We get it, we get it…You want to get into coffee as a new hobby, a new way of experiencing life and maybe perhaps impress that one person that you always have in your circle. Whatever the reason might be, Ghostbird’s brewing guide for beginners is here! You can check out what equipment you like, pros and cons, as well as what to expect! Let’s start~
FRENCH PRESS
The mighty old french press, patented in the 1800s and brought to the market in the 1900s has deep roots in the coffee hobby. Fact: It is called a French Press because it is made in France.
For a French Press brew, you want to aim to:
Grind your coffee into the size of coarse sea salt.
Use 14g of coffee beans to 220ml of water
Use 90c / 195F water (Alternatively, just use boiling water)
Brew time: 2 minutes
BREWING STEPS:
Grab 220ml of water and boil it
Grind up 14g of coffee into a coarse sea salt consistency
To start, pour enough water to cover the coffee beans. Don’t pour it all at once!
Stir using a spoon and wait for 30 seconds. This step is called blooming
Pour the remaining water and place the lid gently on the grounds. Wait for 2 minutes. Avoid peeking!
Press the filter down. You should have medium resistance when doing so. If the plunger is hard to press, that means your grind is too fine, where as if your plunger “Plonks” to the bottom, your grind is too coarse. Make some changes and try again!
V60
The V60 is called the V60 because the V stand for the cone shaped filters and the 60 represents the sloping angle of the drippers side. It is an equipment invented in the 1950s to make drip coffee.
For a V60, you want to aim to:
Grind your coffee into a medium fine grind. It is a bit finer than sand, but not powdery
Use 15g of cooffee beans to 250ml of water
Use 93c / 200F water (Alternatively, just use boiling water)
Pouring time: 2 – 2.5 minutes
BREWING STEPS:
Bring 250ml of water to a boil, let it reduce to 93c
Fold the paper filter along the seams and place it into the cone
Using the boiling water, wet the paper filter to remove the papery taste and warm the cone
Grind up 15g of coffee into a sand-like consistency, make it a bit finer
Pour the coffee grounds into the paper filter
Pour 50 ml of hot water and then let it bloom for 30 seconds
Pour 100ml of hot water every 30 – 45 seconds of interval to make it up yo a total of 250ml
Finish the extraction in 2 – 2.5 minutes
AEROPRESS
The AeroPress is a relatively newcomer to the coffee equipment stage, being invented in the 2000s by Alan Adler.
There is actually a World AeroPress Championship (W.A.C.) to see who can brew the best cuppa using the AeroPress!
For the AeroPress, you want to aim to:
Grind your coffee into a medium fine grind. It is a bit finer than sand, but not powdery
Use 15g of coffee beans to 200ml of water
Use 90c / 195F water
Brewing time: 2.5 minutes
BREWING STEPS:
Boil your water
Insert a paper into the AeroPress’s detachable plastic cap
Using your boiling water, wet your filter and cap to remove the papery taste and preheat the vessel
Turn your AeroPress upside down, and pour your ground coffee into the vessel. Be careful not to spill coffee grounds into the gutter of the AeroPress
Start a timer, pour 50ml of hot water and stir, making sure all coffee grounds are saturated. and wait for 30 seconds
After 30 seconds, fill up the chamber and stir grounds 10 times to agitate
Fasten the cap and flip a cup to cover the cap. With utmost care, turn the whole contraption around
Apply downward pressure until you hear a hiss. The resistance should be medium-high, if this feels too easy then the grind is too coarse. If it feels too difficult then the grind is too fine
Unscrew the cap and pop out the coffee puck by simply pressing on the end of the AeroPress.
MOKAPOT
This is probably the cheapest and most compact way to make espresso-style coffee without the need for a large, expensive espresso machine. Invented in the 1930s by Italian engineer Alfonso Bialetti, the Mokapot uses pressure from boiling water to make espresso style coffee ground.
For the MokaPot, you would want to aim for:
Grind your coffee into a fine grind, but not as fine for an espresso machine. Slightly larger than granulated sugar
Use 20-22 grams of coffee.
BREWING STEPS:
Fill the bottom chamber of the MokaPot until it is level with the valve
Fill the funnel with ground coffee, leveling it and wiping the rim clean. Don’ tamp the grounds
Place the funnel into the bottom pot
Screw on the Moka pot’s top tightly
Place the Moka Pot on a stove over medium heat
As the water boils, the pressure will push coffee steadily into the top chamber. You know it is done when you hear a hissing and gurgling sound. Remove the pot from heat immediately!
