The other night I went to Ge-Angelo's Italian Restaurant here in Ames. Laura and I had been driving around looking for a place to eat (it was a Friday night), and most of our usual hangouts were full. Nice weather does that in Ames. One day of 40+ temps after a long winter, and every restaurant is packed. Weird. But I digress...
Ge-Angelo's is situated on the extreme north end of town, in the Northern Lights strip-mally thing by Cub Foods and the old WalMart (yes, we have two now). I had eaten there once before, but the memory was pretty hazy. We figured that it couldn't hurt to try it again.
When we arrived (around 7:30 pm), the place was approximately 75% full. We had to wait about 3 minutes to be seated, and the waitress took our drink order (water) very promptly. So far, so good.
I decided to have the "Geno's Spaghetti Special" (~$12), which is described as "spaghetti covered with our homemade meatball mix red sauce & hot peppers". Laura ordered the "Blackened Chicken Fettuccine" (~$15), which is "pan seared blackened chicken breast baked to order atop our fettuccine alfredo". I ordered the Caesar salad and Laura got a garden salad. The meal also came with "hot rolls", according to the menu.
The ambiance wasn't too bad, considering that Ge-Angelo's is not a fine-dining establishment. There were large portraits of local women on the walls, although I couldn't discern any particular theme to them. The lighting was a bit dim, but it is an Italian restaurant... The noise level wasn't that high, and I could easily hear the entire conversation of the next table's patrons. That can positive or negative, I guess.
When the salad arrived, I was somewhat surprised by the presentation: a mid-sized mound of iceberg lettuce with a dip cup full of "Caesar" dressing. I dutifully applied said dressing and tried to combine the mixture. Disaster. The lettuce easily slid off of the too-small plate and onto the table (a problem that would repeat itself later). The dressing itself was nothing to write home about. I prefer creamy Caesar dressing, but this stuff was more of a vinagrette with random chunks of pepper. The lettuce was overly dry, giving the sensation that one is eating a piece of paper coated in oil. I cannot comment on the garden salad, except that it was served with breadsticks of no distinction. The "hot rolls" bore a striking similarity to HyVee's take-and-bake variety. They were tasty, however.
When the food arrived, I became very concerned about my consumption strategy. The plate was again too small, with a largish pile of spaghetti topped with reddish sauce. Careful inspection revealed a layer of peppers beneath the sauce, fulfilling the promise given in the menu description. As for the sauce itself, it would be hard to classify it as "meatball mix red sauce". Red it was, although nary a meatball could I find. Instead, there was ground meat of an unknown species. I ruled out swine, but it could have been a combination of cow and sheep. The "red" component was definitely tomato based, but it lacked any of the flavor normally associated with red sauce. It had no flavor other than bland, browned meat and pureed tomatoes, relying instead on the hot peppers to provide the kick. And kick they did; every mouthful caused nose-dripping heat with little followup. The spaghetti served as a vehicle for the peppers, nothing more. The too-small plate caused a portion of the mixture to slide onto the table, making a bit of a mess.
As for Laura's chicken, it was properly cooked if nothing else. There was the unmistakable flavor of out-of-the-box seasoning mix crusting the surface of the chicken, which is OK (but not $15 worth of OK). The fettuccine was limp and slightly overcooked, but it took the sauce to cap it all off. There was a metallic taste to the sauce, not unlike the flavor that attaches itself to Velveeta cheese. It was also overly salty and lacked balance. In short, it likely came from a can/bag/box via Industrial Italian Inc. Disappointing, to say the least.
Service during the meal was fine, although the tiny glasses required water rationing to keep pace with my peppers and red noodles. The total bill was $2 more expensive than planned, because of my dip cup of "Caesar" dressing. I have heard that their pizza is good. Perhaps I will have to try that when the peppers wear off.
On the bright side, there is an Asian market next to the restaurant that has very reasonable prices and good selection. They also sell Korean sushi on the weekends, which I recommend highly.
