Whatever. What does this have to do with coffee? I'm getting to that, actually.
A vegetarian diet, almost by definition, is going to be deficient in several nutrient categories. Protein is the most discussed, and oddly, the easiest to meet without meat. There are plenty of decent protein sources that aren't animal flesh available to vegans, and even more if you allow milk and eggs. Granted, plant sources tend to be less concentrated, lack certain amino acids, and be less bio-available. But even still, vegans are not generally in any great risk of suffering from protein deprivation.
There is vitamin B12, which is not readily found in any plants. It is, however, in most fortified things and multivitamins. And since coffee has nothing to do with this, I'll say no more.
Iron is another story. People only really think of this nutrient in the context of women -- typically, those of middle age or more. But everyone needs it, especially if you're an avid exerciser (and I think everyone really ought to be). The best sources, however, are meat. Nuts and soy have some, as do legumes, but the phytates contained in these foods make the iron much more difficult to absorb. By some estimations, vegetarians need as much as twice the amount of iron meat eaters do, in order to compensate for this fact.
Now here's where coffee comes in. Coffee is, in general, a healthy beverage. I've said as much before, and I firmly believe it to be true. But even healthy things have nits to be picked, fringe concerns which might be magnified in certain contexts. Vegetarianism is the context in which coffee consumption might have one deleterious effect. Coffee, when consumed around the time you're eating food, makes iron less available to the body. If you're a meat eater, this isn't really a problem, as there's enough iron in your food that you can get away with not absorbing all of it. But for vegetarians, this can be an issue.
Not enough of one, however, that coffee need be avoided. The easiest fix is to consume your beans and spinach separately from your coffee. But if you're like me, and drinking the stuff all day, this isn't too practical. Thus we have the best option: A multivitamin with iron, or an iron supplement. Granted, supplemental iron is non-heme, that is, from a plant. Thus, it is the less bio-available variety. But chances are, the dose is significant enough that, provided you aren't subsisting on coke and fries, a vegetarian diet can supple enough iron, even in the face of rampant coffee consumption.
Of course, you could just eat the steak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)