Pour out your coffee and enjoy!
WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT FROM…
French Press?
It is generally a more forgiving brewing method. You can expect a full body ie. heavy feeling on the tongue after using such a brew method. It doesn’t utilize paper filters which means oils inside the coffee make it into the brew, which translates to a coffee with a fuller body. Bottoms up!
V60?
Although the V60 is a simple tool, there are so many variables to pick and choose. With a slower extraction, the coffee will taste richer with a fuller body. Whereas with a quicker extraction, the coffee will taste lighter and brighter. Experiment is key when using the V60!
AeroPress?
It is easy to learn how to use, and it makes good coffee consistently. Plus, it is easy to clean! Pop out the coffee puck, give it a wash and it is ready for storage or your second brew!
MokaPot?
Strong, hot coffee made without too much effort. Made with aluminum means that it is sturdy and lasts a long time!
Frequent Asked Question
Can I make good coffee with freshly roasted coffee?
If your coffee is too fresh, it will go though a degassing stage, which is a stage of releasing carbon dioxide. It means that the coffee beans are still resting and maturing. Usually the beans reach its peak flavour development in between 7 to 10 days from roasting date.
What roasting level is the best?
We would encourage everyone to enjoy a medium roasted cup of coffee to taste the flavours of its origin, whether it be from Asia like in Myanmar, or from Africa like Ethiopia or Kenya!
Why does coffee taste different when I brew it at my parent’s house?
It could be due to different grinding size, tamping angle, roasting date, water temperature and brewing method.
Penang, the food capital of Malaysia, is a must-visit destination for foodies. The street food scene in Penang is famous all around the world, and it is easy to see why. The abundance of delicious dishes makes it a food lover’s paradise. In this article, we will take you on a culinary journey through Penang, exploring the best places to eat and the must-try dishes.
Hawker Centers: Where The Magic Happens
If you’re looking for an authentic Penang food experience, head to one of the many hawker centers located throughout the city. These open-air markets are where the magic happens, and you’ll find some of the best street food in Penang. Some of the most popular hawker centers include Gurney Drive Hawker Centre, New Lane Hawker Centre, and Batu Lanchang Market.
Penang Laksa: A Dish You Can’t Miss
One of the must-try dishes in Penang is the Penang Laksa. This flavorful soup is made with a fish-based broth, tamarind, and a variety of herbs and spices. It is then served with thick rice noodles, shredded mackerel, cucumber, and pineapple. The combination of sour, spicy, and savory flavors makes it a truly unique and delicious dish.
Char Kway Teow: A Local Favorite
Another local favorite is the Char Kway Teow. This dish is made with flat rice noodles, stir-fried with soy sauce, chili paste, shrimp paste, bean sprouts, eggs, and cockles. The dish is known for its smoky flavor, and it is a must-try for anyone visiting Penang.
Nasi Kandar: A Malaysian Classic
Nasi Kandar is a popular Malaysian dish that originated in Penang. It is made with steamed rice and a variety of curries, including chicken, beef, fish, and vegetable curries. The dish is usually served with papadum and pickled vegetables, and it is a must-try for anyone looking to experience the local cuisine.
Penang Assam Laksa: A Tangy Delight
Penang Assam Laksa is another must-try dish in Penang. This tangy soup is made with a fish-based broth, tamarind, and a variety of herbs and spices. It is then served with thick rice noodles, shredded mackerel, cucumber, and pineapple. The combination of sour, spicy, and savory flavors makes it a truly unique and delicious dish.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Penang is a food lover’s paradise, and there are so many delicious dishes to try. From the hawker centers to the local restaurants, Penang offers a variety of culinary experiences that are sure to satisfy any appetite. We hope that this article has given you a taste of what Penang has to offer and that you’ll be inspired to visit and experience the local cuisine for yourself.
