Pasta Queen just wrote a great post called "busted" about running into her brother at the grocery store just after she had grabbed a couple of Cadbury Creme Eggs. I don't know that I've tried one of these things, but they do indeed sound delicious. I've been totally craving chocolate lately. Is it just me, or do chocolate cravings seem more pronounced in winter?
Anyway, for those of you with a bit of time to kill, here's an alternative suggestion for what to do should you find yourself in close proximity to a bunch of Cadbury Creme Eggs and don't have a sibling available to stage an intervention.
(And if you like these Rube Goldberg type videos, here's one for us vicarious pyromaniacs. Anyone else harbor a secret love of setting things on fire? Personally, I limit myself to candles, fireplace logs, and marshmallows, but if I had a setup like this in the garage...)
As may be obvious, I didn't get the chance to write up a real post for today. Just one of those days when Life got in the way. After almost 2 years of blogging, it has finally occurred to me that rather than stressing about it, I can just remind myself that the world won't come to an end if I miss writing a "real" post every now and then.
And if anyone has a some slightly more practical suggestions for avoiding chocolate flavored temptations, please share! I've been trying to take Dr. Judith Beck's advice and "exercise my resistance muscle," but perhaps I need to do a few more reps and sets.
Have a great Wednesday, everyone, and I hope to have my act together by Friday! (Thank goodness for Merry Sunshine!)
Among the vast conspiracies & cabals that dominate our world (Who decides whether hemlines should be up or down? Who decided capri pants were fashionable? Who on earth thought up the idea of going to work on a Monday, anyway?), there's a small group concerned with deciding how many small scary costumed rugrats will show up at my door demanding candy.
I mean, some years I'm swamped, run out of chocolate early, and have to spend the rest of the night with the lights turned off, pretending that I'm not at home. Other years, I'll end up with 3 or 4 unopened packages of candy -- calling to me, tempting me, luring me to fall into evil ways. And somehow, I can never simply Throw Chocolate Away -- it's wasteful! Yes, I know eating the stuff is waist-ful, but I can't just throw it out.
The ideal would be to run out of candy with the very last child who shows up at my door. Probably there are people who pre-determine who the last child will be, even if that means they give 345 pieces of chocolate to a child and then spend the rest of the night hiding. (Hiding for Halloween! The latest adult coping strategy!)
Another problem with Halloween is that it encourages kids (and, um, adults) to eat 'bad' food. Used to be you could give a child an apple or something like that. Now it has to be something in a package. It makes me irked, irked I tell you!
I sometimes wish we could outlaw Halloween, but I'd miss all the cute outfits.
Dogzilla!
Healthy Halloween?
Does anyone have any 'healthy' treats that they give?
- iVillage put up a short list of healthy halloween candy, but that's all stuff that you make and put into baggies.
Not to sound paranoid, but if people are afraid of razor blades in apples, wouldn't they also be leery of any homemade treats? I hate to go to all the trouble of making something and then have it thrown out by an understandably cautious parent. (Actually, I'd hate to go to the trouble of making something, period. Queen of Laziness, moi.)
- WebMD tries to avoid the problem of adult-snacking by suggesting you go out and make healthy stuff for you to eat, so that you're not tempted by the chocolate lying around.
It's well-meant advice, but I gotta tell you -- if chocolate is calling, it tends to have a louder voice than cheese-and-olives-on-crackers (which is actually quite soft-spoken). And it would be nice to give children something that's not going to contribute to the rise in childhood obesity.
That might actually be the best bet. Some children (and adults) are allergic to peanuts, but if so I'm sure that they (or their parents) are into reading labels of the treats that they get. And dogs should not eat raisins, but really dogs shouldn't eat chocolate either, so if you're worried about Phydeaux you might want to encourage the children to eat the treats quickly. (Yeah, like they need the urging.)
- Reader's Digest adds pumpkin seeds to the list of healthy treats.
I kinda like this one, since pumpkins are associated with Halloween anyway. But I'm not sure how I'd feel about receiving pumpkin seeds if I were a child. Any children out there who can respond? Would you feel gypped?
Again, this sounds like something that might or might not be appealing to a child. (Sounds like fun, but is it a treat?)
