My friend said to me yesterday, “I need to cleanse my body, I’m going off of coffee…” I turned to her with an incredulous expression and said, “Yeah, right.” I followed with, “Coffee is good for you now, haven’t you heard? It prevents … prostate cancer or something.” She just laughed.
I love coffee. For me, the idea of “going off coffee” is a goal that I will probably never achieve I cannot leave my house without a cup of coffee and I drink no less than three cups a day, which is cutting way back from the minimum of seven cups a day I used to drink.
Typically, coffee is something that is considered to have a negative impact on the human body. And yet, similar to many things, the negative opinion of coffee does not seem to have an effect on the sales nor the demand for coffee. We continue to drink coffee, and even through the economic downturns, the coffee market did not fall. It simply shifted from latte’s to home-brew as the incomes dwindled.
Despite the anti-coffee vibe that we seem to carry, more often we are hearing the positive aspects of drinking coffee. Recently, a Harvey University study showed that coffee drinkers experience health benefits, including a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes and liver cancer, among other diseases. This is not the say the study did not find negative affects as well; too much coffee can cause higher calorie intake and birth defects if consumed by pregnant women. Though, surprisingly, concerns of heightened coffee intake seemed to be limited in this study.
The caffeine intake of so much coffee consumption is an aspect to take into consideration, though I believe that coffee (or tea, I suppose) is the best way to have caffeine, as it is more natural than an energy drink. Though surprisingly, a cup of coffee has much more caffeine than expected; moreover, the cup sizes are so skewed in our minds. A cup of coffee from Starbucks seems innocent enough, but when ordering a grande, it is the same caffeine intake as 3 cups of coffee. This is not to mention the espresso drinks as they pack multiple shots into one latte. (Though it is good to remember that a single cup of coffee has more caffeine than a shot of espresso. This is due to the brew time and the contact the water has with the coffee grounds)
When more than fifty percent of Americans drink more than three cups a day on average, the more than $40 billion a year coffee industry doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. However, this is one study. I am not suggesting we go crazy with heightened coffee consumption. In fact we should keep in mind the amount of coffee we are drinking, and not assume one cup is equal to the next. A study praising the habit rather than condoning it is much nicer to read, as I drink my second cup of the day, and perhaps there is some truth to is, so we can all enjoy our daily dosage without health concerns.
I have literally been drinking coffee every day since the age of 13, and I have no intention to change this habit any time soon. For the most part, there is no reason for me to, it is not marketed as a killer as say cigarettes are, there is no a reason for me to stop — and now, looks like there is a reason to continue! You never know, maybe it was Starbucks that financed the study, but for now, I will take it!
25 May 2011
19 May 2011
Pop-Up Eats, The One-Time Only Twist to Food
Fruit-on-the-Go. c. Kira
Even if it a regular occurrence, meals at a restaurant bring a certain something to the table. Dining at single-location restaurants, opposed to a chain, seems to bring even more allure to the dining experience. Perhaps this is due to the uniqueness, and we can feel that we are somewhat unique going to that one location; or perhaps we are drawn to the exclusivity of it; or to put it another way: if there is only one, it is not readily available to us, and therefore we will inherently think more highly of the finite resource.
I began to think about this as I read an article in Washington Post about the new pop-up restaurant that is coming to town. The idea of pop up shops is becoming more popular, as stores open for a limited time period, and one location turns from one boutique to the next. So, why don’t we have more pop-up restaurants?
Pop-up restaurants are a great way to test a new idea in a neighborhood and gage reactions. But more than that, it add a certain something to the location when the customers know it is there for a limited time only. Pop-up restaurants have the same allure to us as the one-day only sale in some ways. We can justify going even when we do not really want to because it is there for only a short time. For that same reason, we can justify to ourselves spending more money than we normally would on a meal out. The transient quality is remarkably appealing.
Similarly, just like pop-up restaurants, the new craze of food trucks has the same draw for us. As the trucks troll around the city, word gets out in groups of friends, at the office, but even more – news travels at lightning speed online, and people come out in droves. I know there has been more than one occasion when a food truck has been parked outside my office building and I have gone out and bought lunch — not because I particularly really wanted to eat a lobster roll that day and not because I had forgotten my lunch at home; however, the idea that the truck would only be there that one day and I wasn’t sure when it would be back in the neighborhood.