Rating (on my arbitrary scale):
---Overall: 2 out of 5 stars
---Ambiance/Service: 3.5 out of 5 stars
---Food: 1 out of 5 stars
---Price: 2 out of 5 stars
Recommendation:
Look elsewhere for pasta-based dining. The price:quality ratio does not justify Ge-Angelo's during a housing bubble, much less a deep recession.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
In which I denounce the GOP
"I think intellectual capital flight from the right really does threaten the GOPs future success. If Republicans keep bleeding young intellectual talent because increasingly socially liberal twenty-somethings simply can’t stand hanging around a bunch of superstitious fag-bashers, then the GOP powers-that-be might start to panic and realize that, once the last cohort of John Birchers die, they’ve got no choice but to move libertarian on social issues."
Will Wilkinson (now back in Iowa) has been doing some excellent blogging of late on the topic of so-called "liberaltartianism" and the political (as in Congress) future if libertarian ideas. The above quote above is taken from a post on the electoral effects of libertarians migrating more strongly towards the Democratic Party. Will is commenting on Ross Douthat's argument that there is still a place for libertarians to fit into the GOP, despite the "anti-intellectualism" so prevalent right now. In other words, ignore the Sarah Palin wing of the GOP and fight the good fight.
As I wrote back in September, just after the Republican convention, I was pretty much neutral on Sarah Palin when she was first introduced onto the national stage. I could identify with the rural/red-state mannerisms (since that is where I come from), and I could chalk the (at that point) nascent anti-intellectualism up to conventioneering and base-pandering. I am no longer neutral on the Palinist wing of the GOP. Here's why:
1. Anti-intellectualism is apparently a feature, not a bug, of the GOP machine.
I rather enjoyed Sarah Palin's mocking of Obama's community organizer credentials during her convention speech. I view "community organizer" as coded term for "intimidating people/governments to hand out taxpayer money to other people". I still believe this to be largely the case. However, it seems that the Palinists were operating under a different set of definitions. Their dictionary defines "community organizer" as "educated (in the negative sense) do-gooder with secret communist sympathies".
For the Palinists, the problem wasn't that Obama was strong-arming politicians to get money, it was that he opted to spend his time using his "fancy book-learning" to help minorities/poor people (aka non-GOP voters). There is a huge difference between those definitions. Instead of questioning the value of redistributionist policies, the Palinists jump straight into a culture war. Any politician that substitutes uneducated gut-feelings for principles is doomed to failure.
2. The so-called "conservatism" of the GOP has been redefined as "religious middle-class Midwesterners".
I have always been skeptical of the claim that the "religious right" was trying to take over the country and create a theocracy. I still believe that fears of Evangelical Christians dictating social behavior are largely overblown, in that most voters are instinctively wary of such tendencies. There are notable cases of religiosity creeping into secular government -- I won't rehash them here -- but I think they are the exception rather than the rule.
The problem I have with the GOP's religious focus is that it places the "right kind of motivation" ahead of any rational ideological limited-government principle. This naturally resulted in the temporary success of Mike Huckabee, who got past his spendthrift, regulation-happy record by using an aww-shucks preacher style to appeal to religious Republicans. The shine wore off him eventually, but it highlighted the trend of the GOP caring less about limited government and more about churchgoing. The Huckabee influence could be seen very clearly in Sarah Palin's non-answers during interviews and debates. Instead of defending the principles her party, she resorted to the cultural identity angle (ie: white, Christian, etc). This approach may give temporary boosts to poll numbers, but thinking people will drift away when it becomes clear that the only "principle" a politician has is that they are right (and God agrees).
3. The Palinists do not argue points, they assume they are obviously correct.
I am willing to wager that Sarah Palin is unable to clearly argue any limited government principle to a neutral/hostile person. Her entire schtick seemed to be predicated on the assumption that everybody involved in the discussion secretly agreed with her, and that all she had to do was say a few secret words and the applause would begin. That has never been the case, as her Katie Couric interview showed. The true strength of conservative arguments was shown by William F Buckley in his television appearances and columns in National Review. Instead of adopting a "preaching to the choir" attitude, he familiarized himself with the opposing viewpoint and deconstructed it. That is how you win a political debate. WFB may have been spectacularly wrong on some issues, but his opponents always knew that they were engaged with somebody who would actually debate them instead of spewing talking points.
