Indulgences: "Permissible" or Not?

I read an article recently in the Wall Street Journal that conveyed how more and more companies are creating snack foods out of "healthy" ingredients because consumers are looking for "permissible indulgences." For example, salty fried chips made from sweet potatoes rather than white ones or a  "snack" made of 100% seaweed sheets.

Being a person who craves salty and crunchy, I've tried a number of these products. Seaweed seems like such a great snack food! Until you realize that you just paid at something like $1.00 per wafer thin sheet. True, it was healthy, but the vitamins and minerals it gave you probably would've been cheaper in some other whole form of vegetable and you would've stayed full longer to boot.

I've also fallen victim to items like vegetable chips (usually potato chips with a little bit of color added from other vegetables) and those amazingly delicious crunchy vegetable slices which often don't say, but always are, deep fried (which does make them delicious!).  Sure, they're dehydrated before they are deep fried, but I personally used to always stop at the fact that they're dehydrated thinking that the wonderful food production companies had found a way to extract liquid from vegetables and thereby make them crunchy (without then frying them in oil).

Looks like vegetables, tastes like (and is) fried, salted vegetables (sort of like a potato chip!)

Now, when I say "fallen victim" I don't mean that it was bad to eat these foods. As we try to teach people who need help normalizing their eating, foods are not "good" and "bad." What I think we can classify as good or bad though is the intention behind eating something that is marketed in a certain way, especially if words are used to make it seem healthier when in reality it is not. Do I think that the crunchy vegetable packing needs to say "you may as well eat potato chips" on it? No. But I think that the preparation method should be made explicitly clear by stating, for example: Deep fried green beans, carrots, and beets instead of: Garden Chips. That way the consumer can see that, think to themselves "this might not be healthy enough to become an everyday snack but it looks delicious so I'll try it knowing that it is probably not a magical alternative to an unhealthy snack."

An indulgence should be just that - something that you crave, something that you want. If you have to put the word "permissible" in front of it, that gives control not only to the food but also to the food production companies who want you to think that their product is more permissible than others. Chances are if you're thinking to yourself that something in a permissible indulgence, it's not really an indulgence at all. I've read that for some people, if they deny themselves the food item that they really wanted, they'll end up eating even more of the alternative choice because it will never fully satisfy them in the way that the original item would have; they then end up consuming more calories and being unsatisfied.

... And We're Back! aka Why Not Walk?

I've been thinking a lot about walking recently. Last week I started a new job at a hospital that is 1.5 miles from my new apartment. Google maps told me that it would take me 10 minutes to drive, 15 minutes to talk the bus, 15 minutes to bike, and 30 minutes to walk. Parking is crazy there so driving is out, the bus is crowded at that time of day, and by the time I get my tires pumped and my bike outside it's been more than 15 minutes. So I've been electing to walk there and back, getting a nice 3 mile roundtrip walk in every day. I love it because if I'm too tired to exercise when I get home at least I know that I've been a bit active during the day - and I'm only dependent on my own two feet (plus stop lights!) not on the bus running on schedule or finding a spot for my bike on the crowded racks.

The hospital has a Parking Department where you can get a parking pass, a discounted train pass, and a reimbursement for bike parts/maintenance if you bike to work. But for some reason, they have no monetary incentive for people to walk to work. When you think of how small of a city Boston is, it's sort of silly not to incentivize walking. I'm often struck by how few miles away my destination is (when I type it into my gps and it tells me it will take 45 minutes of sitting in traffic to make it 6 miles for example!).

It's one thing for me to walk myself to my destination - I'm a grown up, I know where I'm going and know not to cross the street outside of a crosswalk. But what about kids who as a population are less active than ever before? I recently read an article that said only 1/3 of students who live within a mile of school walk or bike and less than 3% of students who live within 2 miles of school walk or bike. I also just got an e-mail today from the Alliance for a Healthier Generation about a meeting that they're having to discuss programs like Safe Routes to Schools and Fire Up Your Feet. I think it's great that there are programs out there to encourage kids to walk to school and make it safer to do so, but in a way it's also sad that these programs are necessary.

Let's try to be a good example to everyone around us by choosing to walk next time your GPS tells you that your destination is less than 2 miles away. It'll take you a little over 30 minutes to get there and I bet you'll notice things about your neighborhood along the way that you never saw from you car. Let me know how it goes!