Extended Essay #2: Final Draft

                                                                       Eat Meat

            I’ve never really thought about why I eat what I eat. The contents of my plate rested solely on the principle of “this tastes good and that doesn’t.” My actions just a few moments ago can attest to this fact. Finding it hard to focus, I went to the refrigerator for a snack and pulled out a Fuji apple-watermelon Vitamin Water. Not usually my drink of choice, I decided to try it for something different. I almost gagged over the first sip; it tasted exactly like my memory of liquid grape cold medicine. I promptly replaced the cap and returned it to the kitchen, opting instead for a bowl of Apple Cinnamon Cheerios, always a delicious treat. This is how my food logic works; if something tastes good, eat it, if something tastes bad, don’t. Simple as that. But what I’ve learned over the past few months from being immersed in food culture is that nothing is simple – society doesn’t allow it to be. From reports about nutrition to the craze over organic food, Americans are exposed to a multitude of advice about their diet. This deluge of information can be difficult to sort through once dinner rolls around, so it could be beneficial to consider what data to listen to and how that will define personal eating habits in advance. When analyzing my relation to the foods I eat, I decided to start small and pick just one category: meat. How do/will I orient myself towards meat in my diet? Just for this one type of food, there are many options to be considered. There is the basic choice to eat meat or not to eat meat and the larger dilemma about what kind of meat to eat, organic or non. There is also the question of quantity; if meat should be eaten, how much should be consumed? Weighing all the possibilities I came up with a maxim to eat by: Eat meat. Not too much. Don’t discriminate.

            There are many reasons that justify eating meat. Personally, in following my food value of taste, I choose to eat meat because it tastes good. A juicy steak, my grandfather’s barbeque ribs, Panda Express’s orange chicken – these are all things that set my mouth watering. I tend not to fantasize about eating leafy greens, or when I do, Panera’s strawberry poppy seed and chicken salad comes to mind, and that includes chicken. One of my all-time favorite foods is a freshly baked pizza, and what would a slice be without the pepperoni? Even in the dining halls, when the daily menu fails to entice me, I fall back on a cheeseburger or ham sandwich to get me through the day. I eat what I like and clearly I like to eat meat. While this signifies an individual preference, the appearance of meat on my plate may also be evidence of instincts built into our genetic make-up.

            Humans are anthropologically ordained to eat meat. Millions of years ago, the hominid that decided to become carnivorous escaped the evolutionary “bush” of species and blazed a trail to become the Homo sapiens we are today (Zimmer 36). At one point in history, there were many human-like species roaming around Africa. From anthropological discoveries, it has been more or less confirmed that two of our possible ancestors, Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus robustus, lived around the same time, roughly 2.5 million years ago. By analyzing the skulls of these species, their diets can be determined. A. robustus had very large teeth and a large jaw suggesting the need for grinding power. This is further verified by its pronounced sagittal crest (a ridge of bone projecting along the top of the head). Huge muscles would have been anchored on the crest and extended to the jaw, also pointing to the importance of chewing food. It has been concluded that A. robustus ate plants exclusively and mainly thick roots that would need strong jaw muscles to consume.  A. africanus on the other hand ate meat; they were one of, if not the first, hominid species to include animal flesh in their diet. This diet is made apparent by the smaller jaw and teeth formed in their skull for the purpose of tearing and not grinding. A. africanus also had no sagittal crest to speak of (Zimmer 38-39). So what do these two species have to do with our existence? Well, here’s the kicker – A. africanus flourished while A. robustus with their vegetable-only diet quickly went extinct.