The race is starting up again...
Halloween is the first hurdle in the race (or waddle) toward the holidays. I plan to get off to a good start this year, however I finish up. Raisins and peanuts and stuff like that. That way, if there are any leftovers, at least they're vaguely sorta kinda healthy leftovers.
Anyone else have any good ideas for healthy treats to give?
Whoops... how did that picture of Saddle Mountain get in here? Well, it is scary in a way. The scary part of this picture is ... that peak you see there? That's not the high point of the hike.
Yes, this is another post that questions research. Or, to be more accurate, it questions the way researchers question.
[Warning: this post contains dangerously high levels of statistics and percentages and such-like nasty math things. Proceed at your own risk.]
The Reuters/Zogby Index, which "measures the mood of the country," went up 4.4%. Apparently, "Americans remain worried about the U.S. economy and their personal finances, but their outlook brightened for the second consecutive month..."
So people are worried, but they're also feeling more cheerful about it. Huh?
It sounds like something Harry Potter would read in his tea leaves.
The pollster says the following statistics are cheering:
- The number of Americans who believe the country is on the right track rose to 25 percent from 23 percent In other words, only 75% of the population thinks we're all doomed, not 78%. - The number who are confident about their children's future climbed to 68 percent from 64 percent. An increase of 4% in a poll of a thousand people is relevant? - 45 percent of Americans said they plan to spend a little less or a lot less on gifts during the upcoming holiday season. But Santa, I've been good this year!
How can that be cheerful?
The pollster, John Zogby, figured this meant "There are a lot of reasons to still have the jitters, but maybe people are learning to deal with them."
To me, this maketh not sense.
I realize that someone who appreciates sadistics um, I mean statistics more than I do (which isn't hard to imagine) might feel that this is a relevant number of people and that this whole telephone poll idea is a good thing. I understand polling a small number of people can produce accurate results if you take a sample that's representative of the populace.
What makes the poll so droll is twofold: - This month's telephone poll surveyed 1,008 likely voters. - They called people on their landline phones.
The number of people with landline phones is roughly equivalent with the number of people who remember when Farrah Fawcett was one of Charlie's Angels.
In other words, there's a section of the population who isn't being asked how they feel.
To quote Scott Keeter, from the Pew Research Center, "If people who can only be reached by cell phone were just like those with landlines, their absence from surveys would not create a problem for polling. But cell-only adults are very different. The National Health Interview Survey found them to be much younger, more likely to be African American or Hispanic, less likely to be married, and less likely to be a homeowner than adults with landline telephones. These demographic characteristics are correlated with a wide range of social and political behaviors."
I concede that there would be a lot of complaints if people were called on their cell phones, thereby paying for someone to ask them questions. But it's unrealistic to assume that this doesn't skew the poll. It's like when a poll predicted Roosevelt would lose the 1936 election, when he won by a good margin. The responses were not representative of the whole voting population.
Yes, I'd love to see some positive news. Some could argue that it's positive to mention the fact that there are 40 more people out there who think their children have a good future. Me, I figure it's not unlikely that some of these people just had progeny since the last poll, and some of the others are feeling more cheerful because little Cyril is doing better at math and little Cindy has just broken up with her crack-using boyfriend. Given the land vs. cell issue, I think there might be too few people in the poll for an increase of that size to indicate a trend one way or another.
Studies we'd like to see
I'd love to see studies that went something like this:
[Reuters] A far-reaching Swiss study, covering 47 countries over 49 years, has conclusively proven that tiramasu causes humans to live longer and fit into skinny jeans easier than a steady diet of broccoli.
[API] A poll of 4,632 shopping mall employees discovered that 97% of them think their future will be greatly improved once they're able to vote.
[Cranky Fitness] Research conclusively proves that eating chocolate doubles your IQ and makes people sexier.
I mean, if the polls are going to be glib, they might as well be fun.
Every time I get a checkup, the doctor enthuses about my cholesterol. (Probably because it's good to say something positive before going on to the lecture about the Importance of Eating Vegetables.)
But it's interesting that none of them have warned me that my great cholesterol levels have nothing to do with my doing something right in life, and that in another decade I might find the situation changing dramatically.
