By SARA HAUFF DORAN
Everything in your life should be in moderation. That is an idea often heard but not often practiced when it comes to food.
I am very fond of eating — but I am careful not to overindulge all of the time. I pretty much eat what I want, within reason, but I just don’t eat that much of it.
Which brings me to my next point — portion sizes. The sizes restaurants serve (especially Italian restaurants) can be obscene. More than a few times, I have been served my pasta dinner on a platter plate, as in an oval shape instead of a circle! (Who knows how many pounds of pasta there was)?
In those instances, I ate about half of it and got a doggy bag for the rest. Not only did I not feel incredibly full afterwards, but I also had another meal for lunch or dinner that week.
But if you are one who likes to finish their plate, you can immediately ask the wait staff to box up half of your meal or better yet ask if they serve half portions beforehand so that you are not tempted to overeat.
I always try to eat slowly. It takes at least 20 minutes for your body to signal to your brain that you are full. A study presented at the North American Association for the Study of Obesity reported that eating slower means eating less and still feeling “full.”
There is a misconception that there are good and bad foods. There are no good or bad foods — it is unhealthy to label them as such. Giving emotional labels to food can actually lead to binge eating and eating disorders. We should view eating as something we need to survive and that gives us energy. Of course, it can give us pleasure too, and that’s OK as long as it’s in moderation.
Also, if we label certain foods as bad, our rebellious spirits can drive us to seek out that forbidden fruit. For example, one dessert we used to think was devilish we found out is actually good for you (here’s that word again — in moderation, of course). That is dark chocolate because of the flavonoids, which act as antioxidants.
Now if you have health problems, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, then the rules are different for you because you may in fact have to avoid certain foods. But if that’s not you, then keep in mind that any food is fine, in moderation. Now if only I could practice moderation with my wine drinking!
February 17, 2010
PORTION CONTROL MUST PREVAIL
HEY TAYLOR, DUMP THAT MORON MAYER
By MOLLY DAVIS
Taylor, say it isn’t so!
John Mayer?
Why?
I can’t figure out, and I’m sure others are wondering as well, why you would drop a cutie like Taylor Lautner for sleazy John Mayer.
Sure, if you didn’t mesh with the “Twilight” wolf hottie, then don’t date him.
But to move on to a creep like the guitar-strumming, self-obsessed, woman-eater John Mayer?
Why?
Although it’s still unconfirmed you two are in fact dating, you’ve been to dinner with John twice, you were just at his concert, so the buzz is that you’re an item.
All I can say is run.
Fast.
And very far.
John is a consummate player.
Who has man breasts.
Or moobies, as they’re called.
Which he flaunted on his Rolling Stone cover – he could’ve used a bra, or at least a shirt to cover up his soft upper bod and hide those distasteful tattoos.
And then there was the actual interview, where he talked about his eternal search for finding “a beautiful vagina” and how much he loved threesomes.
Some other lecherous choice quotes?
On his sex life becoming an endless loop of new girls rejecting him in clubs: ”Blowing me off is the new sucking me off!”
On finding a girlfriend: “Do you think it’s going to take meeting someone who I admire more than I admire myself? But isn’t it also about a beautiful vagina? Aren’t we talking about a matrix of a couple of different things here? Like, you need to have them be able to go toe-to-toe with you intellectually. But don’t they also have to have a vagina you could pitch a tent on and just camp out on for, like, a weekend? Doesn’t that have to be there, too? The Joshua Tree of vaginas? …I’ll be happy when I close out this life-partner thing. Think of how much mental capacity I’m using to meet the right person so I can stop giving a (bleep) about it.”
On his relationships: “All I want to do now is (bleep) the girls I’ve already (bleeped), because I can’t fathom explaining myself to somebody who can’t believe I’d be interested in them, and they’re going, But you’re John Mayer! So I’m going backwards to move forward. I’m too freaked out to meet anybody else.”
On the paparazzi: “I’ll be honest with you. All this weird (bleep) about me? All this strangeness? I wouldn’t have a music career without it. But I am at odds with myself. I have some presence of psychological damage from the past 36 months. I have not had a woman appear in my dreams sexually without a paparazzi in the dream too. I can’t even have a wet dream without having to explain to someone who’s grinding on me, We can’t do this right now, because there’s a guy over there taking pictures.”
I now dub thee Mayer “The King of Overshare.”
John, who also tweets his feelings, posted this on Twitter hours after the article hit stands:
“Just read my Rolling Stone cover article. I’m still not sure if I would want to hang out with me.”