Pop-up restaurants and food trucks, remind us how susceptible we are to the marketing ploys. We can be easily convinced that a we really need to have a $15 lobster roll for lunch from the roving cart across the street, just as we can be convinced to go out and buy an expensive meal at the fancy limited time only joint around the corner. Both are pretty ingenious ideas, which play to the human nature of wanting something that offers a unique experience, one feels a part of something special, and the transience shines light on the value we find in finite resources.
Even if it a regular occurrence, meals at a restaurant bring a certain something to the table. Dining at single-location restaurants, opposed to a chain, seems to bring even more allure to the dining experience. Perhaps this is due to the uniqueness, and we can feel that we are somewhat unique going to that one location; or perhaps we are drawn to the exclusivity of it; or to put it another way: if there is only one, it is not readily available to us, and therefore we will inherently think more highly of the finite resource.
I began to think about this as I read an article in Washington Post about the new pop-up restaurant that is coming to town. The idea of pop up shops is becoming more popular, as stores open for a limited time period, and one location turns from one boutique to the next. So, why don’t we have more pop-up restaurants?
Pop-up restaurants are a great way to test a new idea in a neighborhood and gage reactions. But more than that, it add a certain something to the location when the customers know it is there for a limited time only. Pop-up restaurants have the same allure to us as the one-day only sale in some ways. We can justify going even when we do not really want to because it is there for only a short time. For that same reason, we can justify to ourselves spending more money than we normally would on a meal out. The transient quality is remarkably appealing.
Similarly, just like pop-up restaurants, the new craze of food trucks has the same draw for us. As the trucks troll around the city, word gets out in groups of friends, at the office, but even more – news travels at lightning speed online, and people come out in droves. I know there has been more than one occasion when a food truck has been parked outside my office building and I have gone out and bought lunch — not because I particularly really wanted to eat a lobster roll that day and not because I had forgotten my lunch at home; however, the idea that the truck would only be there that one day and I wasn’t sure when it would be back in the neighborhood.
Pop-up restaurants and food trucks, remind us how susceptible we are to the marketing ploys. We can be easily convinced that a we really need to have a $15 lobster roll for lunch from the roving cart across the street, just as we can be convinced to go out and buy an expensive meal at the fancy limited time only joint around the corner. Both are pretty ingenious ideas, which play to the human nature of wanting something that offers a unique experience, one feels a part of something special, and the transience shines light on the value we find in finite resources.
11 May 2011
Mega-Store Oasis Emerges in a Food Desert
From my apartment in Washington D.C., I can walk less than 5 minutes in any direction and end up at a grocery store. On a daily basis, the question for me is: which grocery store would I like to go to today—the closest? The cheapest? The one with the best selection and variety? Or the one in which I can eat samples as I shop? (That’s the one I end up at, most often) I have this choice to make each time I run out of milk. And across the same city, there are people who don’t have a grocery store to go to, let alone a choice.
“Food Deserts” is a buzzword that essentially means an area where a large number of people lack access to a grocery store. The idea of having access to a grocery store is the idea that one has options for food, and beyond that, healthy options: fresh and whole foods — no, not the store, but actual whole foods such as produce, grains, etc. Access to a Mickey-D’s or a gas station quick-mart, doesn’t cut it when it comes to eating healthy foods every day.
I was recently sent a link to a USDA site through an article on the DCist.com, where one can see the food desert areas mapped out in any region in the country. It shocked me to see the shot of the entire country and the large areas that are considered food deserts. Then to zoom in to see food deserts in the neighborhoods that I know so well. Though it is a small percentage of the population, it covers a larger area than I expected. This also is attributed to the fact that food deserts often fall in areas with fewer people living.
The DCist writes about food deserts in the city mostly due to a rise in awareness over the latest controversy of potential Wal-Mart’s popping up in the areas lacking with access supermarkets. The superstore not only offers cheap options for just about everything, including food products, but it also offers jobs. Food deserts, have limited options for healthy food, and this limitation is damaging to the area’s residents. In some ways, offering a store like Wal-Mart is seen as a “silver bullet” option to help alleviate the results of a food desert.