If you're of the male persuasion, you might want to read this section. If you feel like it.
Any guys reading this might want to skip the next section and go straight to the bottom of this post, at least if you're worried about prostate cancer, since lowering cholesterol levels can lead to lower PSA. (American Urological Association (2008, May 18). Low Cholesterol Leads To Lower PSA, Lower Prostate Cancer Risk, Study Suggests. ) Or unless you feel like reading about women's health which is very nice of you and I personally think you're a really neat guy who should come by more often.
If you're of the female persuasion, you might want to read this section. Just a thought. If you're of the female persuasion, you've got a lot of estrogen running around in your system. If you're a female who's eaten a lot of saturated fats and is well padded, you've got a whole lot of estrogen running around in your system.
Estrogen affects your cholesterol levels. Even if you're Doing All the Wrong Things re cholesterol, you can still have a fab chol reading on the blood test because of the level of estrogen. Which is all well and good and fine and dandy until you hit this time of life called menopause. Then you're screwed. (Or you could be.)
If you've spent 50-some years eating badly, and it hasn't caught up to you yet, it's going to start now. Bad enough you have to deal with hot flashes and all that fun stuff, you'll find your chol level rising up and you'll have to start making some major changes to avoid all the nasty stuff that high cholesterol levels can cause.
Things you can do to improve your cholesterol levels: - Eat Oatmeal Dr. James Anderson analyzed 15 years' worth of studies and came to the conclusion that oatmeal was a good deal. "Whole-grain products like oatmeal are among some of the best foods one can eat to improve cholesterol levels, in addition to other lifestyle choices," Anderson said. "Lifestyle choices, such as diet, should be the first line of therapy for most patients with moderate cholesterol risk given the expense, safety concerns, and intolerance related to cholesterol lowering drugs."
- Eat Chocolate Yes, that is what you read. This study was partially funded by Mars, Inc., which by an amazing coincidence makes the particular (100 calorie) chocolate bars that were used in the study. Yeah, I know. And the research is based on 49 people with "slightly elevated" cholesterol levels. But on the other hand, it seems like common sense that if you faithfully follow the diet they were on (American Heart Association's "Eating Plan for Healthy Americans") then you probably can reduce your cholesterol even if you also eat a couple of 100 calorie chocolate bars a day.
- See a Registered Dietitian Everybody goes to their doctor if they want help with cholesterol levels. But one study, based on data from 377 patients, indicates that seeing an RD can help. "175 patients who started the study with triglycerides less than 400 milligrams per deciliter of blood (mg/dL), and who had their cholesterol measured before they changed or added medication, 44.6 percent either reduced their levels of "bad" cholesterol by at least 15 percent, or reached their cholesterol goal."
I like it that being Good Cholesterol Woman largely involves eating, which is something that I'm quite good at and have been for years. And I like the idea that I can get a running jump on all the nasty cholesterol possibilities out there, or at least tell them to take a running jump.
It's Friday! I've survived this week without defenestrating a single project manager! Life is good.
In fact, it's too good to post any scientific studies. You don't want to read those on a Friday, do you? Oh, you do? Okay then, just one.
We must be pretty smart, eh Crabby?
Apparently you have to have a fairly sophisticated brain to grasp sarcasm. A group of Israeli researchers published a study in the journal Neuropsychology, which states that "People who have trouble understanding sarcasm also have trouble understanding social cues, empathic response and emotion recognition."
I can understand that grasping sarcasm would require an effort by several different parts of the brain. The language areas of the left hemisphere deal with the literal meaning, areas of the frontal lobes and the right hemisphere handle intentions and emotional content, while a part of the brain known as the right ventromedial prefrontal cortex integrates the two. Still, it's a pretty complicated system when you stop to think about it.
The Israeli researchers wrote, “Understanding sarcasm requires both the ability to understand the speaker’s belief about the listener’s belief and the ability to identify emotions.” Apparently to understand sarcasm you have to be able to perform "sophisticated social thinking."
I like the idea of being thought sophisticated.
Especially if I can be sophisticated without having to wear uncomfortable shoes and chase after somebody named Mr. Big.
