Smoothie Season: Mango, Strawberry, Blueberry

I love the summer for many reasons, but one of the best joys is drinking an ice cold smoothie on a hot day. A great treat or snack and very easy to make.

And the cool thing about fruit smoothies is you can really get creative and experiment. I decided to try some layering, instead of the usual blend-them-all-together approach. 

The bottom layer:

• 3/4 of a medium-sized mango (or 1 whole small mango), peeled and cut up
• 1/2 cup soy milk
• 3-4 ice cubes

Middle layer:

• 4-5 strawberries, stems removed
• 2 ice cubes
• 2 tablespoons of water
• tablespoon agave (optional depending on tartness of berries)

 Top layer:

• handful (1/4 cup?) of blueberries
• 1 ice cube
• 1/4 cup of soy milk

I tend not to add sugar to anything, but a bit of agave is fine. Any non-dairy milk will work, but I prefer soy. These measurements will vary based on your fruits' size and sweetness (and your taste), so experiment for yourself and enjoy!

Love and Peace,
VG

Vegan Athlete Sighting: Arian Foster Goes Vegan

Houston Texans running back Arian Foster announced he had officially gone vegan, via Twitter last week.

Officially a vegan now. We'll see how this goes. But week one down. So far, so good. Feels wonderful.
— Arian Foster (@ArianFoster) July 6, 2012

And what do you know? He actually got a lot of support. Glad to see my fellow vegans sending him lots of thoughtful and encouraging tweets. Though I'm sure he also got a lot of negative feedback.

The guys at ESPN First Take debated whether or not this was a good idea. Their main criticisms were that Foster should've started at the end of last season to give his body time to adjust, and that -- surprise -- he's not going to get enough protein and is going to lose some muscle mass.

I typically like First Take and respect their arguments. And I do in this case, mostly, but they assumed that Arian Foster "waited until now" to go vegan. What if he didn't do it at the end of last season because it wasn't even something he considered? What if he just started thinking and learning about it recently? But even if he was thinking about it for a long time, it's not an easy decision. It takes a lot of consideration, effort and commitment. I'm sure as a star running back with an NFL franchise, fan base and millions of dollars riding on him, he thought about it long and hard. 

As for the lack of protein argument, that myth is always going to persist as long as "conventional wisdom" rules. I can't help but feel like every time an athlete (or anybody for that matter) goes vegan/vegetarian, people react like he/she's the first one. Everybody's different, but there are lots of vegan body builders out there, (have you visited veganbodybuilding.com?) as well as vegan/vegetarian athletes (some MMA fighters). So Arian Foster is certainly not the first and is in good company. He's a smart dude. He'll get it right.

But as Paul Kuhrasky writes in his ESPN blog:

Because of the NFL’s strict banned substances list, any protein powder Foster uses will be one he’s had looked over and approved by Houston’s training staff.

In the Twitter conversation Foster’s mention of going vegan set off, he mentioned that he and Roberta Anding, the Texans' nutritionist, follow each other’s accounts.

Atlanta tight end Tony Gonzalez is among athletes who have adopted a vegan diet, according to this recent ESPNW piece by Sharon Liao.

Foster is a disciplined and interesting guy. He wouldn't make this choice without researching it and knowing what he's doing. If it somehow negatively impacts him he'll change course, I'm confident.

Tony Gonzalez announced he went vegan back in 2008, but I read he occasionally eats fish and chicken? If that's true, I at least give him credit for trying. It's technically not vegan, but at least he cut down his meat consumption, depending on how often "occasionally" is.

And while we're talking about other athletes, I was intrigued when MLB slugger Prince Fielder went vegetarian, but disappointed when I found out it didn't last long. ESPN reported, "Fielder did want to debunk one thing: Back in 2008, he talked about becoming a vegetarian, but that apparently didn't last long after all the commotion.'I'm not a vegetarian,' he said. 'I was, for like three months.'"

