Tricking or Treating

The first fall after I moved into my condo, when October rolled around, I did what every good American did. I bought Halloween candy. I surveyed the options at the store and tried not to be overwhelmed by the variety: chewy, crunchy, gooey, jaw-breaking, sweet, sour, chocolaty, nutty, fruity, and more, in all shapes and sizes. I went for what I considered the “good stuff” – Kit Kats, Snickers, Reese’s Sticks, and Smarties.

On Halloween, I put it all in a big bowl (except for a few pieces I’d sampled – only to make sure it was good enough to hand out, you understand), then waited for kids to show up. A few did, but I was left with quite a lot of candy. The next year I bought less, but I also had fewer visitors, so I ended up in the same situation. This was prior to the change to daylight savings, when it ended before Halloween, which meant finding a way to my door in the darkening afternoon was challenging, and perhaps not worth the effort.

I’ve since given up on buying any candy, since I no longer get trick-or-treaters at all, but I know other people who want some on-hand just in case. Who knows? Perhaps a new family has moved in. And if that lone knock comes at the door, do you really want to be the one to turn away that eager child in fancy dress empty-handed? (My strategy is that I could give them a couple of pieces of my Dove dark chocolates in a worst-case scenario.) The risk of getting a “trick” played on you seems slim these days, but I suppose that’s a remote chance.

The real trick, though, is dealing with the candy at all. For those who buy it in excess, is it just to be safe, or is it because we’re tricking ourselves, saying it’s for the kids when really it’s for us? And if that latter is the case, then we need to perpetuate the myth by eating the candy guiltily, in secret, and if we get through an entire bag before the holiday, replacing it before anyone finds out. I know some people buy candy they don’t really like to try to avoid this – but it may still tempt them, in which case they end up eating something they not only don’t need but don’t even enjoy.

In those cases, the trick is on us. To avoid it, I have a suggestion. Treat yourself. Imagine allowing yourself to eat exactly what you want. Maybe it’s in the Halloween aisle, maybe it’s somewhere else. But whatever it is, remind yourself that you are worth enjoying what you eat, if you’re truly hungry for it. And perhaps, if you fully savor this treat, you won’t be tricked into eating that candy. 

Harvest on the Harbor - Going with the Flow

Display from Cranberry Island Kitchen

This weekend was the third annual Harvest on the Harbor event in Portland, and I attended again, this time with some of my family members. Since I’d been before, I wanted to be more strategic about it, keeping in mind the recommendations I make for my “Am I Hungry?” workshops.

“I’d like to take a quick look at all the options before starting, to make sure I’m hungry for what I really want,” I said as we walked in.

“Okay,” they said agreeably.

I got past about three tables when I realized they weren’t with me anymore. I glanced around quickly, knowing that with the crowds it would be all too easy to get separated. I saw them a table back, licking their fingers.

When I rejoined them, my dad gave me a semi-apologetic shrug. “I couldn’t help it. I’m hungry, and I am what I am.”

I had to grin, knowing what he meant by that – food it one of his greatest pleasures, and he doesn’t hesitate to indulge that pleasure. I knew then I had a choice. I could try to stick to my original plan, which would make staying together difficult and the whole event more complicated. Or I could just go with the flow, enjoy myself, and trust myself.

It didn’t take me long to decide. “Did they have anything good?”

From that point we slowly made our way around the tent, trying whatever appealed to us as it came up. I didn’t try everything, and I didn’t eat everything that I tried (some of the portions were quite generous), but I didn’t turn away from anything that I wanted to sample. And what a feast to choose from! Various seafood dishes, meat and poultry, soups and chowders, pizzas, condiments, jams and jellies, snacks, desserts, soda, wine, and beer, from numerous vendors. Some of my favorites were:

• seaweed coleslaw
• smoked salmon wrapped in a crepe with a balsamic reduction
• gingerbread of a blueberry compote with whipped cream and a sprig of mint
• sesame roasted cashews
• chai applesauce
• a medley of gelato and sorbetto flavors: Maine apple lemon ginger, strawberry balsamic, mint cookies and cream, and chocolate caramel

Salmon wrapped in crepe

Gingerbread with blueberry compote

Did I eat more than I needed, past the point when I was hungry? Yes. Do I feel guilty? Definitely not – and more to the point, I also agree with my aunt, who commented, “I don’t regret eating anything that I tried.” Do I wish I had stuck with my strategy? No – it would have made the whole event much less relaxed and enjoyable. And it was a good reminder that while I eat as healthily as I can most of the time, sometimes just going with the flow is the best approach.

