Why Are You Fat?

According to the CDC, about 36% of U.S. adults are obese and as of 2010, about 23% of the people in Massachusetts are considered obese. Their definition of obesity is based on the Body Mass Index (BMI), though they acknowledge that is not a fully accurate way of assessing individuals, such as athletes. These obesity figures do not include those people who are only overweight, though that would raise the percentage significantly of those Americans who weigh too much.

Each year, these figures continue to increase but why is that so? Why are so many putting on extra pounds? We think we understand the reasons but is that really the case? Could we be looking at all of this in the wrong way? That might very well be the case.

Scientific American recently published a special Food Issue (September 2013), which contains nine fascinating articles about food related issues, from How (and Why) To Eat Invasive Species by Chef Bun Lai to The First Cookout, an interview with Richard Wrangham. Two of the articles dealt with issues of weight gain, offering interesting takes on what is often considered "common knowledge." We need to start looking at some of our treasured beliefs, to reassess what we think, and hopefully find a better path to weight loss.

The first thing we need to do is to reconsider the calorie, understanding that the calorie counts on food labels are not accurate indicators of the amount of calories an individual will receive. Rob Dunn, a biologist at North Carolina State University, penned an article, Everything You Know About Calories Is Wrong, explaining the problems of calorie counts. Calorie determination is based on a 19th century system that uses averages, ignoring numerous important factors such as the effects of digestion and cooking.

Dunn states: "To accurately calculate the total calories that someone gets out of a given food, you would have to take into account a dizzying array of factors, including whether that food has evolved to survive digestion; how boiling, baking, microwaving or flambeing a food changes its structure and chemistry; how much energy the body expends to break down different kinds of food; and the extent to which the billions of bacteria in the gut aid human digestion and, conversely, steal some calories for themselves." (p.58) What that means is that two individuals, eating the same amount of calories, will not incur the same amount of calories, so that one person might lose weight while the other might not.

For example, cooking food allows a person to obtain more of the calories in that food than you would if the food was raw. So if two people consumed 2000 calories of food, and one person cooked all his food while the other ate all his raw, the person with the raw food would actually take in less calories. The type of food matters as well. For example, nuts generally are less completely digested than some other foods, meaning you get less calories from them. In addition, each individual is different in their biological make-up, meaning they will take in more or less calories than another person.

What that all means is that a diet that merely counts calories is overly simplistic and potentially doomed to failure. It would explain the frustration some dieters have when seeing others lose weight, on similar amounts of calories, which they can't seem to lose. People need more education about calories, to understand that label calorie counts are probably closer to suggestions than actual facts. At best, those calorie counts might stand as a potential maximum amount that can be derived.

All this discussion of calories though is based on the theory that weight gain is due to an imbalance between calories consumed and calories expended. In short, if you eat too much, ingest too many calories, or are too sedentary, exercising little, then you will gain weight. Most people accept this as a given, yet it hasn't prevented more and more people each year gaining excess weight nor has it prevented an increase in metabolic disorders like Type 2 Diabetes. Why is that so if we know exactly what causes weight gain?

Gary Taubes, co-founder of the Nutrition Science Initiative, in his article Which One Will Make You Fat?, poses an alternative theory of weight gain. He notes that the calorie theory actually never was based on proper scientific studies, being accepted more as a given. It sounds like a logical theory but even those should receive empirical proof of their validity. Gary offers another potential theory, which he believes deserves to be investigated, and which a few scientists have now started to address in new studies.

Rather than being due to an energy imbalance, weight gain could be instead due to a hormonal defect, with the primary offender being carbohydrates. The science is interesting. The carbohydrate glucose causes the pancreas to secrete insulin, to prevent glucose levels from being too high. The insulin causes some of that glucose to be stored as fat for some future use, which means that if insulin levels remain high, then you gain more and more fat. By avoiding or limiting carbohydrates, you prevent this fat storage from occurring, and that might be the best way to avoid gaining weight. So worrying about calorie intake might not be as important, as where those calories come from.

More scientific studies are needed to resolve this conundrum, but just the fact that we are questioning "common knowledge," which never actually was proven, is a major step forward. If you are having trouble losing weight, and you believe you are doing everything right, then it is time to reconsider the basis of your beliefs.

Read More

Don't Wait In Line At Shake Shack!

A Shake Shack recently opened in Chestnut Hill and another location may open in Harvard Square. The local media went crazed, saturating their readers with abundant coverage of the new Shake Shack. People on Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites could not stop talking about this burger joint. Some people waited an hour or more to get a burger and shake. Though some of the talk has died down, it remains hugely popular and you will likely have to wait in line to place your order.

However, I have important advice for you. Don't wait in line at Shake Shack!

Do I have something against Shake Shack? No. In fact, I have not even eaten there yet, though I plan on visiting in the near future. My advice actually should be more general, that you shouldn't wait in line at any fast food restaurant. Why? Because the waiting will only decrease your enjoyment of whatever food you eventually order. If you want the optimal taste of fast food, you shouldn't wait in line for it.

Before explaining this advice, let me note that eating fast food, especially frequently, can be unhealthy for us, and far too many people choose fast food over much healthier selections. Why do they do this when they clearly understand the potential negative health consequences? In the Scientific American Mind (March/April 2013), there is an informative article, Time-Warping Temptations, by journalist David H. Freedman which provides some rationale behind these choices.

