Food as information
Posted April 18, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I’m really tickled by seeing posts from other bloggers (like Amanda and Wendy) who are, like me, making a bigger point of focusing more on nutrition and less on weight loss and/or dieting.
I don’t know why this hasn’t ever clicked before, but perhaps it was because I was frankly far more obsessed with the whole issue of low-fat versus low-carb (which is a whole other topic for a later date…for now, I’m eating more protein than the low-fat folks like Furhman would like, and more carbs than the low-carb folks like the Eades would like).
Part of it, for me, was a bit of serendipity … coming across the SuperFoods Rx book around the time I decided to reduce my carbs.
Now, in what is either just more good luck and/or more serendipity (or synchronicity for you Sting fans :), the idea of nutrient density is becoming more prominent, thus strengthening my commitment to this approach of choosing health.
I really like the way that Mark Hyman (of UltraMetabolism fame) puts it (emphasis his):
Food contains hidden information. This information is communicated to your genes, giving your metabolism specific instructions on what it should be doing. Some of the instructions food gives are: lose weight or gain weight; speed up or slow down the aging process; increase or decrease your cholesterol level; produce molecules that increase or decrease your appetite. The kind of food you eat gives your genes different information, helping them make decisions as to what it will tell your body to do in these and various other areas. Food talks to your genes.
I can’t argue the science of this (either way), but the metaphor really, really appeals to me. Food is information … what we eat informs how we live.
What’s so great about this kind of approach is that it really can help with overeating issues. Or as Wendy says, it “diffuses the power that junk food” has. She can pass up the Cheez-Its, and I was able to pass up birthday cake and ice cream on Easter (of course, had it been chocolate instead of vanilla, I might have at least had a taste!).
More importantly, it helps with quality of life. I’m not hungry, I feel great, and I’m losing some weight I apparently was holding onto courtesy of the quality and quantity of my old way of eating. Now, it’s not “oh crap, vegetables.” It’s more like “oh cool, let me go for that Matisse painting” look on the plate with all those colorful veggies that have all sorts of valuable micronutrients that had been sorely lacking.
Eating right and getting the right kind of exercise (see next post) seems to me to be a one-two punch that is a great foundation for feeling really good about yourself.
What kind of information is your body getting?
April 18th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Great article. I like the focus on nutrition. Congrats on taking control of your eating situation! :) Nice blog.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:20 am
Are you reading the Ultrametabolism book now? I will need a full report, omit no detail.
I agree with the focus on nutrition vs. calories. One of the mistakes I always made when I tried to lose weight was eating a lot of “zero calorie” foods. Celery, lettuce, pickles, cucumbers, etc. There’s nothing wrong with those foods, but they’re nutritionally nearly useless, and the obvious problem is THEY DON’T FILL YOU UP! Not to mention you get no energy from them: that’s what calories ARE, energy. It can be a bit of a Catch-22, trying to find the balance between adequate or even optimum nutrition and losing weight. You’re almost always better off, health-wise, to choose the nutrition.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:44 am
Marla, will do re UltraMetabolism soon. BTW, I do have one minor quibble with your comment re your zero calorie foods. Turns out some of ‘em aren’t quite so useless. Celery, for example, turns out to have a surprising amount of vitamin C and potassium. And Rachel Heller (of Carb Addicts Diet fame) swears by two stalks of celery a day to help avoid low-carb related constipation.
And it turns out that some lettuces (like romaine) are also really good for you. If I can have a salad with spinach, romaine, or the spring lettuces (any darker green), I fill ‘er up!
Hopefully this nutrient approach will kick off, because right now all the food guides are geared primarily towards talking about macronutrient composition (how much protein, fat or carb foods have).
The World’s Healthiest Foods page is actually pretty helpful. Courtesy of an episode of Good Eats, I had been steering away from eggplant as a nutritionally useless food, but according to WHF, it too has some nutrients, as does cucumber (which is cool, ’cause I do love cucumber).
One of the caveats with veggies though is that in many cases, a lot of the nutrients are in the skin (this is why I buy the English cucumbers that come wrapped in plastic…no wax).
So, while celery, lettuce, and cucumbers aren’t super foods, they probably are more useful than you might think. But they probably shouldn’t be your sole go-tos for veggies, as you suggest!
April 20th, 2006 at 6:59 am
Well, I knew I would get some quibbling over my use of the word “usless.” Please allow me some dramatic license, hence the modifier “nearly.” I’m trying to make the point about calories, that they are not something to avoid at all costs, they are the source of energy that fuels your body. Those zero-calorie foods are mostly water, which is why they’re zero-calorie. Yes, water is also a good thing, but one needs other things too…