            Roots and greens are not efficient foods in terms of energy density compared to meat. A. robustus probably had to spend most of their time gathering food and the rest of their time eating it just to survive. Oppositely, A. africanus could spend less time eating and more time on developing traits like the ability to make tools that would put them ahead in the evolutionary game (Zimmer 38-39). And as an added bonus they didn’t die out; therefore, it can be speculated that A. africanus was the start of our particular evolutionary line. Eating meat also facilitated the trait of team work by introducing hunting, and eventually led to agricultural communities with the domestication of animals. Everything we are today began with a steak. Who am I to knock a habit handed down to me by a long evolutionary history of meat eaters? Eating meat seemed to work pretty well for them. I intend to put my diet in a historical context and recognize the importance of eating meat; it is arguably the foundation of the process that got us here.

            In our present society, anthropological knowledge doesn’t hold much weight when sitting down to the breakfast table or running through the drive through. A lot of the discussion around meat currently is focused on the ethics of consuming it. The typical argument against eating meat is the questionable nature of the way it is produced. As discussed in food-writer Michael Pollan’s article, “An Animal’s Place,” animal rightists describe the mistreatment of animals in the meat industry as a form of “speciesism.” Akin to racism, the idea is that animals are discriminated against and treated as inferiors. Pigs and cattle are packed into small plots of land and made to stand in their own filth; chickens are shut into pitch black sheds and laying hens are confined in stacks of wires cages (Pollan).  Pollan presents two options for dealing with this moral predicament: “we either look away or become vegetarians.”  I offer a third option; that of seeing the process with all its imperfections and eating meat regardless. Animals are food; they produce meat to be consumed by humans. While this may sound “speciesist,” it is also a natural response. Animal rightists impose that animals are intelligent beings and therefore deserve to be treated fairly, which includes not being eaten (Pollan). We don’t eat our handicapped population just because they may have a lower level of intellect than the rest of us, right? Yes, but we are not cannibals, and just like the lion hunts down the zebra, we should be allowed to feast on other species.

            I have decided it is not a crime to consume meat and America seems to agree; Americans as a whole consume 60 percent more meat than Europeans (Hamershlag). As made apparent by visible arches, crowns, and bells lining every main street, the fast-food industry is running strong fed by meat and you would be hard pressed to find a restaurant menu that didn’t list a burger or at least a steak. Also, possibly the most American meat product, the hot dog, is consumed over 20 billion times a year (“The History of Ballpark Food”). We have even made a sport out of eating meat; annual hot dog eating contests take place around the country. As stated above, I have already made the decision to eat meat, so the next thing to consider is what kind of meat am I going to eat?

            While the “unethical” conduct of the meat industry drives some to become vegetarians, others choose to stay omnivorous and eat organic. These activists dub the production of organic meat “ethical” because the animals involved are treated humanely. On organic farms, animals are allowed to live more naturally than in feed lots; in other words, “chickens live like chickens” (Pollan). These places work under the idea that animals have rights, the most basic of which is to avoid pain. The principle of equality of the species invoked by animal rightists includes the equal consideration of values where human and animal interests converge. One of these joint areas is the aversion to pain, and so animals should be prevented from feeling any (Pollan). Following this logic, animals deserve the same pursuit of happiness allotted to people in the Constitution, and, according to Pollan, this happiness comes from “the opportunity to express its creaturely character – its essential pigness or wolfness or chickenness.” Organic farms provide for this by allowing the animals to roam free in their natural state (Pollan). I believe this viewpoint is highly hypocritical. If the decision is made to eat meat, eating organic serves no purpose but to make the consumer feel better. No matter what package is taken off the supermarket shelf, the animal that provided it was killed either way. If it can be argued that animals have the same aversion to pain, then they can definitely be said to have the same aversion to death. I doubt a short life spent in open fields as opposed to crammed pens and feed lots really make dying worth it. I’m pretty sure the animal doesn’t want to end up as dinner, regardless of the journey it took to get on the plate. While the production of meat may not be Disney enough for some people, that’s life; it’s messy. Organic farming is a shiny, plastic façade that distracts the consumer from the only reality: little Wilbur is still going to die. So if the decision has been made to eat meat, then eat meat; eating organic or non-organic holds no real difference in the treatment of animals.