The psychological culprit appears to be temporal discounting, defined as "..our tendency to view small rewards available now as more desirable than even much bigger payoffs down the road." Temporal discounting is responsible for such problems as "...overeating, overspending, abusing drugs, and more." It is believed that it might be an evolutionary trait from when man was surrounded by constant threats to his life so that it was beneficial to take the immediate reward as one never knew what the future might bring.

Temporal discounting is responsible for people's desire for instant gratification, for our tendency to seek whatever will fulfill our immediate need, even if it might not be good for ourselves in the future. The hustle and bustle of fast food restaurants can also accentuate our desire for an immediate reward. There are ways though to fight this psychological instinct, ways for us to look more toward the future and stop giving in to our base desire for instant gratification.

One of the most important ways to do this is to find a way to delay the immediate reward, and counteract the temporal discounting. Rather than dining at a fast food restaurant, spend a little time shopping first, even if you just window shop. You might find then that your desire for fast food has abated, and you might be willing to seek a healthier choice. This should work in other circumstances as well, such as trying to stop smoking cigarettes.

Why does this type of delay often succeed? Well, now we get back to my original point of why you shouldn't wait in line at a fast food restaurant. "Research has shown that requiring people to wait just five minutes for a treat cuts the appeal of the treat in half." So, if you wait in line at a restaurant, then you are less likely to enjoy the food you eventually eat. The delay you face in a long line at a fast food restaurant will cause your experience to be diminished. You probably don't realize it is occurring but it exists.

If you want to have the best experience at Shake Shack, or any similar place, then go when you don't have to wait in line, and not when your experience would be lessened. And better yet, don't eat as much at fast food restaurants, choosing more healthy options.

Read More

Perceptions of Seafood Sustainability

“One thing about which fish know exactly nothing is water, since they have no anti-environment which would enable them to perceive the element they live in.”
--Marshall McLuhan

This was the second conference I attended at the International Boston Seafood Show where it was mentioned how the media distorts the risks of seafood, though they were in different contexts. In the previous case, it was used in the case where the media emphasizes the minor risk of consuming seafood while failing to give proper coverage to all of the health benefits of seafood. In this conference, the media was alleged to be trying to tie in health risks into the sustainability issue, again greatly exaggerating any such risks.

I attended the What the Industry Experts Say: Perceptions of Sustainable Seafood Production and Marketing conference, which was presented by Wendy Weisman and Tracy Van Holt, who are working together on the SustainableCFood project. They conduct research, trying to determine significant communication gaps that exist in the topic of sustainable seafood. This conference was even part of their research, involving an anonymous survey and a discussion on sustainability issues. So, it was a very interactive session, and there were roughly 25 or so attendees.

Wendy Weisman

It is obvious that there are significant communication gaps in the discussion of sustainability. So many people define the term differently, often based on their own needs and experience. Trying to reach some sort of consensus on a definition is a worthy, though difficult, goal. In researching these issues, Wendy and Tracy engage in "cultural consensus analysis." Tracy stated that "shared knowledge equals culture," a reason why they have chosen a cultural consensus analysis.

That process is similar to the use of focus groups but it also allows each person's voice to be considered individually. The analysis seeks to determine the areas where people agree and disagree on these definitions and issues. They also engage in news analysis, determining what the media says on the topic, both the regular media and the trade.

You can take their survey online though I am unsure of the actual value of the survey. I found a number of the questions to be too vague or confusing so it seems the answers might not reflect true perceptions. It was clear from our discussion of answers to those questions that many people wanted to clarify their answers, that the answers were not as simple as the questions permitted. Instead, I believe the questions are much more useful in starting conversations about these issues. That seems to be a more valuable reason to present the questions rather than seeking the truth of any such question.

Tracy Van Holt 

The discussion moved onto an analysis of news articles dealing with sustainability. The regular media has created the allegation that sustainability in fisheries has a lot to do with important health issues. For example, they promote ideas such as wild seafood is safer for you than farmed seafood. They highlight mistrust and mislabeling, creating the impression that sustainability is unprofitable. The trade media though does not connect sustainability and health. Rather, they emphasize issues of transparency and trust, promoting that sustainability is profitable.

In further media research, they examined Seafood Source and learned that the dominant conversation concerning sustainable revolved around certification. It was also learned that this discussion was often separate from a discussion of fishers. On a related issue, they examined the question of who the media saw as responsible for creating and promoting sustainable fisheries and both the regular media and the trade were in agreement that Companies were most important.

There was an intriguing aside, analyzing the effectiveness of a logo. I thought that the Brunswick Catch logo was the most effective, and I ended up in agreement with their prior survey. What seemed to matter to the public was a logo with the name of the place, that showed a fishermen as well as his gear.

Trying to reach a consensus of sustainability definitions is a worthy and necessary endeavor so discussions in this area are warranted. It is also a glaring issue that media depictions of seafood are negatively slanted and that is an area where the seafood industry needs to take charge and present a more balanced view. That is also part of what I do, trying to present more balanced articles for the average reader. More people need to eat seafood and they should not be scared away from eating it due to the drastic exaggeration of any minor risks.