But as for Foster, in one of his tweets, he mentioned that he did watch the documentary Forks Over Knives, so I'm assuming he's done his research. I wonder how strict he is going to be. Is he giving up leather and wool, etc? In any case, I wish Arian Foster the best of luck and am proud of his decision. Please prove to people once again that you can be a vegan athlete.

I leave you with this very wise and true quote from Arian Foster himself, which he probably tweeted in response to disapproval.

People feel so strong about meat and milk. I wish they felt this strong about peace.
— Arian Foster (@ArianFoster) July 6, 2012

Love and Peace,
VG

The Carb Conundrum

All calories are not created equally. In fact, which types of carbs we eat has a big impact on our weight and long-term health, according to a new study published last week from the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center of Boston Children’s Hospital.

The study was relatively small, following 21 overweight and obese young adults. The participants lost 10 to 15 percent of their body weight before taking up one of three diets for four weeks.

not considered a serving of veggies...

The three diets were the conventional low-fat diet (60 percent carbs, 20 percent fat, 20 percent protein), a very low-carb diet (10 percent carbs, 60 percent fat, 30 percent protein) and a low-glycemic diet (40 percent carbs, 40 percent fat, 20 percent). 

The low-fat diet emphasized carbs from fruits, vegetables and both processed and unprocessed whole grains. The low glycemic diet emphasized carbs from minimally processed grains, fruits, vegetables and legumes.  

The study results were pretty interesting. Those on the low-carb diet burned 350 calories more per day than those on the low-fat diet. Those on the low glycemic diet burned 150 calories more per day than the low-fat diet. Meaning where we get our calories does matter.

It also appears that the low-carb diet is the best for burning calories. And the low-fat diet, which has been the conventional choice, is actually the worst. But not so fast, the researchers said.

The low-carb diet raised levels of CRP (c-reactive protein), which is a measure of chronic inflammation, and cortisol, a hormone that controls stress, both of which are tightly linked to long-term heart disease risk and mortality, noted David Ludwig, study author and director of the obesity prevention center.

Furthermore, according to a New York Times blog:

[Ludwig's] conclusion, then? “The ‘Atkins’ diet gives you the biggest metabolic benefit initially, but there are long-term downsides, and in practice, people have trouble sticking to low-carb diets. Over the long term, the low-glycemic diet appears to work the best, because you don’t have to eliminate an entire class of nutrients, which our research suggests is not only hard from a psychological perspective but may be wrong from a biological perspective.”

Almost every diet, from the radical no-carb-at-all notions to the tame (and sane) “Healthy Eating Plate” from Harvard, agrees on at least this notion: reduce, or even come close to eliminating, the amount of hyper-processed carbohydrates in your diet, because, quite simply, they’re bad for you. And if you look at statistics, at least a quarter of our calories come from added sugars (seven percent from beverages alone), white flour, white rice, white pasta … are you seeing a pattern here? (Oh, and white potatoes. And beer.)

So what’s Ludwig’s overall advice? “It’s time to reacquaint ourselves with minimally processed carbs. If you take three servings of refined carbohydrates and substitute one of fruit, one of beans and one of nuts, you could eliminate 50 percent of diet-related disease in the United States. These relatively modest changes can provide great benefit.”

try some whole grains
(preferably unprocessed)

So what does this mean? If you're trying to lose weight and keep it off, watch the processed foods. Choose unprocessed whole foods, you know, things that don't come in shiny packages with labels on them. Cook your own food from fresh ingredients and -- for crying out loud -- cut the sugar and watch those empty calories! And yes, this includes pizza, sausage, hot dogs, cheese, soda, ice cream and pastries. 

I obviously will stick to veganism, extra fresh fruits and veggies plus good carbs please.

One last tidbit: The glycemic index measures how much carbs affect blood sugar levels. A low-fat diet has a high glycemic load. A low-glycemic diet has a moderate glycemic load. And a very low-carb diet carries a low glycemic load.

Sort of Vegan

and if you're lactose intolerant, that doesn't make you "sort of vegan." even more so if you're saying that to me while eating a chicken wing.