The assumption of shared values point is the one that most annoys me about the Palinist Republicans. I'm about to digress, so hold on.
----------
I come from a very conservative, rural, religious-fundamentalist background. That has always meant that:
a) everyone in my extended family/ social peers shares largely the same political and moral views;
b) no meaningful debate is likely to take place, as there are no opposing views;
c) political and moral beliefs are derived from the shared interpretation of God's word;
d) questioning the political/moral position of a peer is tantamount to denying the authority of God;
e) "God's position" is self-evidently correct, and who are you to question that?????
Needless to say, this rather stifles intellectualism and free-thinking. On this point, the more rabid critics of religion are correct (more than they know). It also means that breaking free from the prevailing dogma carries enormous social costs.
I am not going to go into my religious views right now (after all, this is a half-assed recipe blog). I will save that for a later date. The main point is that I have seen what the end product of this political anti-intellectualism produces, and it is not pretty. It also contaminates any idea that it touches, and that alone is enough reason for libertarians to avoid the current iteration of the GOP at all costs.
Will Wilkinson (now back in Iowa) has been doing some excellent blogging of late on the topic of so-called "liberaltartianism" and the political (as in Congress) future if libertarian ideas. The above quote above is taken from a post on the electoral effects of libertarians migrating more strongly towards the Democratic Party. Will is commenting on Ross Douthat's argument that there is still a place for libertarians to fit into the GOP, despite the "anti-intellectualism" so prevalent right now. In other words, ignore the Sarah Palin wing of the GOP and fight the good fight.
As I wrote back in September, just after the Republican convention, I was pretty much neutral on Sarah Palin when she was first introduced onto the national stage. I could identify with the rural/red-state mannerisms (since that is where I come from), and I could chalk the (at that point) nascent anti-intellectualism up to conventioneering and base-pandering. I am no longer neutral on the Palinist wing of the GOP. Here's why:
1. Anti-intellectualism is apparently a feature, not a bug, of the GOP machine.
I rather enjoyed Sarah Palin's mocking of Obama's community organizer credentials during her convention speech. I view "community organizer" as coded term for "intimidating people/governments to hand out taxpayer money to other people". I still believe this to be largely the case. However, it seems that the Palinists were operating under a different set of definitions. Their dictionary defines "community organizer" as "educated (in the negative sense) do-gooder with secret communist sympathies".
For the Palinists, the problem wasn't that Obama was strong-arming politicians to get money, it was that he opted to spend his time using his "fancy book-learning" to help minorities/poor people (aka non-GOP voters). There is a huge difference between those definitions. Instead of questioning the value of redistributionist policies, the Palinists jump straight into a culture war. Any politician that substitutes uneducated gut-feelings for principles is doomed to failure.
2. The so-called "conservatism" of the GOP has been redefined as "religious middle-class Midwesterners".
I have always been skeptical of the claim that the "religious right" was trying to take over the country and create a theocracy. I still believe that fears of Evangelical Christians dictating social behavior are largely overblown, in that most voters are instinctively wary of such tendencies. There are notable cases of religiosity creeping into secular government -- I won't rehash them here -- but I think they are the exception rather than the rule.
The problem I have with the GOP's religious focus is that it places the "right kind of motivation" ahead of any rational ideological limited-government principle. This naturally resulted in the temporary success of Mike Huckabee, who got past his spendthrift, regulation-happy record by using an aww-shucks preacher style to appeal to religious Republicans. The shine wore off him eventually, but it highlighted the trend of the GOP caring less about limited government and more about churchgoing. The Huckabee influence could be seen very clearly in Sarah Palin's non-answers during interviews and debates. Instead of defending the principles her party, she resorted to the cultural identity angle (ie: white, Christian, etc). This approach may give temporary boosts to poll numbers, but thinking people will drift away when it becomes clear that the only "principle" a politician has is that they are right (and God agrees).