Read More

Seafood Prices & Fate of Local Fishermen

The health benefits of seafood consumption are significant and everyone would benefit from eating more seafood. Check out Seafood Health Facts for more information about the benefits and risk of seafood consumption.

However, the price of seafood is a major obstacle to consumption. Last year I wrote: "The average consumer spends about $37.62 for a basket of groceries, which rises to $61.58 when meat is added, or $76.40 when seafood is added. Seafood is apparently one of the most expensive items for consumers, and when retail prices rise, on all items and not just seafood, it seems that consumers will often purchase even less seafood." 

And seafood prices are likely to rise once again which means even less people will garner the health benefits of fish. 

Recently, the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) approved significant catch reductions on a number of fish species. Two of those cuts include a 77% reduction on the Gulf of Maine cod limits and a 61% reduction on Georges Bank cod limits. The cuts will take effect May 1 and the Gulf of Maine reduction will remain in place for the next three years while the Georges Bank reduction will be in place for one year. The Council is basing the need for these great cuts on scientific evidence that assessments of these species are at record lows. It is also  pointed out that fishermen have been having trouble filling previous fish quotas, allegedly another indication of low stock levels.

What will these drastic cuts mean for the local fishing industry? The NEFMC conducted an economic analysis which predicts that overall groundfish revenues for fishermen would drop by about one-third. How well would you handle it if your paycheck was suddenly reduced by one-third? Some local fishermen believe the projection is too conservative and that the cuts will drive a significant number of fishermen out of business. At this point, it appears little will be done to financially assist these fishermen so it could very well lead to some fishermen having to leave the industry.

This is a delicate balancing act, trying to save fish species while also saving the fishing industry. Accurate information and science is necessary to provide the best solution to this dilemma. I have previously discussed some of the issues surrounding such matters but that is not the central issue of this post. Instead, I want to concentrate on pricing and consumption.

With reduced catch limits, and the financial cuts faced by local fishermen, it is inevitable that seafood prices will rise. That will mean that less consumers will purchase seafood, which doesn't help anyone. Consumers won't derive seafood's health benefits and fishermen will have difficulty selling their catch, causing them financial hardship. That is a situation that desperately needs change though the solutions are probably not easy.

What are some potential solutions?

Chef Rich Garcia, of 606 Congress, made a good point on his blog by calling for "the promotion of underutilized species." There is plenty of seafood which is rarely seen in stores and restaurants because it is not "popular." People need to diversify their taste and embrace the less common fish available, which usually are less expensive and more sustainable. Other chefs have voiced that same sentiment and last year, I proposed that same sentiment in my Rant, Stop Eating Cod, Tuna & Salmon. With a greater demand for such less common fish, local fishermen will make more effort to catch such species and that will help the fishermen survive better too.

If you still want to eat the more popular groundfish, but the price turns you off, then just buy less fish than you would usually. Most of us eat too much for dinner anyways and we would do better with smaller portions. Can't afford a pound of fish? Then buy a half-pound instead. Eating a little less fish is much better than eating no fish at all. It is better for your health and can help support local fishermen too, provided you purchase local seafood. A recent report indicated that the U.S. imports an incredible 91% of the their seafood. We need to purchase more local seafood and support local businesses.

There are no easy answers to any of these dilemmas. We can be sure though that people need to eat more seafood and that local fishermen need our support. Let us all work toward those objectives. If anyone has some suggestions, please post them in the comments.

Read More

Rant: A Conveyor Belt Of No Respect

Ten million men and I share the same genetic abnormality yet it is a problem that few talk about, and even fewer do anything to help. It is an issue that gets no respect yet as it affects 7% of the male population it is something that needs to be brought forth, considered and addressed. Last night, this issue arose for me again when I dined at a new sushi joint.

What is my problem? I am color blind and more specifically, I possess a red-green color blindness. I can see colors, including red and green. However, I can't differentiate between as many shades of red and green as other people. An average person might be able to see ten different shades of red though I might only see five shades. I can determine the correct colors of traffic lights but matching the colors of my clothes is occasionally a challenge.

Color blindness is caused by the lack of certain pigments in nerve cells of the eyes, and red-green color blindness is the most common form. There is also a blue-yellow form though it is much less common. It is a condition mostly prevalent in men and only about 0.4% of women are color blind. Despite its prevalence in men, when is the last time you saw a business worrying about anyone being color blind?

Last night, I stopped at Enso Sushi, a new kaiten-zushi restaurant where sushi glides through the dining room on a conveyor belt. When a dish that appeals to you passes by, you take it off the belt. Each plate is color coded to a specific price so that when your meal is over, the server can easily determine your bill through counting the colored plates in front of you. You receive a color coded menu so you can determine the cost of each item. Most prices range from $2-$5 per plate, with a few specials above that cost.

My problem was that two of the colors looked essentially the same to me, and the difference in their price was about $2. If I just took a plate off the belt, I might have chosen a dish that costs $2 more than I thought it did because I got the color wrong. That could be a significant issue. With some time and effort in analyzing the menu, I was largely able to differentiate which dish cost which amount, but it was a bit of a hassle and should not have been necessary.

