Mixed feelings after reading LC article in NY Times
<i>Personal note : I felt it was a rude shock for Singaporeans who have been eating rice to discover that in fact carbohydrates/sugars affect their personal health.
In this article, a veteran journalist writes her reactions after reading the LC article in NY Times. And she has expressed in a way that she can't totally accept this fact for the moment. And she begins to question the credibility of nutritionists and doctors. Ironically, she ordered a steak instead of pasta on a meal out after reading it.
But being a journalist and she's got to observe the media standards in Singapore, she would rather place herself on a neutral stand by saying stress is the main killer.
And her fail proof advice isn't that fail proof.....isnt it? LOL
I simply don't understand, why can't this be happening earlier?</i>
-----
Confused by what to eat?
Join the club. Is fat better than carbohydrates? Is meat good or bad? Or is being stressed out over what makes you healthy making you unhealthy?
<b>By Sumiko Tan</b>
AT LUNCH in Club Street with some business contacts the other day, I surprised myself. Instead of choosing pasta, I asked for steak.
Now, I'm a carbohydrates sort of person. I love rice, bread, potatoes, beans, pasta - anything starchy that leaves the tummy feeling warm and full.
I get withdrawal pangs if I don't have rice every day, and I mean a big heap of hot, fluffy, white rice.
I find it a chore to eat proteins, and when it's proteins laced with fat - like that piece of steak - no thanks.
But a few days earlier, I'd read in the New York Times magazine that fat may actually be good for you, while a diet high in carbohydrates may not.
Some doctors in the United States now say that fat - as in steak, eggs and butter - may not be as harmful as previously thought.
What may really be causing the high rates of obesity and heart disease in the US is a diet high in carbohydrates.
Which left me really confused. For didn't other literature I've read say that carbohydrates are what I should be eating most?
According to the Traditional Healthy Mediterranean Diet Pyramid developed in 1994 by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, people should load up on carbohydrates like bread, pasta, rice and potatoes.
Next on the pyramid are fruits, vegetables and legumes, followed by olive oil, then cheese and yogurt. Modest amounts of fish and poultry are allowed, but red meat is regarded as only an occasional treat.
(There is, I gather, a Food Guide Pyramid set out by the US departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services which has generally the same guidelines.)
In fact, one of the most readable medical books I've come across - Dr Koop's Self-Care Advisor: The Essential Home Health Guide For You And Your Family (1996) - even has a section featuring 'the lowdown on low fat' where it suggests low-fat alternatives to common foods.
For example, instead of bacon and eggs which have 37g of fat, we are advised to go for pancakes with syrup at 6g. Instead of a cheeseburger (30g), a bagel with salmon and low-fat cream cheese (10g) is deemed the healthier choice.
So why are some doctors now saying I'd live longer if I eat less carbohydrates?
Whatever the case, I had a thick slab of well-done steak for lunch, my first in almost a year.
It was surprisingly tasty. Still, I hungered for rice.
EVERYONE strives to be healthy, and more so when one grows older.
But that's easier wished for than done, both in terms of knowing just what is healthy, and maintaining good eating habits.
There are so many studies being done, and so much written on nutrition, that information overload is a problem.
Worse, just what is a consumer to do when he gets conflicting advice, all 'valid' in the name of scientific study? The ongoing debate about the dangers of hormone replacement therapy is one such example.
Recently, Sunday Plus reported on how the Health Promotion Board here has embarked on a campaign to get people to eat more vegetables and fruits.
Like most Singaporeans, I get enough vegetables at meals. But fruits are a problem. I'm too lazy to eat them and they are either too sour or too sweet.
Still, I try to eat at least two portions a day. After all, it's safe to bet that fruits won't ever get a bad press, right?
Alas, while researching for this column, I came across an article on the drkoop.com website titled 'all fruits are not equal'.
Apparently, plums have more calories - 55 - than others in its family. Nectarines have 49 calories, apricots 48 and peaches 43.
But if it's Vitamin A you're looking for, then apricots win, followed by nectarines and peaches. Plums, poor things, have no Vitamin A.
And if you're short of Vitamin C, forget nectarines because they have none. Plums and apricots are the high-scorers, followed by peaches.
Confused?
Well, that's nothing compared to the never-ending butter vs margarine debate.
When butter was deemed the more evil of the two, we changed to margarine at home. Then when margarine got vilified, we switched back to butter. These days, you'll find both a slab of butter and a tub of margarine in my fridge.
I thought I'd try to get a handle on this debate, but when I did a search of butter vs margarine on the Internet, I found a host of confusing articles exhorting trans fat vs saturated fat vs hydrogenated fat vs cholesterol.
One paper concludes: 'The bottomline is soft margarine is better than butter.'
Oh dear. Soft margarine? And I thought the world was complicated enough with just plain old butter and good old margarine.
WHILE I'm by no means a health nut, I know others who are, and whose lives are shaped by organic food, air and water filters, non-flouride toothpaste and the like.
To each his own, of course, and I've no doubt they will live longer and healthier lives than I.
Still, I do get panicky moments when I wonder if I'd have to pay for the sins of my unhealthy diet and lifestyle.
Should I, for example, turn vegetarian? (Though Time magazine recently questioned the benefits of going meatless.)
Then I tell myself that I'm being paranoid and stressing myself unnecessarily.
For in our quest to be healthy, could we be making ourselves unhealthy instead?
If we obsess over every bite we take, fret about missing that daily exercise session and get depressed about the germs in the air and the pollutants in our water, won't this cause even more stress to our already hectic lives?
And isn't stress the biggest killer?
A noted Singapore oncologist (and a meat-loving one, too) said recently: 'Cancer is caused by stress, not food.'
After all, life is short and I can trip in my bathroom tonight and kick the bucket. If an illness strikes, it strikes, and I'm sure genetics - which is beyond my control - has a big part to play in the scheme of things.
Perhaps it's sufficient to just live life based on simple, tried and tested guidelines.
Namely, eat in moderation (including carbohydrates and fats), take plenty of vegetables and fruits, exercise three times a week, drink lots of water and get enough sleep.
Now, that's fail-proof advice, right?
Well, isn't it?
|
Rosebud
Linear Mode