3. The Palinists do not argue points, they assume they are obviously correct.
I am willing to wager that Sarah Palin is unable to clearly argue any limited government principle to a neutral/hostile person. Her entire schtick seemed to be predicated on the assumption that everybody involved in the discussion secretly agreed with her, and that all she had to do was say a few secret words and the applause would begin. That has never been the case, as her Katie Couric interview showed. The true strength of conservative arguments was shown by William F Buckley in his television appearances and columns in National Review. Instead of adopting a "preaching to the choir" attitude, he familiarized himself with the opposing viewpoint and deconstructed it. That is how you win a political debate. WFB may have been spectacularly wrong on some issues, but his opponents always knew that they were engaged with somebody who would actually debate them instead of spewing talking points.
The assumption of shared values point is the one that most annoys me about the Palinist Republicans. I'm about to digress, so hold on.
----------
I come from a very conservative, rural, religious-fundamentalist background. That has always meant that:
a) everyone in my extended family/ social peers shares largely the same political and moral views;
b) no meaningful debate is likely to take place, as there are no opposing views;
c) political and moral beliefs are derived from the shared interpretation of God's word;
d) questioning the political/moral position of a peer is tantamount to denying the authority of God;
e) "God's position" is self-evidently correct, and who are you to question that?????
Needless to say, this rather stifles intellectualism and free-thinking. On this point, the more rabid critics of religion are correct (more than they know). It also means that breaking free from the prevailing dogma carries enormous social costs.
I am not going to go into my religious views right now (after all, this is a half-assed recipe blog). I will save that for a later date. The main point is that I have seen what the end product of this political anti-intellectualism produces, and it is not pretty. It also contaminates any idea that it touches, and that alone is enough reason for libertarians to avoid the current iteration of the GOP at all costs.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Hot Links and Beans with Rice
I have recently come into possession of a large amount of hot link sausage. It is a bit on the spicy side, so I have been experimenting with rice/bean recipes to help moderate the effects. The beany-starchy-creamy goodness goes quite well with browned hot link pieces (almost as well as eggs). This recipe is not authentic to any particular style or region of cooking. Modify as you see fit. Oh, and I also realize I will not win any awards for the presentation of the dish in the above photo. I was hungry.
Hot Links & Beans with Rice
Ingredients
1 cup uncooked rice
2-3 hot link sausages, cut into pieces
1 onion, chopped
2 cloves garlic, minced
3 green chiles, seeded, finely chopped
1-2 ribs celery, chopped
1 can red beans
1 cup water (or chicken broth)
1/2 tsp thyme
1 tsp cumin
1 bay leaf
salt
pepper
oil
Directions
0. cook rice as you normally would
1. heat skillet; add small amount of oil
2. brown sausage pieces for 3-4 minutes
3. add onions; cook until translucent (about 5 minutes), stirring occasionally
4. add celery, green chiles, and garlic; cook 5-6 minutes
5. add beans to skillet; stir to combine
6. add water, thyme, cumin, and bay leaf
7. simmer mixture until liquid has reduced by half and has thickened (about 10 minutes)
8. remove bay leaf; add salt/pepper to taste; serve
Notes
- To help thicken the liquid, use a wooden spoon or spatula to smash some of the beans as they simmer.
- Other spices can be added, depending on how spicy your hot links are.
- This recipe serves 3-4.
- As I have mentioned before, legumes require a good amount of salt.
- Navy beans also work well in this recipe.