The End of Food, The Coming Crisis in the World Food Industry by Paul Roberts
Recommendation
Journalist Paul Roberts investigated the global food-delivery system and he reports that food product production and prices have advanced like the production and prices of other contemporary consumer goods. The economics of the food system push an ever-faster product cycle driven by supply-and-demand pressures. The infrastructure that delivers food to consumers uses ever-advancing technology. However, food itself is not an ordinary consumer “product.” Inexpensive food is an illusion, because the process externalizes many food production costs as cheap labor or cheap oil. Roberts explains why the food-delivery system is mired in economic, political and cultural problems, and examines the crisis that looms if it runs out of fuel or water, or both. getAbstract recommends this investigation to readers who want to understand the production, market and consumer implications involved in feeding the people on our planet.
Take-Aways
The global food economy based on cheap transportation may not be sustainable.
Early societies formed around crops. As demand grew, farmers moved to rural, nutrient-rich lands. As they raised more grains, they also bred more livestock.
Meat is an efficient source of calories, but current Western consumption levels are unsustainable.
Fertilizers and pesticides increase yields, but with environmental consequences.
Extreme hunger prevents progress. Nutrition-deprived children never develop the mental and physical abilities necessary for eventual self-support.
In the ’80s and ’90s, the U.S. favored a global food market based on each nation’s “comparative advantages,” the few products it could produce and export.
But many nations face such poverty or disrepair that they cannot meet basic needs.
The U.S. farm subsidy system is broken, but politicians are afraid to modify it. U.S. grain exports are competitive only due to subsidies and cheap fuel.
Buying “organic” may not be the most sustainable choice. Other factors, such as the agricultural methods used and proximity to market, also matter.
Only informed consumers can create the demand needed to change entrenched systems.
The End of Food Book Summary
The Evolution of the Global Food System
Humans have adapted to a diet based on meat as an efficient calorie source. They’ve learned to cultivate, store and prepare wheat, corn and rice. The first societies that generated grain surpluses earned the ability to settle in villages and towns. Cities first organized around food economies, importing crops from ever-greater distances as nearby farmers depleted their soil to meet demand. Ancient Rome imported more than 30% of its wheat from Egypt, 1,000 miles away. As Rome lost its military power, its food system fell apart.
“In 1900, the average American family spent half its household income on food.”
In 1798, Thomas Malthus demonstrated that although food production follows linear growth, population grows geometrically. Thus, he predicted, demand would eventually supersede supply. Developing nations, then including the U.S., staved off this prediction by taking over new land. Farmers eventually learned to plow up buried soil nutrients and to rotate crops to avoid depletion.
“By 1980, that share had dropped to less than 15%. In this sense, the modernization of food production marks one of the biggest transfers of wealth in human history.”
Over time, technology enabled more efficient food distribution and preservation. America became known for “superabundance,” particularly after the discovery and use of nitrogen fertilizer dramatically improved yield per acre. In modern times, fertilizer usage grew with the development of hardier, faster-growing crops. Scientists bred plants to be more “uniform,” hence easier to harvest mechanically. Then it bred animals the same way, to be meatier and more convenient for mass processing.
“The government’s price guarantees turned out to encourage farmers to overproduce, because no matter how low the real market price fell, farmers still got paid for every bushel they grew.”
In the U.S., regulations and subsidies protected farmers from the “boom and bust” of natural market fluctuations. Growers invested heavily in transport and irrigation, as experts encouraged them to specialize. Farms became more profitable, but less self-sufficient. Food processors and manufacturers organized to buy raw resources from farmers, who innovated in their own niches, whether milling grains or mixing fertilizer, and increased their yields. Investors saw these single-crop “input” operations as safer investments than individual farms. This spurred consolidation. Conglomerates bought family farms, and created price-dictating monopolies in many sectors, including fertilizer, seeds, meatpacking and granaries. Breeders fed their animals more protein and antibiotics so they could grow more meat, while eliminating the deficiencies and diseases created by raising animals in closed indoor “factories.” Processors began to measure meat in “pounds per square foot.” By 2000, this system created huge surpluses, driving down prices so much that some state governments paid farmers to grow less.
“Demand for grape flavor by makers of sodas, gum, candy and other foods now exceeds the quantity of grape flavor produced naturally – that is, in actual grapes – by…ten to one.”
Rewarding overproduction has negative repercussions. Food gets wasted or dumped. Prices drop as yields rise. To maintain their cash flow, farmers plant more and spend more to boost yield, perversely driving down per-bushel prices. Higher crop productivity demands continuous doses of fertilizer and pesticides, which sap soil nutrients and pollute the groundwater. The pervasive use of heavy machines and harsh chemicals makes food-sector jobs more hazardous. In this environment, rich nations still can import what they need, but the push for lower food prices creates import-dependent poor nations that can’t feed their people.
