The Middle Path

When it comes for food, I am a strict Buddhist. Turns out that the “Middle Path,” the Buddhist practice of non-extremism, is highly applicable to my daily dietary consumption (and life, in general, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic).

I find that balance is not only desirable when trying to incorporate the basic food groups (btw, there are 7 now – when I was a kid there were only 4), but also when consuming my “discretionary calories.” And yes, “discretionary calories” now appear on the food pyramid. My how times have changed…

I don’t diet. Never have, never will. It’s just not my style (hey, if I was into guilt and self-denial, I’d become a Catholic). But at the same time, I rarely eat whatever I want, whenever I want, with the exception of vacations and occasional bout of PMS, natch. For me, it’s easiest to eat “mostly” healthy “most” of the time. Granted, if there’s a cupcake in the office kitchen, I’m on it like stink on a monkey (or like a shark on a seal?). BUT, after eating the cupcake, I’ll make an extra effort to have a sensible dinner that’s low on the sugar and empty carbs and high on the protein and other nutrient-like substances.

And exercise? Always essential, not only to maintain my weight, but my emotional sanity as well.

For me, it just works. And I’m happy to say that while I am about 5 lbs heavier than I was a few years ago, overall, I’m pretty fit and trim (don’t hate on the ba-donk-a-donk).

BUT…
Like desire is to a Buddhist monk, process foods are to a Buddhist eater. The pure, unadulterated shit that they hide in processed foods is beyond unbelievable; it’s despicable. The amount of fat, sodium, and processed sugars that are hidden in supposedly “nutritious” foods is enough to make me want to scream (and I’m not even talking about the foods that are blatantly un-nutritious; those that are laden with so much crap that they’re practically poisonous).

Ever read the back of a Lean Cuisine? I did once, and I was so disgusted with the 9 grams of fat, 650 milligrams of sodium, and 18 grams of sugar (I’m not making this up) that I pointed it out to the woman next to me in a vain attempt to orchestrate an impromptu rebellion agains the man. (Sad to say, she was unaffected and bought the product anyway, dumb beeyatch).

Sometimes I ask myself, “How can these companies get away with marketing such blatantly un-nutritious food?”

And as far as I can tell, the answer is that most people just don’t know any better. Stating that a meal contains 650 milligrams of sodium is useless information to somebody who doesn’t understand that this represents about a third of your daily recommended intake.

What we need here is an "Eating for Dummies," and I am SO gonna write that bitch (as soon as I finish my novel, of which I have a whopping 7 pages written).

I came across this article today, and I was thrilled about the writer’s attempt to put the average person's sugar consumption in perspective:
“With about 8 teaspoons of added sugar, a regular 12-ounce soft drink will put most women over the recommended daily limit.”

I also like how they incorporate exercise into the equation:
“A man in his early 20s who walks more than three miles a day could consume about 288 calories, or about 18 teaspoons, of added sugar.”

The article is eye-opening (in my humble opinion), and I think it’s high time that the media make more of an effort to educate the average American on exactly what they’re putting into their own system.

Of course, being a dietary Buddhist, I don’t expect myself or anyone else to cut out sugar, salt, or fat entirely. After all, is life really worth living if we can’t enjoy baked goods? But I think that knowing exactly what we’re putting into our bodies and – hopefully – modifying future actions to compensate for these decisions, is a big step towards a healthier lifestyle.

As for me? You can still find me walking down the middle path, trying desperately to ignore the chocolate cake on the side of the road.