            Another argument brought up by organic advocates is that meat from naturally raised animals is “healthier” for the consumer. While during the raising of the animal this may be true, after the meat leaves the farm, the lines between organic and industry produced begin to blur. The processing of organic animals is speculated to be very similar if not more unsanitary than the processing of regular meat. The main safety hazard associated with meat products is microbial contamination such as E. coli and Salmonella. By the very nature of organic farming and its limitations, “this production system has the potential for greater food safety risks” (Van Loo et al 206).  Free-range animals that have more contact with wildlife have a greater exposure to harmful pathogens carried by these creatures. Organically raised animals are not allowed to be treated with drugs or antibiotics to prevent disease; this practice could lead to a higher risk of infection and level of pathogens in the animal (Van Loo et al 207). As with ethics, this is another area where organic meat can be said to be relatively the same as (if not worse than) industry produced meat. In light of their similarity, I declare myself non-“meatist”; when eating meat I intend to not discriminate between the varieties. It doesn’t seem to matter whether the burger I eat is organic or not, so I simply won’t care.

            There is one side to eating organic that I can agree with; organic meat production has less impact on the environment. This is mainly due to the fact that meat produced from organic farms is marginal compared to the entire industry (Hamershlag). I don’t see this as a reason to eat organic, but as a reason to consider the effect eating meat has on our planet. The meat industry is just another in a long line of entities that have a negative effect on the environment. Facing this dilemma, the question I now ask myself is not what meat will I eat, but how should I eat it? The answer I’ve found is to eat meat in moderation. The production of meat on and off the farm produces greenhouse gases that contribute to pollution. A lot of the methane released is due to animal manure which totals about 500 million tons per year (Hamershlag).  About 60 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted in the production of one kilogram of beef. Pork follows at about 25 pounds per kilogram with salmon and chicken close behind (Hamershlag). And these statistics don’t even include the emissions due to transportation of the animals before and after slaughter! The use of fertilizers further contributes to the environmental impact by polluting rivers and other water sources (Hamershlag). While this could be pointed to as a reason to cut out meat entirely, it is a reality that things cost energy. We know cars burn gas and emit harmful chemicals into the air, but we don’t stop production because driving is a necessity.  The same can be said for electrical plants and consequently the meat industry. Just because it uses up energy, doesn’t mean meat production should come to a halt; we should just be more conscience about ways we can conserve. Eating one less burger a week equates to taking a car off the road for 320 miles, while a single car’s emissions for three months can be reduced if a four-person family forgoes steak once a week (Hamershlag). By cutting back on my daily intake of meat, I intend to reduce my environmental footprint.

            In addition to my concern for the environment, I will also eat less meat for my health. It has been shown that consuming large quantities of meat is closely related to an increased risk of disease. The chance of contracting heart disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes goes up when processed or unprocessed red meat is consumed (Ornish 563). The government has responded to these findings by modifying the USDA’s food pyramid. While I’m not usually one to buy into government propaganda, I really connect to the visual MyPlate creates. Eliminating the traditional hierarchy, MyPlate places each food group on a plate in proportion to one another (U.S. Department of Agriculture). For the most part, the groups are represented equally; this portrayal helps me think of meat as more of a side dish.  A meal is usually built around a portion of meat, whether it is a steak or rack of ribs. MyPlate takes away the idea of the entrée, placing all foods in balance and creating the mind set for reducing meat intake.  The category of meat also loses its title to be replaced with the label “Protein” (U.S. Department of Agriculture). This mirrors scientific findings that other sources of protein should be substituted for red meat in a healthy diet; food such as nuts, legumes, and even fish are good alternatives (Ornish 563).