The restaurant had other identification options available beside using color coding. For example, they could have assigned each plate a certain letter or number and thus avoided causing any issue with the color blind. I think it is safe to assume that they never considered the issue of the color blind when choosing their color coded system.

I have encountered this issue before in other color coding situations, such as guide books and maps. For instance, I own a sustainable sushi guide that used a color coded system to indicate which seafood was a Good Choice and which was Avoid. The problem was that the colors used for those two designations looked basically the same to me. That was a significant problem and I am not alone in  my difficulties. There are ten million other color blind men.

Color coding may seem to make it easy for many people yet it also makes it much more difficult for others. Restaurants, writers, publishers, and businesses or all types should consider the fact that there is a significant amount of men who are color blind. We deserve respect too.

Read More

Fooled By A Blind Tasting?

"If you want to enjoy wine more, the trick is to learn more about wine."
--Paul Bloom

Does more knowledge about wine enhance the pleasure you derive from it? On the other hand, can you truly enjoy a wine you know almost nothing about?

The "pleasure theory" of Paul Bloom, author of How Pleasure Works: The New Science of Why We Like What We Like, is based on a number of studies of which many of us may already be familiar. We have heard of how wine lovers have been fooled into raving about a $90 bottle of wine, which actually turns out to be a $10 bottle. The alleged price of the wine affected their perception of the wine. We have heard of blind taste test studies where people preferred much cheaper wines rather than far more expensive ones. Paul Bloom has gathered together many of these studies and assembled his theory of the essentialist, arguing that everyone is an essentialist at heart.

An essentialist cares about the history and origins of an item, and that plays a significant part in their pleasure of that item. It applies to many different items, as well as our relationships with other people. For example, it applies to wine, with people gaining much more pleasure from their knowledge of the origins of a wine. It is partially why people seem to enjoy a more expensive wine, or one from a celebrated producer or region. In some respects, people enjoy a wine more when it possesses a great story. Yet this is a double edged sword as well and we can be deceived.

Bloom has stated, "Like I said, part of your response to wine is based on its chemical properties But how you experience it will always be affected by your beliefs about what you are drinking. Now this opens you up to being fooled. Given that we’re creatures who respond to the history of things, we can be exploited. You could be lied to about the price of wine, you could be lied to about where your sweater came from, you could be lied to about whether your painting is an original or a forgery, and so on. This is the bad news."

Adam of Wine Zag decided to put Bloom's theory to the test with a blind tasting which would compare seven pairs of wine. He pitted seven wines from 90+ Cellars against seven others that he chose, trying to roughly match up the type and price of the wines. He was certainly not going for a scientific test, but more of a fun comparison which might provide some basic insight into Bloom's pleasure theory.

90+ Cellars purchases excess wine from wineries all over the world and rebottles it under their own label, selling it for less than its original purchase price. They do not reveal the true name of the producers, though they provide other information about the wine, including the wine region, grapes, vintage and a few other details. A consumer thus will find much information about the wine, though certain items will elude them. So you get part of a story but not the whole one.

The question becomes, does that lack of the identity of the producer detract from the pleasurable experience of the wine? Adam had never previously purchased any wines from 90+ Cellars because he didn't know the name of the producers. That information was very important to him. He wanted to see how the 90+ Cellar wines would stand up to a group of known wines in a blind tasting.

About twenty of us attended the tasting at the Boston Wine School, with eighteen people voting for their favorite wines in the pairings. According to Bloom's theory, if it were not a blind tasting, then the 90+ Cellars wines should have shown poorly against the wines from known producers. The added information about the producers should have enhanced our pleasure of those wines. In a blind tasting though, Bloom's theory should lead to a different result, where the 90+ Cellar wines would hold their own against all comers.

In the end, the results were very close between the 90+ Cellars and the known wines, and I think it is safe to say that the 90+ Cellar wines held their own. The known wines won in 4 of the 7 pairings, though the voting was generally close. Personally, I selected the 90+ Cellar wines in 4 of the 7 matches. The big surprise for all was that the top wine of the evening, voted by 15 of the 18 tasters (including myself), was from 90+ Cellars, the 2009 Rosso Maremma Toscana Lot 70 ($26). This was the only overwhelming vote of the evening so that is a wine you might want to seek out. The second place wine, with 3 votes, was the 2008 Sean Thackrey Andromeda Pinot Noir, another excellent wine.

Our blind tasting essentially met the expectations of Bloom's theory, that without the information about wine we normally seek out, 90+ Cellars showed well against the other wines. They are wines you may very well enjoy, if you give them a chance. Even after the results of this blind taste test though, I am not sure all of the attendees at the tasting would purchase a 90+ Cellars wine. It may be difficult for some to overcome their perception that knowing the producer provides additional pleasure from the wine even if in a blind taste test, they could not perceive a difference.

I don't have a problem purchasing 90+ Cellars wines, probably because I have tasted a fair amount of them and found that many are very good value wines. Though I enjoy wines with a good story, I don't like the 90+ Cellar wines any less because I don't know the true producer. Adam, who has never before purchased a 90+ Cellars wine, stated that he would definitely be purchasing the 2009 Rosso Maremma Toscana Lot 70. So this blind tasting changed his mind in some respect.

