As you likely already know, the latest buzz allover the Internet at the moment is the new fast food monstrosity, the KFC Double Down - a "sandwich" with no bread but rather two pieces of fried chicken with cheese sauce and bacon in between. I've resisted the urge to post on this up until now simply because I don't think this thing deserves any more press. But, after doing my best to keep quiet on it, the flood gates can be held closed no longer. This thing is evil.
It hardly seems worth the time to explain why this revolting thing with no food value isn't good for you, however, in addition to the few articles I've read complaining that the Double Down won't be making an appearance in Canada (hallelujah) I have actually read posts from people trying to justify its existence with comments like "not as bad as you might think" or "not even in the top ten of worst fast foods on the market."
The last comment inspired me to check out the site 10 Fast Food Items Worse For You Than the KFC Double Down. While we're on the subject of poor uses of time, evaluating and ranking these non-food items to determine that Burger King's Triple Whopper or Wendy's Chicken BLT Salad With Honey Dijon Dressing are "worse for you" than the KFC Double Down is kind of like saying losing your left kneecap is worse for you than losing your right.
The problem is that the system of evaluation they're using is completely irrelevant to judging the actual nutrition of these products. Calories, fat, sodium - these terms don't mean anything in regards to actual nutrition. What kind of calories? Where are they coming from? Empty calories or nutrient-dense calories? Is there any fibre in there? Are any of the non-calories coming from artificial sweeteners? What other toxic chemicals are put in there for flavouring, texturing or preservation?
And what kind of fat are they talking about? Processed, hydrogenated fat? Polyunsaturated fats that have been allowed to go rancid? Monounsaturated fats like olive oil? Or essential fats treated properly or maybe even healthy saturated fats like lauric acid? Not all fats are created equal, so just assigning a number to "fat" doesn't mean anything. You could have the lowest fat sandwich on the planet and still have it be absolutely horrible for you, or you could have a high fat sandwich, with avocado or olive oil pesto or butter, for example, and have it be a really nutrient-dense, health-promoting food. The idea that you should minimize and possibly eradicate fat from your diet, which is what is implied with these numbers if not explicitly stated, is probably one of the worst things you can do for your health. You need fat to survive.
And the idea that you want to take in as little calories as possible is damaging too - calories are energy! Why would you want to minimize that? This kind of reductionist view of food is exactly why there is an obesity epidemic. The worst processed garbage gets labeled as "healthy" because it minimizes fat, calories and sodium; meanwhile it contains toxic ingredients that actually make people fat and diseased. And natural, healthy foods that may happen to have a lot of fat, calories or sodium get labeled as poor choices. These evaluation systems are exactly why our planet is so confused about food right now. We reduce the idea of health to a series of numbers to be calculated while our critical faculties that could be used to easily discern what is good for us atrophy from lack of use.You know that the piece of chocolate cake isn't good for you, yet if you "work the numbers" it becomes something you're allowed to enjoy guilt-free. Too bad your body doesn't work like a calculator, because that chocolate cake is bad for it no matter how you slice it. And the more we "work the numbers" the more out of touch we get from our natural instincts toward healthy foods.
Until we reject these numeric systems and vow to begin eating real food the word "health" shouldn't even cross our lips. Eating this stuff isn't about nourishment, it's about entertainment and no matter what system we use to evaluate, our bodies are only so forgiving.
The Healthy Foodie is Doug DiPasquale, Holistic Nutritionist and trained chef, living in Toronto. Doug specializes in private in-home holistic cooking lessons. You can email him with inquiries or questions for the blog at dougthehealthyfoodie@gmail.com.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Fw: Meeting Agenda for JH&SC Meeting
----- Forwarded by Julie D Rooks/CARZ/DCC/DCX on 04/16/2010 03:12 PM -----
| JH&SC Meeting - Minutes |
| Date Composed: 04/16/2010 Meeting Called By: Alex Eliopoulos/CARZ/DCC/DCX Topic: Sub Topic: Site: | Logistics Date: 04/16/2010 Time: 01:00 PM Cycle: 2010CY1 Meeting Location: small conference room Invitees: Copy To: Department: |
Minutes Documentation Area:
Minutes Editors: Alex Eliopoulos/CARZ/DCC/DCX, Julie D Rooks/CARZ/DCC/DCX
Attendees: Alex Eliopoulos/CARZ/DCC/DCX, Kelsey Knutson/CARZ/DCC/DCX, Calvin R Thudium/CARZ/DCC/DCX, Travis W Clark/CARZ/DCC/DCX, Rick Traynor/CARZ/DCC/DCX
Minutes:
OLD BUSINESS --ONGOING--ISSUES COMPLETED
-yellow board down
-paint on ends of orderpickers
-new matting on 796
-cigarette holders cleaned out
-curtain rod shower area, approved and in process
Weekly Walk Arounds
Julie , plus 1 management
Create a work procedure and add to TMS cleaning of water cooler,
add to safety talk how to properly change water bottle.
NEW ISSUES AND IDEAS
to paint or yellow mark ends of new racks and aisles
-create stop lines at ends of aisles
-look into stenciling STOP at end of each aisle
SIT DOWN FORKLIFTS not to be in stock area anymore
FORKLIFT to be used when taking out pallets in oil room( add to next safety talk)
New door coming for volatile room
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optional: Information on the Next Meeting
Next Meeting:
| Meeting Called By: Alex Eliopoulos/CARZ/DCC/DCX Subject Topic: Sub Topic: | Logistics Date: Time: Location: Invitees: |
Agenda for next Meeting:
| Comments: Please see JHSC if you have any questions |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)