The Rise of “Value Added” Food
Food-manufacturing companies have supported lowering global trade barriers, making the food business global. By the end of the 20th century, big companies dominated the food supply. Processors continually “add value” to their strongly branded offerings to drive up profits. Manufacturers sometimes radically alter inherently fragile foodstuffs to accommodate the process of production. Like farmers, these companies got trapped in a relentless cycle of producing more of what the market wants, in their case, “convenience.”
“Wal-Mart has so successfully squeezed the supply chain…that since 1985 it has driven down U.S. grocery prices by a stunning 9.1%.”
Manufacturers vie with fast-food chains and other restaurants for convenience-food dollars. Marketers, fast food chains and grocery retailers drive down raw costs, and sell processed foods at a big markup. Today, Americans spend 21% of their food money at Wal-Mart, which dominates the market. This figure will keep rising. Retailers can now squeeze manufacturers, based on consumer demand for food that is uniform, plentiful, cheap, safe and handy. The “supermarket format” is rolling out globally, duplicating this paradigm even in agrarian nations.
“Much of that price drop has come from Wal-Mart’s success at cutting labor costs, which…has driven down average U.S. wages by 2.2%.”
For example, when its Chicken McNuggets succeeded commercially, McDonald’s pressured processors to lower chicken prices. The industry cut its costs and boosted its efficiency. It engineered a more manufacture-friendly, meatier bird that matured quickly. This chicken suits the market, but its meat is of poorer quality. It doesn’t retain moisture well when cooked, so processors compensate by injecting it with salts and other chemicals. In some cases, chickens are bred to be so heavy with breast meat that they find standing difficult. In another example, to make Chilean raspberries available in the U.S. four days after picking, growers developed varieties that endure long travel – but they just don’t taste as good.
Health Consequences of “Supersizing”
When Florida Representative Juan Zapata introduced a bill barring high-fructose corn syrup products (HFCS) in schools, the food industry went ballistic. Corn syrup is a $2 billion market. Corn refineries challenged the science Zapata used to link HFCS to obesity. But, in fact, much of today’s processed, salty, fatty, sugary and preservative-laden food is not suited to human biology. Humankind’s physical realities contradict the “more is better” theory of food economics. People’s delicate bio-mechanisms perform many duties, including maintaining body fat and signaling the brain when the body has eaten enough, or when it needs more. Studies show that larger portions lead to overeating. The food industry’s think tanks echo your doctor: if you want to lose weight, eat less and exercise more. But if every U.S. consumer shed 100 calories a day, U.S. food industry sales would decline more than $30 billion. The food and diet industries and the medical sector reap huge rewards from having a heftier population. Zapata’s bill died in committee.
Plugging into the Global System
The foundation of the global “low-cost, high-volume” food economy is “comparative advantage,” the idea that nations will prosper if they produce and sell the crops they grow best, and import anything else. This free-trade view says that economically struggling countries should plug into the global system. This theory has practical flaws: It’s based on consolidating farm sectors globally, yet many farmers in poor countries need money to buy food to eat if they no longer grow it. Companies like Nairobi-based green bean exporter Vegepro can’t pass their fuel cost increases on to retailers, who expect straight, uniform beans. Vegepro relies on Kenyan smallholders to grow extra beans to provide a buffer in case of emergency. Processors reject tons of beans each year and Kenyans don’t eat them. Thus the margins for this industry rest on the backs of those who have the least.
“Whatever China lacks in quality, however, it makes up in quantity.”
Countries that once purchased U.S. exports now have their own surpluses, many ironically financed by U.S. companies. In the ’60s and ’70s, the U.S. gave vast foreign aid to nations in Asia, South America and Africa, often in the form of food or farming aid, like seeds. Private lenders followed, offering these nations subprime credit for development projects. In the ’80s, this strategy backfired as debtor nations defaulted. For example, in 1982, Mexico seemed about to default on its $80 billion debt, much of it to U.S. lenders. This led to a policy of “restructuring” foreign debt when possible, in Mexico and, later, in Asia. In exchange for guaranteeing this debt, the U.S. and other international lenders required these nations to modernize their economies.
“China’s…farmers’ [diversity] contrasts sharply with the single-crop monoculture model in the United States and…actually generates more calories per acre.”