            Eat meat. Not too much. Don’t discriminate. From the beginning of time, or at least our existence, humans have been eating meat. Although this source of protein may no longer be necessary for our survival, a mushroom Swiss burger still tastes pretty good. While taste is a significant deciding factor for what goes on my plate, I also like to keep in mind what is healthy for me and for the environment. Research has shown that eating meat correlates with an increased risk of disease, so I will try to adjust the portions on my plate accordingly. In doing so, I’ll also be doing my part to reduce carbon emissions let off by the meat industry into the air. While there are numerous negative impacts associated with the production of meat, these are the natural costs of progress. Meat doesn’t have to be cut out of a diet entirely; being a conscious consumer is all it takes to be a responsible one. Humans are called omnivores for a reason; we eat plants and animals – that is our design. Instead of fighting my nature, I intend to work with it and continue to eat meat.

Hamershlag, Kari. "Meat Eater's Guide: Report." Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change and

            Health. Environmental Working Group, 2011. Web. 20 May 2012.

"The History of Ballpark Food." Web log post. History in the Headlines. History.com, 31 Mar. 

            2011. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.

Ornish, Dean. "Holy Cow! What's Good for You Is Good for Our Planet." Archives of Internal

            Medicine 172.1 (2012): 563-64. Print.          

Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place." New York Times 10 Nov. 2002. The New York Times. The

            New York Times, 10 Nov. 2002. Web. 20 May 2012.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. What's On Your Plate? U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011.

            ChooseMyPlate.gov. USDA, Aug. 2011. Web. 20 May 2012.

Van Loo, Ellen J., Walid Alali, and Steven C. Ricke. "Food Safety and Organic Meats." Annual

            Review of Food Science and Technology 3 (2012): 203-25. Ebsco Host. Web. 20 May.

            2012.

Zimmer, Carl. "Great Mysteries of Human Evolution." Discover Sept. 2003: 34-42. Print.

Mirror Mirror

I really enjoyed the way we looked at food, not only for the purpose of eating but also as a cultural connection and its greater political ramifications. I never gave much thought to eating before other than thinking about what I was craving at the time, but now I look at different dishes and wonder where they came from or why I'm eating it. It makes you reflect about your choices and try to find meaning for them in a larger context. That's where the research came in; by learning about food on a broad scale, I could connect that knowledge to my own eating behaviors. I think I'll continue to read about food; Michael Pollan's pieces were interesting and I'll probably read more of his work. Food is just an interesting topic. The only downside was being constantly hungry while writing our many papers.

Extended Essay #2: Rough Draft

Eat Meat.

            I’ve never really thought about why I eat what I eat. The contents of my plate rested solely on the principle of “this tastes good and that doesn’t.” My actions just a few minutes ago can attest to this fact. Finding it hard to focus, I went to the refrigerator for a snack and pulled out a Fuji apple-watermelon Vitamin Water. Not usually my drink of choice, I decided to try it for something different. I almost gagged over the first sip; it tasted exactly like my memory of liquid grape cold medicine. I promptly replaced the cap and returned it to the kitchen, opting instead for a bowl of Apple Cinnamon Cheerios, always a delicious treat. This is how my food logic works; if something tastes good, eat it, if something tastes bad, don’t. Simple as that. But what I’ve learned over the past few months from being immersed in food culture is that nothing is simple – society doesn’t let it be. From reports about to nutrition to the craze over organic food, Americans are exposed to a multitude of advice about their diet. This deluge of information can be difficult to sort through once dinner rolls around, so it could be beneficial to consider which data to listen to and how that will define personal eating habits in advance. When considering my relation to the foods I eat, I decided to start small and pick just one category: meat. How do/will I orient myself towards meat in my diet? Just for this one type of food, there are many options to be measured. There is the basic choice to eat meat or not to eat meat and the larger dilemma about what kind of meat to eat, organic or non, not to mention grass-fed. There is also the question of quantity; if meat should be eaten, how much should be consumed? Weighing all the possibilities I came up with a maxim to eat meat by: Eat meat. Not too much. Don’t discriminate.