Though I may find some credence in Bloom's theory of the essentialist, I think that people are not essentialists in all their purchasing decisions. I think it might depend more on the specific items in question, and how much that person values those items. For example, at the wine store where I work, we get a diverse mix of customers. Many of them care very little about the origins and history of the wines they purchase. First and foremost for them is price, and then second it all has to do with taste. The 90+ Cellar wines sell very well at our store and I think primarily because they offer a good value, even if their story is not complete.

It might be more dedicated wine lovers who have more difficulty accepting 90+ Cellar wines because they lack the identity of the producer. It is they who are more likely to be more passionate about the story of a wine. It may be their perception that the more they know about a wine, the more likely they are to enjoy it. However, in a blind tasting, their preferences might be very different.

Bloom's theory has other applications to wine as well, such as in the arena of wine reviews. If a person reviews a wine, possessed of a certain amount of information about that wine, and someone else tastes that same wine, but lacks that same information, will they like the wine less? Would you rather trust a review where the reviewer knows all about the wine, or would you prefer the reviewer tasted blind? If you read a review, do you want to know the knowledge level of the reviewer to ascertain how that might have affected their review?

To sum it up, one could say: Pleasure Is In The Mind Of The Beholder.

Read More

The Science of Sake & Food Pairings

“Umami is the flavor god before which we sake types bow down and worship.”
 --Philip Harper, the first non-Japanese toji, (Sake Master Brewer)

Many people still consider Sake as something to pair only with sushi, tempura and other Japanese cuisine. Few non-Japanese restaurants carry Sake, which further perpetuates the mistaken belief that Sake is only for Japanese food. In actuality, Sake makes a fine accompaniment to many different cuisines and sometimes is even a better pairing than wine. You can enjoy Sake with dishes such as mushroom risotto, pork tenderloin, roast chicken, barbecued ribs or even pizza.

It is important to understand that Sake does not possess a single flavor profile but rather has an incredibly diverse range, from sweet to dry, fruity to floral, bold to elegant, earthy to herbal, and much more. There are many different types of Sake, such as Junmai, Nigori, Koshu, Honjozo, Ginjo and more. Sake has at least as much complexity as wine, and more in some respects, possessing twice as many aromatic esters as wine. That means Sake has the potential for twice as many aromas than wine, and aroma plays a significant role in flavor.

With all the different flavor profiles and types of Sake, there really is a Sake that is appropriate for nearly any type of food. The Japanese have an apt saying, Nihonshu wa ryori wo erabanai, which basically translates as "Sake does not get into fights with food." It is an indication that they feel Sake pairs well with many different foods, and generally won't overpower anything or be overpowered by some dish.

There are some standard foods that are considered a traditional pairing for sake and they are collectively referred to as sakana. This usually includes edamame, raw fish, grilled meats, dried squid, tofu and vegetables (often pickled). But Sake is not restricted to these traditional items and it is time people started realizing the potential.

When it comes to wine and food pairing, there are really no set rules. But, even though there are no absolute rules, there are scientific and logical reasons why some wines and foods pair better together than others. Elements like acidity, tannins and aromatic compounds all play a significant role in food pairing. The same is applicable to Sake, and you can basically pair it as you would pair wine with food. You can compare or contrast the elements of the Sake to the food, just as you would with wine.

Junmai Sake, which often has a rich, heavy body, is sometimes considered the “red wine” of Sake and thus can pair with stronger flavors including beef, fried foods and rich sauces. Ginjo and Daiginjo Sakes are often lighter and more subtle, comparable to many quality white wines. They should be paired with lighter, milder foods, such as seafood and chicken. As Sake acidity varies, you should pair higher acidic Sake with oilier foods while lower acidic Sake pairs better with rich or salty foods.

Like Riesling, Sake can range from sweet to bone-dry, and a sweet Sake can pair very well with spicy dishes, such as Thai or Indian curry. A fine Burgundy may have an earthy or mushroom component, and the Kimoto or Yamahai Sakes can have a similar profile, so they will pair well with foods appropriate for such wines. Try an earthy Kimoto with duck or lamb. Rather than pair Champagne with caviar, you could try a Sparkling Sake instead. Note that most sparkling Sake tends to be on the sweeter side, though there are dry varieties as well. For a dessert pairing, try a sweet Nigori, a cloudy Sake, or even a rich Koshu, an aged Sake.

Beyond this simple advice, a little science lesson will help you make better pairings, an examination of some of the special components of Sake, namely amino acids. Amino acids, at their simplest, are the basic building blocks of proteins and each amino acid has its own specific function. These amino acids play a significant role in the utility and versatility of Sake.

There are twenty different amino acids in Sake, a greater variety than found in any other alcohol. As an example, Sake contains seven times more amino acids than red wine. During fermentation, more than half the protein in the rice gets broken down and converted into nitrogen compounds, nearly half which are amino acids. The protein in rice is generally located in the outer layers, which often get polished away, at least in part. That means that a higher quality Sake, like a Daiginjo, with a higher rice polishing rate, will have less protein available for conversion and subsequently a lower level of amino acids.

A lengthier fermentation process also tends to produce more amino acids. As Sake is generally fermented longer than that of most wines, it also tends to produce more amino acids. In addition, the more traditional brewing processes, Kimoto and Yamahai, which can take twice as long to ferment, generally have the most amino acids of any Sake.