This policy focused first on agriculture, seeking “comparative advantage,” getting rid of farm subsidies and other “barriers to trade.” Trade agreements dramatically reduced barriers to the flow of capital and commodities across borders, increasing the number of import-dependent nations. The U.S. now has to compete with a growing number of other producer countries. In the global economy, it’s cheaper, for instance, for Tyson, a U.S. firm, to operate ranches in Argentina and import beef to the U.S. than to raise cows at home.
“China used the promise of its massive markets to persuade U.S. officials to override safety concerns about imported food.”
Rising middle-class populations in China, India and other emerging markets are redrawing the global food axis, and connecting to rising producer nations, like Brazil and Argentina. A barrier-free food trade is a tidy theory, but the food system has a long history of externalizing costs. This includes farm subsidies. Although the U.S. has gotten other countries to abandon subsidies, U.S. grain can compete globally only because the government subsidizes the crops. Farmers and food processors rely on artificially low prices. A 2006 report said subsidies save Tyson $288 million a year.
“The belief that [the U.S.] food supply is ‘among the safest in the world,’ and certainly safer than it used to be, repeated endlessly by food companies and FDA officials, requires more caveats and qualifications by the month.”
In Kenya, scarce rainfall, and reliance on chemicals and specialized seeds subverted the “green revolution,” convincing those leading the growth of other nations to devise more comprehensive approaches to economic development and better solutions to hunger. Current policy is shifting away from supporting large, consolidated operations, and toward direct aid for farmers. Small farmers who produce surpluses can reinvest in agriculture or education, or find other work. This viewpoint emphasizes local and regional markets, independent food security and fair prices for farmers. The building blocks for development are nutrition, infrastructure and minimum wage.
Unintended Hazards and Costs
Bacteria-caused food poisoning has always existed, but the factory-like, just-in-time global food economy can transmit virtually untraceable food-borne illnesses quickly. Strains like Salmonella, which now sickens more than a million people annually, have grown more opportunistic. Decades of treating livestock with low doses of antibiotics have created resilient strains of bacteria. Ensuring 100% food safety is no longer possible.
“Transportation is…problematic. In many developing countries…rail lines are limited or nonexistent and roads are in appalling shape.”
Human stomach acid formerly killed E. coli when it showed up in meat, but the bacteria has become acid-resistant because cattle are fed a corn-based diet. E. coli wreaks havoc on the human intestines. Since the average hamburger contains beef from 55 animals, tracing a deadly pathogen is virtually impossible, particularly since the industry has resisted regulation. The U.S. courts have affirmed that slaughterhouses and consumers are responsible for coping with pathogens, even if pathogens can be shown to thrive in certain herds and conditions, and even though just changing a cow’s diet before slaughter would greatly lower the risks. E. coli spreads through water systems and even on the wind.
“How are you supposed to compete in the global market when you can’t even reach the port?”
To meet future global food demands, people must eat less meat. The Western model is not sustainable. Neither are the ever-increasing yields made possible by planting additional farmlands, or by using fertilizers and pesticides. Just as the U.S. starts importing about half of the nitrogen it needs, its soil and water systems will be choking on past nitrogen excesses. Nitrogen compounds run off fields, into ground waters, spurring algae overgrowth and creating dead zones. Pesticides degrade the environment. Industrial farming has lowered prices, but it bears large externalized social and environmental costs. Remedying the damage will cost billions and will undermine future crop yields.
The Gene Pool
“Transgenic” science manipulates genetic data at the cellular level and can even transfer genes from one species to another to enhance good traits, such as hardiness. However, genes act unpredictably, especially after the first generation. In the last two decades, chemical input companies, like Monsanto, began buying seed markets. Monsanto planned to engineer “seed-chemical platforms” for specific agricultural purposes. U.S. courts have given patent protection to these seeds to encourage investment, but one consequence is that, in some cases, farmers can no longer legally save seeds for the future. Altered seeds can’t cure all of modern agriculture’s problems. Ironically, simple changes, like planting cover crops, might offer better solutions.
“In the minds of many health advocates, obesity hadn’t simply happened to humanity; it was being encouraged by a food industry whose bottom line depended…on processed foods and snacks.”