- This recipe reheats well.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Roast Chicken with Gravy
Roast Chicken with Gravy
Ingredients
1 whole fryer chicken, 4-5 pounds, trussed
1 onion, quartered
1 lemon, quartered
3-4 ribs celery, cut into 3" pieces
2-3 carrots, cut into 3" pieces
4 cloves garlic, peeled
fresh parsley, about one small handful
1/4 cup olive oil
kosher salt
black pepper
1/2 cup white wine (for gravy)
2 cups chicken broth (for gravy)
1 tsp cornstarch dissolved in 2 tbsp cold water (for gravy)
Directions
-chicken
1. preheat oven to 425 degrees (F)
2. rinse entire chicken with cold water; dry thoroughly
3. stuff chicken with the following:
- 2 onion quarters
- 1 rib celery (pieces)
- 1 carrot (pieces)
- 4 lemon quarters
- parsley
- garlic cloves
4. place remaining vegetable pieces on a roasting pan
5. rub olive oil all over the outside of the chicken
6. sprinkle generously with salt and pepper
7. place chicken (breast up) on top of the vegetables in the pan
8. use toothpicks to keep the end of the chicken closed, if needed
9. put chicken into the oven on the middle rack
10. cook chicken at 425 for 15 minutes
11. reduce heat to 400 degrees, cook an additional 1 hour and 15 minutes (1:30 total)
12. check meat temperature in the thick part of the thigh (use good judgement)
13. remove chicken from oven, empty cavity of vegetation
14. place chicken aside; cover; let rest while making gravy
15. carve and serve
-gravy
1. use wooden spoon to squeeze juices out of vegetation in pan; discard all vegetation
2. over medium-high heat, deglaze pan with wine and broth; reduce as desired
3. add cornstarch to thicken gravy; reduce heat; pour gravy into serving dish
Notes
-a 5-pound bird should feed 4 people easily (if sides are included)
-the cooking time may vary, depending on the oven, the specific bird, and the phase of the moon
-assume at least 1:15 cooking time, then take the temp and continue cooking as needed
-I cook my chicken to an internal temp of 165 and let the carryover finish the job as the bird rests (YMMV)
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Spinach Fried Rice
This dish is very mild-flavored, and would work well as a base for various protein sources. Chicken curry, channa (chickpeas), or lentils should all play well with the spinach flavors. This recipe is just a basic saag masala, minus the dairy component. It makes a decent dish as is, especially if you don't really feel like having pungent Indian food.
Spinach Fried Rice
Ingredients
1 cup basmati rice
1 medium red onion, chopped
1 package frozen spinach, thawed partially drained
2 cloves garlic, roughly chopped
2-3 green chiles, seeded, roughly chopped (~1 can)
2 tsp garam masala powder
1 tsp cumin
salt
oil
Directions
1. cook the rice using slightly less water than you normally would
2. combine the spinach, garlic, chiles, garam masala, and cumin in a blender; puree
3. saute the onion in oil for ~5 minutes
4. add spinach puree, cook additional ~5 minutes, stirring often
5. turn heat to high, add rice, stir to coat
6. cook until rice/spinach mixture begins to take on some color, approx 5 minutes
7. salt to taste
Monday, January 12, 2009
French Onion Soup
This recipe is modified from the Alton Brown version. I omitted the apple cider, which I had found to result in overly-sweet soup. The electric skillet method is his, and works wonderfully. This recipe will feed 2-4, depending on how well you can resist eating the whole batch. The picture is of the onions in their initial cook-down phase (click to enlarge).
French Onion Soup
Ingredients
7 medium-sized yellow onions
1 medium-sized red onion
3 tbsp butter
2 teaspoons kosher salt
2 cups dry white wine
1 can beef consomme
2 cups chicken broth
bouquet garni (thyme, bay leaf and parsley tied with string)
black pepper (or grains of paradise)
French bread
1 cup melty cheese of your choice (mozzarella works fine if you're on a budget)
Directions
-soup
1. remove peel from onions, halve pole-to-pole, slice into half-rings about 1/4 inch thick
2. heat an electric skillet to 300 degrees and melt the butter
3. add onions in several layers with salt on each layer
4. let onions cook for 15 minutes without stirring
5. cook onions an additional 45 minutes, stirring occasionally
6. add wine, stir, let reduce to syrupy consistency (about 10 minutes)
7. add beef consomme, chicken broth, and bouquet garni
8. reduce heat to simmer, cover, cook for 20 miutes
9. prepare bread and cheese while soup simmers
10. adjust salt and pepper to taste, serve
-bread/cheese
1. cut bread into 1/2 inch slices
2. lay slices on sheet pan and bake at 375 until toasted
3. rub toasted slices (now croutons, technically) with crushed garlic
4. grate cheese
-serving
1. ladle soup into broiler-safe bowl/dish
2. layer bread on top of soup
3. add grated cheese
4. broil for several minutes to melt/brown cheese
5. serve
Notes
-For the wine, I use Fetzer gewurztraminer with excellent results.