Treating Yourself

“Treating yourself is never wrong.”

That was the pithy phrase in the wrapper of a Dove dark chocolate I recently ate. I can understand why the chocolate people would want that message with their candy, but I don’t know that I can agree with it.

For one, on principle alone, I’m not comfortable with absolutes. How can it never be wrong to treat yourself? What if doing so means exceeding your financial means, or risking your health? Or what if it means causing harm to someone else?

The other troubling aspect is that reading the message while savoring a piece of chocolate automatically makes me think of treating myself only in relation to food. This is nothing new in our society, and that association is particularly easy to make this time of year when we’re bombarded with candy sales in preparation for Halloween, so we can have a “treat” on-hand to avoid the “trick.”

But even in the late winter and early summer, when we don’t have as many holidays to contend with, that idea of reward being food-based is hard to escape. When I was trying various means of losing weight, it took me and my mom a while to settle on a way to acknowledge my progress when I had lost five pounds. What do you offer someone who loves sweets as an incentive or encouragement that isn’t related to eating? It depends on the person, but for me, it was getting a new paperback book.

Not that it’s wrong to treat yourself with food - it is, after all, one of life’s great pleasures. But to only  think of food when treating yourself is very limiting and potentially destructive. We can do so much to nurture and nourish ourselves that isn’t related to food. Consider these ideas:

• talking to a friend
• telling a loved one all the reasons you care for them
• letting yourself pause and take some deep breaths
• listening to your favorite music
• reading works that comfort, inspire, cheer, and/or motivate you
• playing with pets
• going for a walk
• listing all the reasons you appreciate yourself

If I shift my thinking to those types of “treats,” suddenly I find I am much more comfortable with the message. While these are not activities that are never wrong (for instance, reading while driving would not be the best idea), these sorts of approaches can provide a much deeper and long-lasting pleasure. With that in mind, I urge you to think of your own ways of treating yourself, and to think outside the box (or candy wrapper) to something beyond food.

Forgoing Food

What would you give up if it meant that you could live forever and have eternal youthful? Sunlight? Your soul? Food?

That question came up recently when reading a novel that included vampires, and it gave me pause. Much as I enjoy fantasy, for some reason the food part of the equation had never struck me. In most modern vampire mythology (the “Twilight” series excluded) vampires are creatures of the night, and they are considered unholy, so the sunlight and soul sacrifice are usually a given. But to forgo food?

Would I want to live forever, but never be able to eat? I understand that in most vampire stories, the vampires don’t crave food, nor do they need it. The problem is, food, for me, is one of life’s great pleasures. It’s not the only one, to be sure, but I can’t imagine giving it up for eternity. Luckily, I’ve never been tempted by the idea of living forever, and I doubt that it will ever be offered, so I suspect I won’t have to make that choice.

Then I came back to reality, where people may voluntarily give up eating, when I watched the movie Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead, by Australian Joe Cross. It’s the true story of a man who was about 100 pounds overweight and suffered from an autoimmune disease that kept him on a small pharmacopeia of medication and put him on the path towards an early death. He decided to “reboot” by going on a diet of fresh fruit and vegetable juice for 60 days, with no solid food, to shed pounds and allow his body to heal.