That was one of my first exchanges with a friend at a party when she asked me what being vegan meant. But she's a sweetheart and was just slightly confused or trying to relate. So I kindly explained that it was more than just not being able to digest lactose. Still, funny moment.

Jonathan Safran Foer's Eating Animals Also Turned Me Vegan

Finally, we get to veganism. It only took me 2+ years since starting this blog. (laziness) Though I'm technically no longer a greenhorn, it's important to remember the roots of why I made this choice. (Or some cheesy line about how I'll always be learning new things about veganism)

Learning

Well I was vegetarian for about 5 months. Cutting meat out of my life was effortless and I was going pretty strong. But I still felt like I wasn't doing enough. Veganism was always the obvious logical progression. I knew I would eventually get there, but giving up all animal products entirely, including eggs, dairy, honey, leather, wool, etc, seemed too difficult.

But then I read Eating Animals, which as Natalie Portman said in her Huffington Post piece:

Jonathan Safran Foer's book Eating Animals changed me from a twenty-year vegetarian to a vegan activist. I've always been shy about being critical of others' choices because I hate when people do that to me. I'm often interrogated about being vegetarian (e.g., "What if you find out that carrots feel pain, too? Then what'll you eat?").

I've also been afraid to feel as if I know better than someone else -- a historically dangerous stance (I'm often reminded that "Hitler was a vegetarian, too, you know"). But this book reminded me that some things are just wrong. Perhaps others disagree with me that animals have personalities, but the highly documented torture of animals is unacceptable, and the human cost Foer describes in his book, of which I was previously unaware, is universally compelling.

The human cost of factory farming -- both the compromised welfare of slaughterhouse workers and, even more, the environmental effects of the mass production of animals -- is staggering. Foer details the copious amounts of pig shit sprayed into the air that result in great spikes in human respiratory ailments, the development of new bacterial strains due to overuse of antibiotics on farmed animals, and the origins of the swine flu epidemic, whose story has gripped the nation, in factory farms.

Both Natalie's piece and the book she describes are well-written arguments anybody can relate to. When I read Eating Animals, there was one specific account, which was not an exaggeration, of the "kill room" in an industrial cow farm. It brought me close to tears how these cows are hung upside down with their jugulars slit. The cows are supposed to be knocked out beforehand, being hit in the head by a steel bolt. But sometimes they are left semi-conscious, on purpose, because they bleed out faster if their hearts are still pumping. Sometimes they are fully conscious, not having been knocked out at all. Even worse, sometimes the cows are pregnant; one worker described a cow actually giving birth while she was walking down the "kill alley."

As Foer details, "No jokes here, and no turning away. Let’s say what we mean: animals are bled, skinned, and dismembered while conscious. It happens all the time, and the industry and the government know it."

not a sarah mclachlan commercial.

I felt so guilty. This story and all the countless other ones like it are results of our demand for meat. And it's not really our fault. Most of us grew up eating animals, not thinking anything of it, certainly not where it comes from or how it's "produced." To us, it's just food that ends up on our plates and tastes good. And part of the ignorance is because of the factory farming machine, which does a really good job of hiding their practices and transforming this sacred ritual of animal eating into a faceless, processed product that you buy in neat little packages with fancy price tags on them.

Choices

But once we learn the truth, that's where it really counts. Not knowing is one thing, but indifference is a choice. I'm not saying we should all be vegans overnight, but I can't help but frown upon a person who learns about all this suffering and chooses to ignore it. "Eating meat is natural," or "Meat just tastes too good," or the ever-popular, "You need a balanced diet," are not valid arguments. But ultimately, I don't preach or try to convert anyone. I believe in freedom of choice. It would be nice if it was an informed-choice, but that's probably wishful thinking. You don't have to do the whole vegan thing, but at least cut down on meat consumption (we consume more meat than we ever have in our entire history).

So I've been vegan for a little over two years. I feel great and am more conscious of my health than ever before. For me, it's not just about not eating animals, it's about watching my carbon footprint, as well as good nutrition and exercise. Because, let's be real, you can be vegan by eating nothing but potato chips and french fries (not fried in lard) all day.

oh the many benefits of fresh fruit.