-The easiest way to mess this recipe up is to let it get too sweet (wine is critical).
-You can add up to 1/2 cup water during simmering with no ill effects.
-To thicken the soup slightly, add a few tablespoons of flour with the broth/consomme.
-Pretty much any cheese will work.
This year I will try to be better about keeping the recipe-blogging updated.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Lentils Vindaloo
If you're looking for a versatile ingredient that is healthy and easy to use, lentils are hard to beat. They have barely any fat, are high in protein and fiber, and don't require soaking prior to cooking. They also play well with spices, especially those from India.
Lentils Vindaloo
Ingredients:
2 tbsp olive oil
1 small onion, chopped fine
2 ribs celery, chopped fine
2 cloves garlic, minced
1/2 cup dry lentils, sorted
1.5 cups water (or vegetable broth)
8 oz tomato sauce (small can)
1 tbsp vindaloo spice powder (or to taste)
salt and pepper (to taste)
Directions:
1. place medium pot on stove, add oil, heat until shimmering
2. add onion and celery, cook on medium heat until onions are soft and translucent
3. add garlic, cook for ~3 minutes or until garlic has softened
4. add lentils, stir to combine
5. add water (or broth), stir, cover, bring to boil
6. once mixture boils, reduce heat to simmer and cook for 20 minutes, stirring every 5 minutes
7. when lentils are nearly done (soft, but not too soft) add vindaloo powder; stir
8. add tomato sauce, cover, simmer for 5 minutes
9. add salt and pepper to taste
10. serve alone or as a side; feeds 1-2 adults as a main course.
Notes:
1/2 cup of lentils delivers 20 grams of protein and over 20 grams of fiber.
Many other Indian spices can be used in place of the vindaloo.
You can serve this dish with rice, if desired.
For a more creamy texture, use a stick blender to break up the lentils.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Vitamin D
This past weekend, I was discussing the "safe" dose of Vitamin D with some friends. I hadn't thought much about the topic since I studied it for Biochemistry class, and I was surprised by some of the debate. The current recommended daily intake of Vitamin D is 2000 IU/day, which is equivalent to 50 micrograms (mcg) per day. There is apparently some resistance to this recommendation from people in the nutrition community.
After a perusal of the literature, the bulk of the scientific evidence seems to support the position that an upper limit of 2000 IU/day is ridiculously low. There is strong evidence that the recommended dose could be set at 10,000 IU/day (250 mcg) with almost zero anticipation of harm in normal people. The maximum "safe" dose is likely quite a bit higher, although that leads into the question of whether "megadosing" with vitamins is likely to improve your health (probably not).
I have been taking several "supplements" during my weight-loss program to ensure that I am getting a reasonable level of micronutrients with my reduced-calorie diet. I take the following each morning with breakfast:
-1 multivitamin tablet (400 IU Vitamin D)
-2 calcium + D tablets (800 IU Vitamin D total)
-1 iron tablet (no Vitamin D)
That's a total of 1200 IU/day (about 3x the RDA), and that's before I have any fortified foods or sunlight exposure. I probably get another couple hundred IU/day from these sources. Add to that the trivial amount released from my adipose tissue* during exercise, and I'm still below the current "upper limit". I could probably add a significant amount of Vitamin D to my diet and still be fine.