The degree of amino acids in a Sake is known as the amino sando, and you may even see that number listed on a Sake label or in the sales materials. Amino sando levels tend to average between about 0.7 and 1.5. Each specific style of Sake has an average amino acid level, though obviously there will be variation. For example, Futsu-shu, Ginjo and Honjozo have an average level of 1.3 while a Junmai has a 1.5.

In general, higher levels indicate a more full-bodied, rounder, and richer tasting Sake. Thus, you are more likely to have a higher level with a Junmai. Lower levels indicate a lighter, cleaner, and more mellow Sake so the more elegant Sakes like Ginjo and Daiginjo will have lower levels. But there is much more to amino acids than these basics.

Five kinds of amino acids are considered to most affect taste: alanine, arginine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid and succinic acid. Alanine is said to produce sweetness, while arginine produces bitterness and aspartic acid can produce acidity and astringency. Glutamic acid and succinic acid may be the most important components though because of their role in creating the taste of umami.

You probably already know the four basic tastes, including salt, sweet, bitter, and sour, but there is a fifth as well. Umami, this fifth taste, is often described as “savoriness” or “meatiness” though it is probably best understood through tasting foods rich in umami, such as soy sauce, ripe tomatoes, parmesan cheese, scallops, and mushrooms.

In 1908, Professor Kikunae Ikeda, a Japanese chemist, discovered that glutamic acid gave kombu seaweed a very distinctive taste, which he labeled umami. Kombu may possess more umami than any other food. Later scientists would identify two other sources of umami, inosinate and guanylate, two nucleotides. Inosinate is found mostly in meat and fish while guanylate is most often found in mushrooms. Currently, at least 39 substances, including succinic acid, have been discovered to contribute to the taste of umami.

It still took time for umami to gain credibility as it was not until 1985 that umami was officially accepted by the scientific community as the fifth taste. In 2000 and 2002, a couple scientific studies then determined that humans possess taste buds specially dedicated to glumatic acid, to the taste of umami.

Please also note that glutamic acid is an amino acid while glutamate is a compound largely composed of glutamic. You are probably most familiar with the glutamate known as MSG, monosodium glutamate, which is a salt used to enhance flavor. Sake does not contain monosodium glutamate.

Our first exposure to the taste of umami is actually before we are even born as amniotic fluid in the womb possesses glutamic acid, about 2.2mg/100ml. After we are born and if we are breast fed, then our exposure to umami continues, and to a greater degree as breast milk is much higher in glumatic acid, about 18.7 mg/100ml.

Umami does more than just make food taste better. It can also serve to suppress our appetite, causing us to eat fewer calories by convincing our stomach that it has had enough protein. In addition, because it tends to round out and deepen flavors, then it can also deter us from adding extra salt and fat to our foods.

For a long time, food and wine pairing advice ignored the involvement of umami. But recently, that has begun to change and Tim Hanni, a Master of Wine, has been leading a crusade to correct that omission. In fact, the Wine & Spirits Education Trust has recently revised their primary textbook to include a discussion of umami, wine and food pairings. Though wine possesses some glutamic acid, it contains much less than Sake.

On average, Sake contains 100-250 mg/l of glumatic acid while wine contains only 10-90 mg/l and beer even less, only 10-15 mg/l. Generally, older, earthier wines tend to possess more glutamic acid. Sherry, Port, and Madeira tend to possess some of highest levels of glutamic acid of any types of wine. But, if considering umami in your food pairing recommendations, maybe you should consider Sake instead because of its greater amount of glutamic acid..

Now, as Sake possesses a high level of glumatic acid, it possesses plenty of umami taste. So what is the impact of that umami in regards to food pairings? First, you can pair glutamic rich Sake with other glumatic rich foods, which is similar to what is sometimes done in Italian cuisine. Ripe tomatoes, used in red sauce, are rich in glutamic acid, 246 mg/100g, while Parmigiano Reggiano cheese, grated atop red sauce, contains a whopping 1680 mg/100g. That is considered an excellent pairing so why not consider adding some Sake to that equation?

Second, there is also a synergistic effect with umami, which means that when you combine foods with different sources of umami, the overall taste is intensified. So, when considering foods to pair with umami-rich Sakes, which are high in glutamic acid, then you can seek out foods with high levels of inosinate or guanylate to create that intensification effect.

Tuna, chicken and pork have relatively high amounts of inosinate (respectively 286 mg/100g, 283 mg/100g, and 260 mg/100g) though shrimp and beef have a fair amount as well (respectively 92 mg/100g and 90 mg/100g). So an umami-rich Sake would enhance the savory taste of these foods, from barbecued chicken to a filet mignon.

Mushrooms are the key possessors of guanylate, though some types have much more than others. For example, Shiitake mushrooms have a high amount of guanylate, 150 mg/100g. Thus, something like a mushroom risotto would pair very well with Sake. It is also interesting to note that truffles are one of the few foods containing all three sources of umami in a significant amount. Talk about an umami explosion!