·         I’m going to eat meat

o   I like meat, it tastes good.

o   We were anthropologically ordained to eat meat. A. robustus (one of the many hominids in our family tree) ate plants and went extinct. Their skulls show this with their large jaws, teeth, and sagittal crest for anchoring jaw muscles. Spending most of the day gathering roots and other vegetation, they had little time to develop much else and eventually all died. At the same time the species A. africanus was around. They were mostly meat eaters an this high calorie, efficient diet gave them more time in the day to explore other things like making tools. And guess what? They didn’t die out. Who am I to knock the eating habits of our species ancestors; it seemed to work pretty well for them. (Use Zimmer)

o   The typical argument against eating meat is that the production of it is unethical; it harms animals. Well guess what, the cow is going to die either way. The world isn’t going to stop producing meat simple because I don’t eat it, so I’m just going to go ahead and eat it. Also they are animals, and while that sounds cruel, it is a natural response. We are above most creatures in the food chain. And if the production of meat isn’t Disney enough for people, that’s life; it’s messy. (Use Hamershlag and “The History of Ballpark Food”)

·         Why I don’t feel that is unethical

o   For those who say eating meat that comes from animals who have been mistreated is wrong, so we should only eat organic, I would respond that that argument is highly hypocritical. The animal is killed either way. If you are going to eat meat, eat meat. Only eating animals that have been allowed a “natural life” is only making the consumer feel better. I’m pretty sure the animal doesn’t want to end up as dinner, regardless of the journey it took to get on the plate.

o   What I would say is unethical is hunting. This is just more killing that is unnecessary. Plenty of meat is being produced and shelved in super markets every day; we don’t need to be hunting, too.  But by my chosen line of thought, if served fresh game, I would probably eat it, rather than let it waste. Boycotting the meat won’t bring the animal back to life.

o   Another argument brought up by organic advocates is that organic meat is also “healthier” for the consumer. While the for the raising of the animal this may be true, post slaughter isn’t typically cited in this discussion. Processing of organic animals is actually similar if not more unsanitary than the process of regular meat. (Use Van Loo et al)

·         I’ll eat it in moderation

o   For my health, I am going to try and view meat as more of a side dish. It has been shown that consuming large quantities of meat affect heart and overall bodily health. I care about my body and I feel that eating well is a small thing to do for a beneficial outcome. While propaganda has a bad connotation, I really buy into the USDA’s new health campaign with the redesigned food pyramid, MyPlate. The visual it creates really puts what should be eaten at meal times in perspective. The idea of an entrée is dropped to be replaced by a balanced, proportional plate. (Use Ornish and U.S. Department of Agriculture)

o   I am also going to cut back on my meat intake for the environment. Discuss how meat production contributes to pollution and contributes to energy. While this could be pointed to as a reason to cut out meat entirely, that argument can be countered. It is a reality that things cost energy. We know cars burn up gas and emit harmful chemicals into the air, but we don’t stop driving because it is a necessity.  The same can be said for electrical plants and consequently meat. Just because it uses up energy, doesn’t mean meat production should come to a halt. We should just be more conscience about ways we can conserve. (Use Hamershlag)

·         Conclusion

Works Cited

Hamershlag, Kari. "Meat Eater's Guide: Report." Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change and

            Health. Environmental Working Group, 2011. Web. 20 May 2012.

"The History of Ballpark Food." Web log post. History in the Headlines. History.com, 31 Mar. 

            2011. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.

Ornish, Dean. "Holy Cow! What's Good for You Is Good for Our Planet." Archives of Internal

            Medicine 172.1 (2012): 563-64. Print.          

Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place." New York Times 10 Nov. 2002. The New York Times. The

            New York Times, 10 Nov. 2002. Web. 20 May 2012.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. What's On Your Plate? U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011.

            ChooseMyPlate.gov. USDA, Aug. 2011. Web. 20 May 2012.