Spoiler alert…
COMEBACK KATE HITS NEW LOW
By MOLLY DAVIS
Kate Gosselin is making a comeback.
Jumping at every opportunity, the Wernersville resident has been spotted out on the town in New York City, is set to come back to a TV near you, and is releasing her third book.
So much for the relative Jon & Kate quiet I’ve been enjoying for the past few months.
First, let’s tackle the book.
The reality star is scheduled to release “I Just Want You to Know: Letters to My Kids on Love, Faith and Family” on April 13 by Zondervan Publishers.
The book features prayers she recites, excerpts from her personal journal and eight individual letters addressed to each one of her brood.
Who would want to read that?
Besides her children, I can’t imagine.
But she obviously has an audience, as her last two books, Multiple Blessings and Eight Little Faces, have been New York Times bestsellers.
Kate’s statement about the book reads, “Each day the thought crosses my mind that when they get older, my kids are going to look back and think about how they were raised.”
“I know they will have a lot of questions about things that may not make sense because they were raised so unconventionally. I don’t want them to grow up and wonder; I want them to know without a shadow of a doubt how much I love them and how much every sacrifice made was worth it for them.”
It’s a very nice sentiment, but unnecessary.
Instead of publishing these very personal letters, how about just giving the letters directly to your children?
Have them framed for each of the kids — a great Valentine’s Day gift — but publishing them in a tell all?
I would be furious at my mom.
Then again, I don’t need my mom to publish her feelings about me – I’ve never doubted them, as they have been reinforced throughout the years by the act of her being a present parent.
No letter needed.
Just simple “I love you’s” have worked just fine.
In addition to the book, Gosselin is in production on a new television show for TLC, focusing on the newly-single mother.
No kids?
Isn’t that the main reason people tuned in?
Other than watching Kate berate Jon, those eight cherub faces made the show.
Which brings us to the rumors that the kids may return to filming.
Even though Jon slapped TLC with cease-and-desist order to halt production on “Jon & Kate Plus 8″ last fall, he’s reportedly negotiating with Kate and the network to resume filming again.
Smells like a money-motivated decision.
Jon is reportedly willing to let his kids back on the show if TLC will drop its breach of contract suit filed against him for making paid appearances on other networks.
Translation: Jon has no money, can’t make his awful personal Ed Hardy clad appearances, and needs to make a buck to pay for his expensive lifestyle.
The kids filming would also be financially beneficial to Kate, as she was dining at Butter in NYC after getting her new longer locks chopped in Manhattan.
After spending 20 hours having the $7,000 extensions put in, she returned to have them shorn to a shaggy, shoulder-length style.
If Kate is going to be heading to N.Y. and dropping that amount of money on extensions only to get rid of them a month later, you better believe she needs to get her kids back on TLC.
COULD ANYBODY CHALLENGE JIMMIE?
By ERIC FISHER
Jimmie Johnson. Jimmie Johnson. Jimmie Johnson.
OK, now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s look at the race for second place.
Seriously, when NASCAR kicks off its Sprint Cup Series this Sunday with the Daytona 500, the overriding question will be whether anyone can overtake Johnson, who has won the last four NASCAR championships. Johnson is the gold standard. Will he win an unprecedented fifth straight title?
The following is a preview of the 2010 season. We’ll examine the issues, the questions and the drivers. But it will all be in context of “Who can catch Jimmie Johnson?”
Why should we expect anyone to be able to catch Johnson?
If Johnson continues at his current level, nobody will catch him. So why should anyone expect Johnson’s performance will drop off? Johnson and his wife are expecting their first child in July. Maybe, after the baby is born, Johnson’s priorities will change and his unmatched preparation will tail off just a little bit. Yes, we’re grasping at straws. But this is a glimmer of light for Johnson’s competitors.
Can anyone compete with Hendrick Motorsports?
The domination of Hendrick Motorsports extends well beyond Johnson. Hendrick swept the top three spots in the standings last year, with Mark Martin and Jeff Gordon finishing second and third, respectively. Dale Earnhardt Jr., in 25th place, was the only Hendrick driver outside the top three. The fact that Martin and Earnhardt earned front-row starting positions for the Daytona 500 is a good omen for Hendrick. Other teams may narrow the gap, but Hendrick should still be the top team.
Can any of the other Hendrick Motorsports drivers overtake Johnson?
Martin was the only serious challenger to Johnson’s throne last season. Martin, the best driver never to win a NASCAR championship, made a successful return to a full-time schedule by winning five races and finishing as the overall runner-up for the fifth time. At age 51, Martin will once again be a sentimental favorite to capture his first crown.