Cheese often is rich in umami and pairs well with different Sakes. Pairing cheese with wine can sometimes be a challenge as cheese can be high in fat, salty and possess strong flavors. With red wine, the saltiness can sometimes cause issues because of the tannins. The strong flavors can also sometimes overpower wine. Sake though has no issues with saltiness, as it does not possess tannins, and can stand up to those strong flavors, even blue cheese. Sake’s ability to stand up to strong flavors also makes it an excellent pairing for bitter vegetables, like asparagus, thought to be a difficult food to pair with wine. Just think how Sake is able to cope with strong wasabi flavors in sushi.

Besides glumatic acid, other amino acids in Sake provide additional benefits. They help to neutralize fishy flavors in seafood, something wine generally cannot do. Thus, Sake may be a better pairing with seafood than wine, especially any seafood that might tend to possess a more fishy flavor, like uni. In addition, some red wines contain minute amounts of iron that cause seafood to leave a fishy taste in your mouth. That does not happen with Sake.

So expand your horizons and experiment with Sake with food pairings. Try some Italian, barbecue, burgers, pizza, Spanish tapas, or seafood with a delicious Sake. Enhance the umami of your dish, and revel in the savoriness that envelops your mouth. And if you find you love a certain Sake pairing, please come back and share your discovery with me.

What are some of your favorite, non-traditional food pairings with Sake?

Read More

Rant: Time To Give Up The Blog?

Has my blog been ruining my enjoyment of good food and wine? Should I give up the blog so that I can better enjoy gustatory pleasures? I might not be alone in these feelings, and in fact, many food and wine bloggers may find themselves in this same situation. So what is a writer to do?

The impetus to these questions was a brief and intriguing quote in the new issue of  Scientific American Mind (May/June 2012). It read: “Did you just enjoy a delicious meal? Consider keeping it to yourself. Researchers found that describing how good a cupcake tastes makes you enjoy it less and explaining why a movie is horrible makes you hate it less. Recounting an experience may enhance your understanding of it, which then dulls your opinion of the incident.”

I attempted to gather additional information about this study but was unable to find anything online thus I know nothing of its methodology or sample size. But nonetheless it raises an interesting point, worthy of pondering. It is especially timely as it deals with issues that I partially addressed in my wine review last Friday.

In general, I do not feel that my writing about food and wine diminishes my pleasure, and I also feel that it can enhance my understanding of such matters. But, I can see that over analyzing such matters might serve to diminish one's feelings about such culinary pleasures. At times, this can be a fine line, something to take into consideration when writing about our experiences. It is possible that this is more applicable the closer your writing becomes to a career and not just a hobby.

There are times when analysis of all these issues can interfere with one's enjoyment. Case in point, as mentioned in my wine review on Friday, I did not engage in a technical analysis of the wine, choosing instead to revel in its sensory pleasures. It was a time to simply enjoy the beauty of this wine, and not think about it critically. At that time, such an analysis would have diminished the occasion. I have felt that same way about certain meals as well, that they only needed to be savored and enjoyed in their own, without dissecting them with a critical eye.

So, as long as I understand and accept the existence of such occasions, then I have no complaints about the times I write about my drinking and dining. In addition, my writing feeds other pleasures and satisfactions, which are their own rewards. I garner enjoyment from sharing my experiences with others, with supporting the people and places I feel worthy. It is eminently satisfying when my readers follow my recommendations and suggestions, and greatly enjoy what they find.

I am certainly going to continue to write and blog about my experiences. Next month, on May 9, will be my blog's fifth anniversary and I plan to see many more such anniversaries. But I recommend that my fellow writers ponder these questions, and determine for themselves whether their writing diminishes the pleasures of their food and drink. In fact, bloggers in other fields may want to consider these questions too. For example, does reviewing a novel diminish your enjoyment of it?

What are your thoughts about the quote above?

Read More

International Seafood Show: A Sustainability Primer

"All men are equal before fish."
--Herbert Hoover

As I have already mentioned, Sustainability is Prevalent at the 2012 International Boston Seafood Show (IBSS). It almost seems like you can't walk more thirty feet without encountering something related to seafood sustainability. That is certainly very positive but it is also partially a disadvantage as it is impossible, even during three days, to be able to visit all of the various seafood sustainability seminars and talk to all of the exhibitors who are involved with sustainability. Thus, you must carefully pick and choose your stops, trying to gather information on the big picture, while also trying to touch on some of the most compelling and interesting details. That is a challenge but any passionate writer will welcome the opportunity to face this obstacle.

In the Sustainability Conference Track alone, there were six seminars such as A Retailers’ Guide to Sustainable Seafood, Making Sense of Seafood Sustainability through Positive Engagement, and Implementing a Sustainable Seafood Program for your Restaurant-How to Navigate through the Sea of Conflicting NGO Information. But other Tracks also had some sustainability-related seminars and there were even a few independent conferences touching on these issues, including U.S. Achieves Monumental Goal for Sustaining Wild-Caught Seafood and Achieving Cargo Security, Food Safety and Sustainability in the Seafood Supply Chain. As each conference lasts from 60-90 minutes, they can eat up your time at the show. I selected several conferences to attend, garnering some valuable and fascinating information.