Van Loo, Ellen J., Walid Alali, and Steven C. Ricke. "Food Safety and Organic Meats." Annual

            Review of Food Science and Technology 3 (2012): 203-25. Ebsco Host. Web. 20 May.

            2012.

Zimmer, Carl. "Great Mysteries of Human Evolution." Discover Sept. 2003: 34-42. Print.

Eat FOOD

           I think Pollan gave the best advice he possibly could when he said “eat food.” So much of eating has been broken down into calorie, fat, vitamin, and sugar content that meal times are more of a science experiment than an enjoyable experience. If I eat a banana, am I eating a banana or a physical manifestation of a certain combination of chemical compounds? Personally, I’d like to think of it as just a banana. As a country, we have become too nutritionally focused.

                                           

In Dupuis’ article, he wrote how nutritionists focused on “the best diet for optimum public health and safety.” This endeavor became more of a propaganda front using race as a scientific variable. Robust white American men who drank milk and ate meat were the golden standard while other cultures like the Chinese who ate more plants were cast as weak and unhealthy. This was called nutrition. Pollan talks about nutrition in more recent history, where scientists have broken food down into its various fatty acids, vitamins, and antioxidants. While this seems more reasonable to me than the kind of ethnic profiling Dupuis mentioned, it is still kind of silly if you really think about it. Who decided we needed to know what was in our food? Who looked at a pineapple or a round of cheese one day and thought about the various compounds that make it up? I look at a pineapple and think “yellow” and “juicy” and then I eat it because it tastes good. Where did this abstract idea of nutrition come from? It really comments on the need of our society to exercise control. We have to be able to explain and manipulate all aspects of life in order to impose our dominance over it. We feel we have to conquer food. But why not just enjoy it? As Pollan suggests “worrying about diet cannot possible be good for you.” He also cites the French and other European cultures that take pleasure in their meals, making them small-portioned, communal events and how they tend to be healthier because of it.

Dupuis says throughout history we have asked the question “What to eat?” I’d like to ask the question “Why are you telling me what to eat?” Since when does what I eat need to be a group decision? Who decided that the FDA or whatever other governmental organization needs to impose these foods laws that “fats” are bad and “vitamins” are good? According to Pollan, they don’t even know if they’re getting it right anyway. Science is attempting to isolate things that can’t be isolated. All the foods we eat and their combinations are an overwhelmingly large group of interactions to study. Besides, before science was even thought of, when we just “came down from the trees” we seemed to do alright feeding ourselves.

SE 5: Observations

I was surprised to find a lot of information that connected with my essay in my classmates research. In Quinn's paper "Soda the Healthy Choice?" he reported that people consume less milk which is probably due to the increase of soda intake. Similarly the study I found reported people who had cereal breakfasts tended to have more milk and therefore calcium than non-cereal breakfasters who had a higher percentage of soda intake. Aaron's essay about the benefits of eggs also connected to my paper. He found that the main benefit of eggs is the amount of protein contained in them. This also came up in the study I analyzed. Something I found interesting was in Sarah's essay on dried fruit. I never realized dried fruit wasn't healthy. Like she said, with all the healthy hype surrounding the product you would never expect it, but dried fruit actually has as much sugar and added chemicals as candy.

Short Essay #5: Nutrition

Cereal: It’s GRRREAT!

               

                I eat a bowl of Reese’s Puffs for breakfast every day. Quite frequently I have another bowl as a late night snack, and sometimes I’ll mix it up and pour myself Apple Cinnamon Cheerios instead. Regardless of the brand, it can be counted upon that cereal will factor into my day. Cereal is a staple in any college student’s diet. Large plastic dispensers of cereal are permanent fixtures in both dining halls on campus and it is not unusual to witness a bowl of cereal being substituted for Sodexo’s common fare. Whether it is enjoyed in a dorm room for breakfast or relied upon as something edible for lunch, cereal is consumed many times throughout the week. Being such a prevalent dining option, it is natural to wonder about the nutritional benefits of cereal. The good news is that studies have shown eating cereal correlates with a healthier lifestyle.