However, even if I can add lots of Vitamin D to my diet and not keel over, that doesn't answer the related question: should I? From what I have read, any improvement in my health from increased Vitamin D intake would likely fall within the gray area of statistically insiginicant randomness. I am young, exercise regularly, eat a balanced and healthy diet, and already consume enough Vitamin D to maintain my body's requirements. Another couple thousand IU/day will not, in all likelihood, provide a meaningful effect.
But what about other groups within the population? In the case of Vitamin D, there is clearly more harm associated with deficiency than with "overdosing". For starters, we should try to ensure that children and pregnant women get enough Vitamin D without relying on the lowball upper limit. The elderly could benefit from rational limits of Vitamin D, although they tend to be at higher risk of overdose due to decreased renal function. For the healthier parts of the population, it won't hurt to let them know that taking an extra Vitamin D tablet won't kill them.
*It turns out that the half life of Vitamin D in bodyfat is around 60 days. Since I wasn't megadosing on Vitamin D prior to beginning my weight loss program, it is unlikely that I have been releasing large amounts of the stuff into my system through exercise.
After a perusal of the literature, the bulk of the scientific evidence seems to support the position that an upper limit of 2000 IU/day is ridiculously low. There is strong evidence that the recommended dose could be set at 10,000 IU/day (250 mcg) with almost zero anticipation of harm in normal people. The maximum "safe" dose is likely quite a bit higher, although that leads into the question of whether "megadosing" with vitamins is likely to improve your health (probably not).
I have been taking several "supplements" during my weight-loss program to ensure that I am getting a reasonable level of micronutrients with my reduced-calorie diet. I take the following each morning with breakfast:
-1 multivitamin tablet (400 IU Vitamin D)
-2 calcium + D tablets (800 IU Vitamin D total)
-1 iron tablet (no Vitamin D)
That's a total of 1200 IU/day (about 3x the RDA), and that's before I have any fortified foods or sunlight exposure. I probably get another couple hundred IU/day from these sources. Add to that the trivial amount released from my adipose tissue* during exercise, and I'm still below the current "upper limit". I could probably add a significant amount of Vitamin D to my diet and still be fine.
However, even if I can add lots of Vitamin D to my diet and not keel over, that doesn't answer the related question: should I? From what I have read, any improvement in my health from increased Vitamin D intake would likely fall within the gray area of statistically insiginicant randomness. I am young, exercise regularly, eat a balanced and healthy diet, and already consume enough Vitamin D to maintain my body's requirements. Another couple thousand IU/day will not, in all likelihood, provide a meaningful effect.
But what about other groups within the population? In the case of Vitamin D, there is clearly more harm associated with deficiency than with "overdosing". For starters, we should try to ensure that children and pregnant women get enough Vitamin D without relying on the lowball upper limit. The elderly could benefit from rational limits of Vitamin D, although they tend to be at higher risk of overdose due to decreased renal function. For the healthier parts of the population, it won't hurt to let them know that taking an extra Vitamin D tablet won't kill them.
*It turns out that the half life of Vitamin D in bodyfat is around 60 days. Since I wasn't megadosing on Vitamin D prior to beginning my weight loss program, it is unlikely that I have been releasing large amounts of the stuff into my system through exercise.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Minus Fifty
In my earlier post, I outlined my goal of hitting my target weight of 185 (-50) "shortly after Election Day". Today, I hit that goal. It came eight days after Election Day, but that's close enough for me.
I started out at 235 pounds, although my peak was probably somewhat higher. I reached 200 pounds (-35) at the end of August, and 192 (BMI=25.0) in early October. Weirdly, I reached 185 exactly eight months after I started working out and monitoring my weight. That's 6.25 pounds/month, and is right in line with my near-linear rate of 1.5 pounds/week.
I also had my body fat percentage measured this morning. According to the handheld tool, I have 11% bodyfat. Of course, there are lots of caveats with that number, since the electrical measurement of bodyfat is susceptible to error from hydration, eating, and recent exercise. My "real" body fat is most likely somewhere between 10% and 15%, I'm guessing.