It’s wonderful that this approach worked for Joe, and many of the others he inspired, allowing them to find their own path to wellness. And since he did start eating again (albeit a very different diet than the junk food he’d previously been consuming), 60 days seems quite reasonable compared to the centuries a vampire might live. Still, I don’t think I’d want to go that long without eating, or even the 10-day reboot some people did. The sight, smell, taste, texture, and sheer enjoyment of food are all too integrated in my life.

Perhaps if I was as sick as Joe, I could go without, but perhaps not. I’ve never been one for such drastic and immediate changes, and I am personally glad that so far, that’s not something I’ve had to face, allowing me to view the question as entirely hypothetical. And I will do everything I can to make sure it stays that way, since I have no desire to forgo food.

Forbidden Foods

[Note: This piece contains some religious references, but hopefully in an inoffensive way.]

With the arrival of fall, we’ve been getting an unexpected treat at work – apples! One of my co-workers has been bringing in a large bag of them every Monday or Tuesday for the past few weeks. An even happier surprise is seeing that people are eating them pretty regularly, so by last Friday, only a few were left. Then that morning we got our usual supply of Dunkin’ Donuts. Seeing the two offerings side by side was an interesting contrast, especially when it got down to just one of each.

It got me thinking about what makes a food forbidden, and the implications of that.

Take the apple. According to some traditions, this is the original “forbidden fruit”*. I have to wonder how long Eve resisted the urge to eat it, how long she tried to be “good” and restrict her eating habits, before finally giving in to temptation.

Consider also “Snow White”. One of the times Snow White succumbed to her step-mother’s plots was by eating a shiny apple. The princess knew that she wasn’t supposed to accept anything from strangers, but the apple looked so good and delicious, she couldn’t help herself.

Prohibitionists weren’t that fond of apples, either, since when Johnny Appleseed went around planting apple trees, it was to make hard cider, not for eating. In more recent years, apples are off-limits on some low-carb diets, or for those people who eschew food altogether.

Happily, most diets these days put apples into the “good” category, especially if it’s an organic apple. And most of us are familiar with the phrase, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.” The apple also features positively in some religions; last week, as part of Rosh Hashanah, many Jewish people celebrated with apples dipped in honey so that they could have a sweet start to their new year. (See this YouTube video for a fun song about it.)

The doughnut’s history is not quite as illustrious, since I’m not aware of any religious texts referencing it. (The holy book of the Cat people in the “Waiting for God” episode of Red Dwarf, who considered Lister their god and thought the idea of heaven was a hot dog and doughnut stand, probably doesn’t quality) Doughnuts have probably only been around for a couple of centuries. But they are also more widely categorized as a “bad” or “forbidden” food. Most diets, after all, condemn anything with lots of sugar and fat, and any of the rules that restrict people from eating apples would also apply to doughnuts.

As with apples, making doughnuts forbidden has not stopped people from eating them, at least in the majority. They still sell quite well, and when they show up at work, they disappear with sometimes frightening speed. This is despite the fact that the consequences of eating a doughnut are typically more pronounced than those of eating an apple. For instance, you might have a sugar crash and feel sleepy later on. Or you might have consumed all those calories but still feel hungry. Or both. If you’re diabetic, it could spike your blood sugar. Not that this is always the case – in certain circumstances, eating a doughnut might be exactly what you need. But realistically, those situations are less frequent than with apples.

Despite the current trends towards both foods, which do you suppose disappeared first from the kitchen, the apple or the doughnut? It’s a rhetorical question - I’m sure you can guess the answer. And I think it’s in part because the doughnuts are forbidden. They’re just so much more tempting that way.

I personally don’t consider doughnuts off-limits, and I suspect that’s why Dunkin Donuts variety leave me cold. If I’m going to have one, I want it to be really good, such as one of my dad’s homemade varieties, barely cooled from the oil, perhaps rolled in a little sugar. That I consider worth eating. But given the choice at work, everything being equal, I’d go for the apple, because I know that I’m going to feel better after eating that than the radioactive pink doughnut. And that, for me, is what food should be about.

*Note: I’m aware that it’s unlikely that the original fruit was an apple, but for whatever reason, that’s what people envision these days.