Bringing in a store like Wal-Mart eliminates the choice for people, but at the same time in areas where the choices are limited, it offers at least an option. I personally grew up in an anti-Wal-Mart environment (small town, pro-local business, and yes, a bit elitist). In fact, I can probably count on one (okay, maybe two) hand the times I have actually entered a Wal-Mart in my life — let alone actually bought something there. Not only do I have an aversion to their poor working conditions and worker rights, but I also disagree with the outcome when Wal-Mart becomes the only options for shopping with competing businesses wiped out.
I don’t think that Wal-Mart is the only answer to solving a problem of a food desert, in fact far from it. Though it offers affordable food, without competition, I think that it can create different and damaging controversy in the future for the shoppers who rely solely on the Super store for everything. The controversy raises is the issue of food deserts and brings awareness to the situation. With this, further actions can be under taken to solve it — affordable farmers markets, options for SNAP food benefits use at grocery stores that otherwise would be too pricey, or an additional grocery store (not a mega-store) in the area to drive up competition and drive down prices. Adding one store that whips out the need for all other stores is not the answer to eliminating a food desert. This current controversy over Wal-Mart, however, should begin a discussion of why it is entering the arena, looking at the issue of food deserts and other options the city or neighborhood have to contemplate.
“Food Deserts” is a buzzword that essentially means an area where a large number of people lack access to a grocery store. The idea of having access to a grocery store is the idea that one has options for food, and beyond that, healthy options: fresh and whole foods — no, not the store, but actual whole foods such as produce, grains, etc. Access to a Mickey-D’s or a gas station quick-mart, doesn’t cut it when it comes to eating healthy foods every day.
I was recently sent a link to a USDA site through an article on the DCist.com, where one can see the food desert areas mapped out in any region in the country. It shocked me to see the shot of the entire country and the large areas that are considered food deserts. Then to zoom in to see food deserts in the neighborhoods that I know so well. Though it is a small percentage of the population, it covers a larger area than I expected. This also is attributed to the fact that food deserts often fall in areas with fewer people living.
The DCist writes about food deserts in the city mostly due to a rise in awareness over the latest controversy of potential Wal-Mart’s popping up in the areas lacking with access supermarkets. The superstore not only offers cheap options for just about everything, including food products, but it also offers jobs. Food deserts, have limited options for healthy food, and this limitation is damaging to the area’s residents. In some ways, offering a store like Wal-Mart is seen as a “silver bullet” option to help alleviate the results of a food desert.
Bringing in a store like Wal-Mart eliminates the choice for people, but at the same time in areas where the choices are limited, it offers at least an option. I personally grew up in an anti-Wal-Mart environment (small town, pro-local business, and yes, a bit elitist). In fact, I can probably count on one (okay, maybe two) hand the times I have actually entered a Wal-Mart in my life — let alone actually bought something there. Not only do I have an aversion to their poor working conditions and worker rights, but I also disagree with the outcome when Wal-Mart becomes the only options for shopping with competing businesses wiped out.
I don’t think that Wal-Mart is the only answer to solving a problem of a food desert, in fact far from it. Though it offers affordable food, without competition, I think that it can create different and damaging controversy in the future for the shoppers who rely solely on the Super store for everything. The controversy raises is the issue of food deserts and brings awareness to the situation. With this, further actions can be under taken to solve it — affordable farmers markets, options for SNAP food benefits use at grocery stores that otherwise would be too pricey, or an additional grocery store (not a mega-store) in the area to drive up competition and drive down prices. Adding one store that whips out the need for all other stores is not the answer to eliminating a food desert. This current controversy over Wal-Mart, however, should begin a discussion of why it is entering the arena, looking at the issue of food deserts and other options the city or neighborhood have to contemplate.
07 May 2011
The One, Necessary, Blog Post About Julia
Julia Child always kind of bothered me. I know this is sinful to say. Though I wanted to love the legend, it was the voice. I do fully appreciate the excited and honor she brought back to the kitchen. And we all know how hard a Julia Child meal can be, and as she makes it look so easy, we think that we can do it too. I thought so too.
On a recent trip back to my parents home, I decided I wanted duck, not only that, I wanted to try a Julia Child duck recipe from her book that my sister had bought as a Christmas gift. So, as a I decided that one recipe wouldn’t be enough, I made it a Julia Child day—my Mom and I made hollandaise sauce to go on our salmon eggs Benedict for Brunch, for the evening meal, we made Duck a l’Orange and even a chocolate mousse for desert.