“Organic” farming is an alternative to the status quo. Those drawn to organic methods tend to reject “factory” farming and embrace a holistic view. Yet, most consumers are not yet inclined to pay more for locally grown foods or cut back on eating meat. Buying “organic” and even buying local have strong plusses, but they are not always the best choices. Lasting change can only come about through informed consumer demand for sustainable agricultural processes and fair-food trade. Meanwhile, though the global food economy is probably already unsustainable because it is based on cheap oil, it actually may grind to a halt over another increasingly scarce resource: water.
About the Author
Journalist Paul Roberts’ work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and National Geographic. He is also the author of The End of Oil.
When it comes to how your diet affects your health, everything you’ve learned is probably wrong. It’s not the fat making you fat, and it’s not the salt making you unhealthy: It’s sugar. Sugar is in almost everything, it’s causing us to become obese and terminally ill, and it’s one of the best-kept secrets in the food industry. In this Snapshot, you’ll find out where your unnecessary sugars are coming from, how they’re slowly killing you, and what to do about it.
Year of No Sugar Book Summary:
Can’t seem to lose weight no matter what diet you try
Care that you’re unknowingly consuming sugar in almost everything you eat
Are looking for simple ways to eat healthy
Introduction
Sugar is a poison linked to all sorts of serious long-term health problems, such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, and even heart disease. And even if you don’t eat sweets and never indulge in a can of soda, you’re constantly ingesting sugar. You might not realize it, but sugar is in much of the food you consume.
To kick sugar out of your life, or at least down to reasonable levels, keep the following five principles in mind:
Read the labels. Many of the processed foods at the grocery store contain added sugar — and not always in small amounts.
Order simply when eating out. Condiments and sauces usually contain sugar, so be wary when you see these on the menu.
Cut out the usual suspects. Soda and prepackaged desserts are the worst offenders when it comes to sugar, but watch out for fruit juices with added sugar as well.
If you can’t find it, make your own. If you don’t have access to sauces, condiments, and breads without added sugar, they’re easy (and cheap!) to make at home.
Get creative when it comes to your children. Encourage them to think of sugar as a genuinely special treat instead of an everyday food they take for granted.
A Sweet Poison
Experts recommend cutting fat out of your diet to lose weight. But how has that been working for you? Although many diets recommend cutting fat, the rate of obesity continues to rise. In fact, on average, Americans weigh 25 pounds more today than they did 25 years ago. Even children as young as 6 months old are experiencing unprecedented rates of obesity. That’s because it’s not the amount of fat you eat, or even the amount of food you eat, that causes obesity but rather the amount of sugar in your diet.
There are the obvious culprits, of course. Drinking just one soda per day can cause a weight gain of more than 15 pounds in a single year. And soda also contains caffeine and salt, which are added to encourage you to drink more. But even those who don’t regularly consume soda, candy, and obviously sugary foods are unknowingly ingesting a significant amount of sugar. On average, each American consumes 63 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup — a common sweetener — every year.
But it gets worse. Sugar doesn’t just make you fat. The fructose in sugar doesn’t satisfy hunger, which means you eat much more than you should. And processing fructose in your liver creates uric acid, which can cause gout and hypertension, and fatty acids, which can lead to insulin resistance and Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, fatty liver disease, enhanced growth of cancer cells, and obesity. One in five Americans now suffers from metabolic syndrome, which is the clustering of two or more of these conditions; metabolic syndrome was rare just a few decades ago. And heart disease is the leading cause of death, both in the US and globally.
Not only does the body not need fructose, but it can cause serious, negative long-term effects. Essentially, fructose is a poison.
All this information led Eve Schaub to embark, along with her family, on a quest to cut sugar out of their lives for one year. They followed some ground rules:
As a family, they would eat one dessert per month.
Each person got to choose an exception food, provided it had only a small amount of sugar. Schaub chose wine, her husband chose Diet Dr Pepper, and their daughters chose jam.
The girls got to choose whether to consume sugar at events such as birthday parties and school celebrations.
Avoiding added sugar turned out to be much harder than Schaub and her family envisioned.
Sugar, Sugar Everywhere
Supermarkets offer a staggering array of options, which might make you think you have a lot of choices when it comes to what you put in your body. But once you begin reading the labels, you face the hard truth: high-fructose corn syrup is everywhere. Almost all the prepackaged and processed foods readily available contain ingredients that make us sick.