Gordon is another potential challenger. He had more top 10 finishes (25) than any other driver last year despite battling a sore back. If Gordon can reach victory lane a few more times than last year, when he did it once, he could challenge Johnson. I expect Earnhardt to improve dramatically, but not enough to challenge for the overall title.\
Could any of the non-Hendrick drivers who qualified for the Chase last year challenge Johnson?
Kasey Kahne, Juan Pablo Montoya, Ryan Newman and Brian Vickers all had fine seasons in 2009 and may continue their success in 2010. None of them, however, has the consistency and organization to contend for a championship.
Denny Hamlin, with four wins last year while finishing fifth, was considered a threat to catch Johnson until he tore the ACL in his left knee on Jan. 22. You can drive a car with a torn ACL, especially in the left knee, but it’s difficult to believe the lack of stability in that knee won’t affect his performance.
Carl Edwards, anointed the top challenger before last season, failed to win a race as Roush Fenway Racing struggled. Expect Edwards to win races this year and perhaps regain that mantle as the top challenger. Tony Stewart has the competitiveness and talent to challenge Johnson. Kurt Busch and Greg Biffle have outside shots at being serious contenders.
Could any driver who didn’t qualify for last year’s Chase challenge Johnson?
Kyle Busch is the obvious answer. The mercurial Busch finished 13th last season despite having four wins, as many as anyone except Johnson and Martin. Busch has talent and the drive to succeed. The question is whether he can control his emotions and avoid making too many enemies, especially with NASCAR loosening the reins on aggressive driving.
Will NASCAR’s attempts to create more excitement by allowing more bumping affect Johnson?
The additional leeway given to drivers to aggressively bump and draft in close quarters adds an element of unpredictability. Predictability favors the status quo, which favors Johnson. Unpredictability favors change, which works against Johnson. An accident or two at inopportune times could bring Johnson back to the pack and derail his championship train. NASCAR’s encouragement of more aggressive driving could be the greatest threat to King Jimmie’s championship reign.
Who will qualify for the Chase?
This is a tougher chore than in recent years. Consider that Kyle Busch, Matt Kenseth, Clint Bowyer, Jeff Burton, Kevin Harvick, Martin Truex Jr. and Earnhardt all finished outside the top 12 last season.
Let’s start with Hendrick’s big three of Johnson, Martin and Gordon. Edwards and Stewart should qualify. Kyle Busch is too good not to qualify for the Chase again. The acceptance of aggressive driving perfectly fits Montoya’s style. Hamlin barely hangs in there with his knee injury. The final four spots are filled by Kurt Busch, Biffle, Vickers and … Junior!
Who will win the Sprint Cup?
Johnson adds one for the thumb. But he will be severely tested this year. 3. Mark Martin; 2. Kyle Busch; 1. Jimmie Johnson.
OUR VIEW: HIT THE ROAD, ARLEN!
Sen. Arlen Specter has received the endorsement of the Pennsylvania Democratic state committee, but he is far from assured of winning re-election this fall. In fact, he might not even have the Democratic nomination in hand, with U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak challenging him. Regardless of who the Democrats nominate, however, the only way to reverse the fiscal irresponsibility in Washington is to vote for the Republican candidate.
The endorsement that Specter received from the Democratic state committee normally is enough to put a candidate over the top for the nomination, especially in Pennsylvania, which rarely encourages contested primaries.
However, Specter long has been a Republican. Even though Specter has not been a model of fiscal discipline, many Democrats seem unconvinced that a former Republican is the best choice to lead their party.
The endorsement that Specter received from the committee can partly be attributed to the backing that he has secured from major party officials such as President Obama and Gov. Edward Rendell. Party officials are more likely to accept the dictates of these officeholders.
But the rank and file may not simply vote for Specter because the committee has recommended him. They may choose to vote for Sestak, who has run a visible campaign. Sestak remains an appealing choice for liberals and other regular Democrats.
Sestak is more liberal than Specter, however, and his presence in the race will force Specter to the left to secure the nomination. As a result, whether Specter wins the nomination or not, the Democratic nominee likely will be considerably to the left of the mood of the electorate.
The Republican Party is fortunate not to have to deal with Specter. He has been too far to the left for far too long. When he voted for President Obama’s wasteful stimulus bill, Specter went too far. He no longer had any real claim to being conservative at all.
With voters upset about the ballooning deficit, Republicans can offer a real choice for change in this election with former Rep. Pat Toomey. Toomey actually can credibly advocate lowering government spending, which is not a course of action that either Specter or Sestak could believably advocate.