I read that Natalie Portman stopped being strictly vegan when she was pregnant. I was a little disappointed, but I understand. Whether she went back to being vegan, I don't know. I also read that Jonathan Safran Foer started promoting "happy" chickens, which I don't support. Terms like "cage-free"or "free range" are ambiguous at best, but that's a whole other blog post. But in any case, even if Natalie and Jonathan aren't vegans themselves, their arguments are still sound. And I leave you with this excerpt from Natalie's piece.

I remember in college, a professor asked our class to consider what our grandchildren would look back on as being backward behavior or thinking in our generation, the way we are shocked by the kind of misogyny, racism, and sexism we know was commonplace in our grandparents' world. He urged us to use this principle to examine the behaviors in our lives and our societies that we should be a part of changing. Factory farming of animals will be one of the things we look back on as a relic of a less-evolved age.

I say that Foer's ethical charge against animal eating is brave because not only is it unpopular, it has also been characterized as unmanly, inconsiderate, and juvenile. But he reminds us that being a man, and a human, takes more thought than just "This is tasty, and that's why I do it."

Love and Peace,
VG

Why Vegetarian to Begin With?

As any vegetarian or vegan knows, the number one question is "How long?", followed by the more important, "Why?" Everyone's always interested in why. Not that I don't welcome the question. I just get tired of explaining. To me, it was more "Why not?"

The turning point for me was when my sister, a longtime vegetarian (current vegan), asked me out to dinner one night. Unsurprisingly, we got into a discussion about animals. I had just ordered a quiche that was made with ham. She was arguing against the unethical slaughter and treatment of animals. I, like so many others, valued humans above animals. I chose to argue pro-animal testing when it came to lifesaving treatments, such as HIV antiretrovirals, medicine that saves millions of lives every year. The utilitarian point of view. But I was just doing what many of us do, rationalizing. For example, did the treatment of HIV warrant or excuse the inhumane slaughter that goes on in factory farms? No, but somehow it made me feel better knowing not all animal testing was done in vain.

Generally speaking, we only do studies with humans after drugs have passed many initial tests done on other animals. I mean, we could test on human beings instead, but then we'd argue safety and ethics, etc., something not generally afforded to other animals. And while some of these drugs save lives, some don't. Some are very dangerous, even after they get approval. Imagine being the initial guinea pig. And it's not just drugs. There are cosmetics, most of which are unnecessary (and probably even harmful) that get tested on other animals. Is it all for the greater good?

So sitting at that dinner table, seeing my sister's sympathy, I didn't know what to say. I felt guilty. Here I was, a rational logical person doing something I knew was wrong. I could see she was impassioned just talking about it, even though she noted that she used to get even more moved. I decided I couldn't eat the quiche anymore.

But after that night, I continued to eat animals. Though I didn't stop looking into it. I wanted to know what exactly were the benefits of vegetarianism. As it turned out, plenty. I read a Guardian article about a study which indicated that vegetarians had lower rates of certain cancers.

Here are some quotes:

"Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – which last year earned a share of the Nobel peace prize – urged giving up meat at least once a week as a way of combating global warming. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions."

"Annette Pinner, chief executive of the Vegetarian Society, said: 'It is widely recognised that a third of cancers are directly related to diet and what's interesting in this study is the findings on blood cancers. We wouldn't claim vegetarianism is a panacea for cancer but it is a step in the right direction.'"

That first quote introduced me to the Meatless Monday campaign. Rallying people to give up meat one day a week, to help cut down on all the energy and water (and carbon emissions) that go into the meat industry. It was an intriguing idea. I decided to give it a shot.

And if I was going to think eating fish was acceptable, boy was I wrong. I listened to an NPR interview with Daniel Pauly, a professor at the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia, about our fishing industry. It was alarming to hear how disastrous it has been. Having to go further offshore and into deeper waters as fish in coastal waters started disappearing. Opting for smaller and uglier fish as we started fishing off all the bigger ones. Football stadium-sized nets that scoop up and destroy countless ecosystems, taking the seafood that they want and then chucking everything else back to die. It simply wasn't (and isn't) worth it.