Sugar is found in savory items as well. Salad dressings, pasta sauces, condiments, chicken broth, and even bread, bacon, and baby food all contain added sugars. Schaub’s quick trips to the grocery store soon turned into hours-long quests to find foods that didn’t include added sugars. Restaurants are often no better. Condiments, sauces, breads, and soups all contain sugars.
Oh, the Things You Will Eat
Schaub soon realized that to prevent starvation, she was going to have to make a lot of foods at home.
She got creative when adding sweeteners to her foods. Artificial sweeteners like aspartame and stevia were out because of their suspected side effects (studies show that these sweeteners can cause headaches, strokes, and cancer), so she looked into natural sweeteners like agave and brown rice syrup.
Agave can contain as much as 90 percent fructose, so that was out. Brown rice syrup doesn’t taste as good, but it does not contain fructose, so Schaub used it in recipes that called for molasses, honey, or maple syrup. (Glucose syrup worked similarly well.) She learned that you can replace sugar with powdered dextrose, which contains no fructose and is almost a dead ringer for normal sugar. This meant the family could have dessert without ingesting fructose.
In addition to feeling healthier, she felt more connected to the food she was making. For example, because store-bought bread contains added sugars, Schaub bought bread from a local baker who didn’t add sugar or she made the bread her self. She also made her own sauces and condiments.
She soon noticed just how acceptable it is to peddle mass amounts of sugar to young children for every occasion, such as holidays and birthdays. In fact, she sat down with the breakfast menu for the school her daughters attended, which was relatively progressive, and found that more than half of the items had added sugar.
When the family took a long-planned trip to Italy, she saw how much cleaner and simpler the food was. Instead of buying everything you needed in mass-produced, added-sugar form at the supermarket, you went from the fruit stall to the pasta maker to the butcher, picking up what you needed from the experts, who took the time to ensure that what they offered was wholesome and natural.
Back at home, she began ordering meat from a small local slaughterhouse and even went on a personal field trip to slaughter her own chicken. This meat also hormone-free and cage-free. It led to a much stronger appreciation for where the family’s food was coming from.
A New Type of Gratification
When they finally did have their once-a-month fructose desserts — some of them simple and relatively low in sugar (pumpkin pie) and some of them decadent and high in fructose (banana cream pie) — Schaub found that they didn’t enjoy it as much as they thought they would. Even though they craved sugar, the minute the spoons hit their mouths, they changed their minds. No one really wanted to polish off the whole dessert, and eating it came with unpleasant sensations: headaches, racing heartbeats, and a gross aftertaste that lingered until they brushed their teeth. They still got that sugar high, but it wasn’t really worth the disagreeable physical side effects.
Conclusion
Eating healthy is a choice you have to make every day. It requires educating your self on what you’re consuming and exercising moderation when it comes to ingesting questionable ingredients. This is the opposite of how we’re taught to eat sugar as Americans: mindlessly, unquestioningly, and in great quantities. If we saved sweet treats for actual special occasions, they would be much more special — and we would be much, much healthier.
It’s easy to ignore the effects of sugar on the body because they’re hard to see. Sugar doesn’t have obvious short-term effects, and the risks of the long-term ones are easy to ignore. Schaub compares sugar to a drug. It’s not like a hard drug that might make you do something life-threatening or cause you to overdose. Rather, eating sugar is like smoking cigarettes — the negative effects are cumulative, long term, and inescapable.
If you want to cut sugar from your life, there are ways to do it. Making your own foods and finding healthier alternatives to sweeteners is one way. And remember to follow the five main methods for cutting sugar consumption:
Read the labels. Many of the processed foods at the grocery store contain added sugar — and not always in small amounts.
Order simply when eating out. Condiments and sauces usually contain sugar, so be wary when you see these on the menu.
Cut out the usual suspects. Soda and prepackaged desserts are the worst offenders when it comes to sugar, but watch out for fruit juices with added sugar as well.
If you can’t find it, make your own. If you don’t have access to sauces, condiments, and breads without added sugar, they’re easy (and cheap!) to make at home.
Get creative when it comes to your children. Encourage them to think of sugar as a genuinely special treat instead of an everyday food they take for granted.
About the Author
Eve Schaub is a wife and mother of two who lives in Vermont. Voted “the funniest person Steve Martin has never met” by her high school class, she enjoys bringing her expansive sense of humor to her experiments and the books she writes about them. She is also the author of Year of No Clutter and co-author of The Figital Revolution.