In a shocking oversight - especially for someone that has taken an advanced research statistics class - I never measured my "starting" body fat percentage. Because of this, today's number provides no real trend data, just a single data point to inform my future plans. In high school, my body fat percentage was in the high 20s, and was almost certainly higher than that when I started working out. Assuming that I lost only fat - and added no muscle/bone/etc - the calculations go like this:
Currently: 185 pounds x ~13.5% body fat = 25 pounds "fat";
which means: 50 pounds "fat loss" + 25 existing pounds "fat" = 75 pounds of beginning "fat";
and results in: 75 pounds fat / 235 pounds starting bodyweight = 32% body fat in March 2008.
In reality, I probably was higher than 32%, since I have lost weight while adding muscle (my rep maximum has increased dramatically). Since muscle is denser than adipose, I can say with some certainty that I was probably closer to 35+% body fat when I began this program eight months ago.
Over the next few months, I would like to stabilize my weight just below 180 pounds, with a body fat percentage of sub-10%. That means I need to keep doing aerobic exercise (elliptical machine) a few times per week, and start higher-intensity strength training. The cardio stuff should keep the fat off, while the lifting should offset the fat-loss with increased muscle mass. Both types of exercise do, of course, burn calories.
I'm not trying to turn into a fitness model, so once I reach an acceptable (to me) weight/strength/physique plateau, I'll shift completely into a maintenance workout routine. Also, I plan to get a complete-ish physical exam sometime in January. This should provide a nice set of starting data for whatever maintenance routine I establish.
Previous weight loss posts:
-Reaching a "normal" BMI
-How to Lose Weight (Part 1)
-How to Lose Weight (Part 2)
I started out at 235 pounds, although my peak was probably somewhat higher. I reached 200 pounds (-35) at the end of August, and 192 (BMI=25.0) in early October. Weirdly, I reached 185 exactly eight months after I started working out and monitoring my weight. That's 6.25 pounds/month, and is right in line with my near-linear rate of 1.5 pounds/week.
I also had my body fat percentage measured this morning. According to the handheld tool, I have 11% bodyfat. Of course, there are lots of caveats with that number, since the electrical measurement of bodyfat is susceptible to error from hydration, eating, and recent exercise. My "real" body fat is most likely somewhere between 10% and 15%, I'm guessing.
In a shocking oversight - especially for someone that has taken an advanced research statistics class - I never measured my "starting" body fat percentage. Because of this, today's number provides no real trend data, just a single data point to inform my future plans. In high school, my body fat percentage was in the high 20s, and was almost certainly higher than that when I started working out. Assuming that I lost only fat - and added no muscle/bone/etc - the calculations go like this:
Currently: 185 pounds x ~13.5% body fat = 25 pounds "fat";
which means: 50 pounds "fat loss" + 25 existing pounds "fat" = 75 pounds of beginning "fat";
and results in: 75 pounds fat / 235 pounds starting bodyweight = 32% body fat in March 2008.
In reality, I probably was higher than 32%, since I have lost weight while adding muscle (my rep maximum has increased dramatically). Since muscle is denser than adipose, I can say with some certainty that I was probably closer to 35+% body fat when I began this program eight months ago.
Over the next few months, I would like to stabilize my weight just below 180 pounds, with a body fat percentage of sub-10%. That means I need to keep doing aerobic exercise (elliptical machine) a few times per week, and start higher-intensity strength training. The cardio stuff should keep the fat off, while the lifting should offset the fat-loss with increased muscle mass. Both types of exercise do, of course, burn calories.
I'm not trying to turn into a fitness model, so once I reach an acceptable (to me) weight/strength/physique plateau, I'll shift completely into a maintenance workout routine. Also, I plan to get a complete-ish physical exam sometime in January. This should provide a nice set of starting data for whatever maintenance routine I establish.
Previous weight loss posts:
-Reaching a "normal" BMI
-How to Lose Weight (Part 1)
-How to Lose Weight (Part 2)
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