I think the hollandaise sauce may have been the easiest. (Admittedly, we did kind of cheat by using the blender, but Julia said we could!) The duck was more of challenge — although I let my Dad take the lead on that one —and the chocolate mousse was the most challenging. We had to beat the mixture first on it’s own, then over simmering water, and then over cold water. Really, Julia? Besides the fact we had to get an extension cord out so the beaters would reach the stove-top, we made quite the disaster after getting simmering water (and cold water) all over ourselves, and that’s not to mention the eggs we were beating. I couldn’t help thinking, that my Mom’s chocolate mouse recipe was so much easier and actually better. (It could also be because it does not call for a stick and half of butter.)
It was not that I didn’t enjoy spending the day cooking at home, because I certainly did, but I think it was the frustration of cooking something that was, in my mind, unnecessarily complicated, and in the end not worth the complications. The duck was good, though I have had better duck. The mouse was actually too rich for my taste, as was the hollandaise sauce from the morning. Perhaps my palette is simply not accustomed to the French cuisine, though I recall enjoying it immensely when I have had it. Or perhaps I am not used to eating that much butter on a daily basis. Or maybe, I just am not a great French chef yet. (I have a feeling it is the latter.)
I will say, after attempting a Julia Child recipe; I do appreciate her even more now, despite the voice. (Perhaps it was because I couldn’t hear her voice while reading the book?) It is a joy to read her book aloud while cooking, because if you are the slightest bit crazy as I am, you will begin conversations with her, i.e. “Julia, why are you telling me to add another stick of butter?”
Overall, I think the best thing about cooking with Julia Child, is that you are pushed out of your comfort zone with attempting to cook something extraordinary. Now, in my little experience, this will probably fail and you will get something decent. But the point is that Julia was pushed out of comfort zone, and she did fail at first, though she eventually achieved the extraordinary though the sharing of her success through chance, risk and even failure. And that, annoying voice and all, is why Julia Child continues to gain admiration from generations.
On a recent trip back to my parents home, I decided I wanted duck, not only that, I wanted to try a Julia Child duck recipe from her book that my sister had bought as a Christmas gift. So, as a I decided that one recipe wouldn’t be enough, I made it a Julia Child day—my Mom and I made hollandaise sauce to go on our salmon eggs Benedict for Brunch, for the evening meal, we made Duck a l’Orange and even a chocolate mousse for desert.
I think the hollandaise sauce may have been the easiest. (Admittedly, we did kind of cheat by using the blender, but Julia said we could!) The duck was more of challenge — although I let my Dad take the lead on that one —and the chocolate mousse was the most challenging. We had to beat the mixture first on it’s own, then over simmering water, and then over cold water. Really, Julia? Besides the fact we had to get an extension cord out so the beaters would reach the stove-top, we made quite the disaster after getting simmering water (and cold water) all over ourselves, and that’s not to mention the eggs we were beating. I couldn’t help thinking, that my Mom’s chocolate mouse recipe was so much easier and actually better. (It could also be because it does not call for a stick and half of butter.)
It was not that I didn’t enjoy spending the day cooking at home, because I certainly did, but I think it was the frustration of cooking something that was, in my mind, unnecessarily complicated, and in the end not worth the complications. The duck was good, though I have had better duck. The mouse was actually too rich for my taste, as was the hollandaise sauce from the morning. Perhaps my palette is simply not accustomed to the French cuisine, though I recall enjoying it immensely when I have had it. Or perhaps I am not used to eating that much butter on a daily basis. Or maybe, I just am not a great French chef yet. (I have a feeling it is the latter.)
I will say, after attempting a Julia Child recipe; I do appreciate her even more now, despite the voice. (Perhaps it was because I couldn’t hear her voice while reading the book?) It is a joy to read her book aloud while cooking, because if you are the slightest bit crazy as I am, you will begin conversations with her, i.e. “Julia, why are you telling me to add another stick of butter?”
Overall, I think the best thing about cooking with Julia Child, is that you are pushed out of your comfort zone with attempting to cook something extraordinary. Now, in my little experience, this will probably fail and you will get something decent. But the point is that Julia was pushed out of comfort zone, and she did fail at first, though she eventually achieved the extraordinary though the sharing of her success through chance, risk and even failure. And that, annoying voice and all, is why Julia Child continues to gain admiration from generations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)