Ever wonder if you're drinking too much coffee? This website, Death by Caffeine, figures out how much espresso, or cherry coke, or chocolate milk it would take to do you in. (Death by Chocolate Milk? Even Agatha Christie never thought of that one.)
The solution to the high price of gas?
I think this idea of a retro-fitted electric bike is really cool. If a fully electric car is not in the foreseeable future, this might be a solution. I mean, for around a thousand dollars, you can get a vehicle that goes up to 35 miles per hour. That's enough for getting around on a lot of city streets.
From the 'I don't believe it's making a comeback' department: useless exercise equipment
Yes, just when you thought it was safe to go to the gym, it's back. The vibrator machine! One of those machines that has a vibrating belt that is supposed to 'jiggle' all your fat away. It could be yours for a mere $4,900. Get one today before they're all gone!
I swear, I can't believe someone is selling these again. Or that anyone is buying one. Somebody must. (Note: if you really feel the need to buy one of these, I have this swampland in Florida that you're just going to love.)
From the 'Weird and Wacky Humor' department
A T-Shirt you probably shouldn't wear at work (unless you're a plumber): Crack Kills.
This is another T-Shirt that made me smile, though I'm worried that not everyone might remember the reference.
Warning: play this video and you will be hearing this song All Day!
And finally, thanks to Boing Boing, there is this video. It's a wacky Thai commercial that seemed really bizarre to me.
Crabby likes to eat but, alas, is awfully lazy when it comes to cooking. So there are never any dang recipes on Cranky Fitness. Good thing that Leah, a good friend of the blog and host of the The Goat's Lunch Pail, wrote this handy guest post to address this serious lack of tasty recipes. Enjoy!
Hmm, the request was for guest posts that, ideally, are fitness-related. Food is related to fitness. This dessert is fat-free, low sugar, and contains healthy things like bananas, dark chocolate, and Schnapps.
I invented both these recipes. They’re easy to make and they’ve been tested many times. The recipes originally appeared on my blog in December 2006, but Crabby said we could recycle so that’s what I’m doing.
Crustless Banana Pudding Pie with Chocolate Schnapps Sauce.
This recipe is suited for celiacs. I’m not a true celiac though I am wheat intolerant. I can get away with having a bit of wheat flour, but I chiefly use spelt and other lower gluten flours. I keep rice, tapioca, and potato flours around for when I feel the need to be gluten-free.
You gluten-eaters can substitute white flour in this recipe. **
Crustless Banana Pudding Pie
Three ripe bananas.
About 1/2 cup of sugar. The sweetness of the bananas lets you cut down on the sugar content.
Three large eggs.
One-quarter cup of rice flour or potato flour (or starch) or tapioca flour (or starch)
¼ tsp of vanilla
½ tsp salt
1 tsp lemon juice
1 tsp guar gum (omit if using wheat flour)
Mixture may be thinned slightly with non-dairy milk substitute or non-dairy sour cream substitute if lactose intolerant. Milk drinkers can use the real thing.
Blend in a food processor at a vigorous setting. Give it about three minutes so everything is properly mixed. Pour in greased pie plate and bake at 350 for 40 –45 minutes. Depending on the temperament of your oven it could take longer to set. Cool thoroughly and store in refrigerator. This gets better every day.
This is the base recipe. If you like, stir in fruits and/or nuts like frozen raspberries and crushed pecans prior to pouring it in the pie plate.
This is good on its own and even better when topped with a sauce such as chocolate Schnapps sauce.
**
Chocolate Schnapps Sauce
About a cup of brown sugar.
A tbsp or so of water.
One 100g Lindt Extra Fine chocolate bar. Use the 85 per cent cacao variety. Trust me.
Melt the sugar over medium heat and mix in the water. Break Lindt bar and add. Mix as it melts. If mixture is too thick add more water to desired consistency.
Allow mixture to simmer as you stir in a minimum of two tbsp of Schnapps. Use the real stuff for heaven’s sake. Don’t use that infernal abomination peppermint. I used apricot Schnapps during the invention stage and was very pleased with the results. Simmer for about two more minutes stirring occasionally.
Remove from heat. Serve immediately or store in container and refrigerate.
If mixture hardens set container in a warm water bath until it gets runny and then stir vigorously before serving.
Photo: boozysmurf