Here's an excerpt from his New Republic article:

"In the past 50 years, we have reduced the populations of large commercial fish, such as bluefin tuna, cod, and other favorites, by a staggering 90 percent. One study, published in the prestigious journal Science, forecast that, by 2048, all commercial fish stocks will have 'collapsed,' meaning that they will be generating 10 percent or less of their peak catches. Whether or not that particular year, or even decade, is correct, one thing is clear: Fish are in dire peril, and, if they are, then so are we."

So I was sold. There was the health aspect, the environmental aspect and the animal suffering bit. It was sound reasoning. My first Meatless Monday wasn't as hard as I thought it'd be. I guess when you have morals on your side and believe in something, the will power comes naturally. So much so that the next day I continued to go meatless. Then that night, I grilled some chicken, but as I took the first few bites, it wasn't as rewarding as I imagined it would have been. Because my morals didn't suddenly disappear. And I felt guilty because I knew I should and could continue being vegetarian. So I did.

I mean, this isn't meant to convince or convert anybody. So if you're reading this, don't get defensive. Many times, people have asked me why, and when I explain my reasoning, they get defensive when I was looking for an argument (though I understand that they feel indirectly attacked since they are pro-meat). I'm just reflecting on my journey here. Most vegetarians or vegans I know used to love and probably still would love the taste of meat. There's no denying that it's tasty, but that taste isn't worth all the pain that goes into it. Not in my mind. And yes, I always hear the "eating meat is natural" argument. Yes, it is. I always acknowledge that. But that doesn't mean we have to. Not to mention, the whole "natural" argument is unconvincing. Humans do all the most "unnatural" things in the world. Industrialization, Airplanes, Medicine, Ipods. Just to name a few. Yet we welcome those things without any pause.

Moreover, whenever people brought up "not getting enough protein" or "needing a complete diet", I always felt as if I was the first vegetarian in history. Like I was going to die not eating meat. Which was also kind of insulting, because sometimes these were people who knew me, and suddenly they didn't trust me to have made this decision with the proper research and education. Meanwhile, they've got nothing but "common sense" on their side. But I'm getting too ranty, so I'll just say, the list of many an intellectual and healthy (and in some cases bodybuilding or MMA-fighting) vegetarian/vegan is long and plentiful.

In any case, if there's anything you should take away from any of this, it's this nifty Michael Pollan adage: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Love and Peace,
VG

Michael Pollan the foodie?

Over the course of that next year, I got really interested in food. More so than usual. I had always been interested in food. When my brother and I weren't being lazy and ordering takeout (or when we ran out of money), we cooked for ourselves because we were latchkey kids.

My newfound interest in food, specifically the food industry, came after I listened to an NPR interview with Michael Pollan. He had written an open letter to the next president. It called for food reform and perhaps a "farmer in chief." In the interview, he brought up some key points about the disconnect we had with our food, the troubles with food subsidizing and all the cheap unhealthy calories running our country. He also points out some ways we can make it better for everybody and the land we farm on. It's well worth a listen if you are interested in food.

I would thank him for piquing my interest in our food industry. His book, In Defense of Food (or the shorter, quicker, Food Rules), is a great read because it snaps a lot of common sense back into the way we should be thinking about eating. I'd recommend that as well.

In any case, I started wondering what a foodie was. There isn't an official definition for the term, but most people confuse it with the term gourmet. Gourmets are people who want to eat the best food out there, food connoisseurs, if you will. Picture typical snobby food critics, no offense (not all food critics are snobby). Whereas foodies are just people who are really interested in all the makings behind food, the science, politics, etc.

So was Michael Pollan a foodie? And by that regard, was I starting to become one myself?

Whatever it was, I continued to listen in on the conversations about food, such as the local food movement, organics, ethical animal slaughter and of course vegetarianism.