                Many studies conducted in the past have shown cereal intake to be “associated with positive health outcomes” (Albertson et al 749). As a part of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study (NGHS), an experiment was conducted to determine the factors that led to cereal as a nutritional breakfast.  The study followed the breakfast habits of a diverse grouping of 2379 girls through adolescence, specifically noting those meals that were “cereal breakfasts” and “non-cereal breakfasts.” Albertson et al reported three significant findings: cereal contains more healthful nutrients than foods found in non-cereal breakfasts, cereal is usually associated with the consumption of other healthful foods at breakfast, and eating cereal for breakfast indicates the behavior of healthy eating and high levels of physical activity.

                Compared to breakfasts that feature foods such as eggs, meats, and quick breads (waffles and pancakes) cereal breakfasts are more nutritious. The NGHS found that cereal provides more fiber, iron, folic acid, and zinc while decreasing the amount of fat, sodium, and sugar consumed. Cereal also contains low amounts of cholesterol. A downside to this breakfast choice is its lack of protein, carbohydrates, and calcium; however, this deficiency can be made up for in cereal’s best friend: milk.

As an excellent source of calcium, milk is a positive addition to any diet and especially for those in adolescence. Albertson et al reported that a girl was 5.6 more likely to have milk if she ate a cereal breakfast. Having cereal facilitates other healthy choices. On the other hand, girls were 2.4 times more likely to have fats and sweets in non-cereal breakfasts. The consumption of soda is more prevalent in non-cereal breakfasts, and when tied with lower calcium intake can be linked to a risk for obesity. Eating cereal for breakfast has a tendency to cut out unhealthy foods, therefore leading to overall health benefits.  Healthy eating is directly connected to reduced cholesterol, improved cardiovascular health, and a low body mass index.

Another way cereal is connected to increased health is by the lifestyle it suggests. When Albertson et al looked at the daily behaviors of their subjects, they discovered healthier trends in those that ate cereal for breakfast. Those who enjoyed cereal breakfasts tended to have greater fiber and less fat intake during the day and also had higher rates of physical activity. While cereal obviously can’t cause exercise, the relation between the two comes from an overall lifestyle choice; people who try to live healthily eat better and tend to be physically active as well.

                Breakfast has always been the most important meal of the day, and the importance of starting any day off right only increases when you take into consideration the busy life of a college student. With a full schedule of classes and a rigorous work load, it is easy to slip on healthy behaviors. Having cereal for breakfast is an easy way for a student to take care of themselves. Isn’t that what the Mini-Wheats commercials are always telling us? Keeps ‘em full, keeps ‘em focused! And who knows, as the NGHS findings suggest, an increase in cereal breakfasts may lead to an outbreak of Ultimate Frisbee on the campus green. Staying healthy can be as easy as substituting the omelet bar for a bowl of Life. As Tony the Tiger says, cereal is more than just good for you, it’s GRRREAT! 

Albertson, Ann M., et al. "Consumption of Breakfast Cereal is Associated with Positive Health Outcomes: Evidence from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study." Nutrition research (New York, N.Y.) 28.11 (2008): 744-52. Ebsco Host. Web. 14 May. 2012.

Food Journal Observations

        Due to most of these observations being taken over the weekend, the schedule of a person's day altered their food consumption. People who got to go home tended to eat a lot more and at regular times throughout the day. Those stuck on campus seemed to brave the dining halls, usually eating pizza or something containing whole wheat with supplemental snacks on the side. Meals were usually always healthy or always not. People who had to work or had other activities that kept them busy seemed to eat a few large meals. I also observed that dinner was usually not the focus of the day. People tended to have large breakfasts (if they didn't have to be somewhere) or large lunches, but relatively small dinners. For those who took advantage of the weekend to eat of campus, leftovers featured in their journals.