In the main exhibit hall, there were numerous organizations devoted to sustainable issues, such as Monterey Bay Aquarium, Trace Register, Marine Stewardship Council, Fish Choice, and Seaweb, and each of them possesses valuable intelligence. But, if I chose to sit and chat with each and every one of them, it would have eaten up much of my time at the seafood show. That doesn't include all of the many dozens of seafood purveyors who sell sustainable seafood. Fortunately, you can easily and quickly gather contact information for all of these companies so that you can follow up with them at a later date, when you have much more time to devote to seeking answers to your sustainability questions. I spoke to several of the sustainability organizations and a number of seafood vendors, and will be discussing these issues with more companies and vendors tomorrow.

From all of the information I gathered, as well as from using knowledge I have previously acquired, I think we can break the issue of seafood sustainability down into three key points. In various forms, I heard these three items continually repeated by everyone I spoke to, though no one stated them in the exact manner that I am about to do. I want these three key points to be easy enough for everyone to understand, including consumers who know little, if anything, about sustainability. Yet I wanted them to possess depth as well, so that those well educated in sustainability issues will find reason to embrace these three keys.

1. Seafood sustainability is vital.
Not a single person mentioned that we can safely ignore sustainability. Everyone said it was a vital issue, one which we must embrace or the repercussions could be dire for the entire world. Obviously, the prominence of sustainability at this show is indicative of its great importance. Kerry Coughlin of the Marine Stewardship Council put it well when she stated that "seafood sustainability is a food security issue and not a luxury." It is not something just for wealthy, white suburbanities but is an issue that cross all racial, economic, and class lines. Sam Rauch, the Acting Director of NOAA, stated "Fishing is business, it is jobs, it is money, it is food." It is an integral part of our economy, and without the fishing industry, there would be significant adverse economic ramifications.

Consider the statistic that approximately 115 million tons of seafood are consumed annually on a global basis. It is predicted that by 2030, our ever-growing population will need about another 40 million tons of seafood. The only way we will be able to meet that future need is by ensuring we do not diminish or destroy fish species now. If we want our children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy the diversity of seafood we currently enjoy, then we must preserve fish species. No one wants to be responsible for driving a species to extinction.

2. Seafood sustainability is complex.
Everyone also agreed that this issue is very complex, and you can easily find experts who will differ on numerous specific issues. For example, various sustainability organizations have promulgated lists of which seafood species they consider safe and which are not. Yet those lists can differ from organization to organization, further confusing consumers. For example, Sam Rauch, the Acting Director of NOAA, stated during his conference that when a fish is caught by a U.S. mandated fishery, then it is sustainable, considering the fact that the U.S. fishing industry is the most highly regulated in the world. Yet other organizations disagree, failing to accept that all such fish are sustainable.

For example, Santi Roberts of the Monterey Bay Aquarium agreed that their Seafood Watch wallet cards oversimplify a very complex issue, though he feels they serve a purpose for some consumers. It doesn't help that sustainability is very dynamic, and there are often changes, as science improves, as fisheries takes measures to remedy their problems, and more. Consumers are rightfully puzzled by this issue. Santi mentioned the difficulty of keeping up with all of these changes, which requires frequent reworking of their seafood recommendations.

During one of the conferences, Japanese Seafood for the Evolving American Palate, there was a short discussion on ways to save the endangered Bluefin Tuna and it pointed to the diversity of opinions in such matters. Jiro Morishita, Counsellor of the Fisheries Agency of Japan stated that he felt Japanese were eating too much tuna but that international management is needed to protect it, that global quotas should be better directed toward protecting the species. He put much less responsibility on the shoulders of those who eat bluefin. On the other hand, Chef David Bouley had a more radical solution, that bluefin should be taken completely off the global market for at least 5-6 years to give it adequate time to recover. He feels that the situation of bluefin is dire and drastic measures are now required. He stated that "technology is too efficient for fishing," that it is too easy to capture many tons of fish in a short time, too easy to decimate a species without any controls.

3. Seafood sustainability is in the details.
So how do you know what is sustainable or not? The answer is found in the details, in all of the questions that should be asked to determine the diverse factors involved in this complex issue. For example, we need to know matters such as the source of the seafood, an assessment of the fish's population, the method by which it was caught, traceability throughout the chain of custody, and much more. Even if consumers knew all of the questions, not all of them would be willing to take the time to ask them, and even if they did, they might not get all the answers they desire.

As deriving these answers and details is not easy, it is fortunate that certain organizations exist who can fill in the gaps for consumers. Consumers need to understand that because of the complexities, because they often can't learn all of the details on their own, they need to build trust in others, from the chef at their favorite restaurant to eco-certifying organizations like the Marine Stewardship Council. Building that trust is likely much easier than the consumers trying to get all of the answers to their sustainability issues each and every time they purchase seafood, whether at a restaurant, supermarket or elsewhere.

Like the endangered Giant Panda, many fish species need protection, to ensure future generations will not grow up in their absence. In some respects, this is an easy issue, though in other respects, there is vast complexity which must be overcome. This post was more of a fundamental essay on seafood sustainability, and future posts will go into greater detail and complexity. But, such basics are vital as consumers play such a significant role in sustainability and they need simplicity. That seems to me to be a very Japanese mindset, one of simplicity concealing vast depths of meaning.

Read More

Rant: Beware Vegetables!

Vegans and vegetarians beware, as you might be unknowingly ingesting genetic material which could adversely affect your health. In fact, anyone eating vegetables is susceptible to this potential.

It seems that every week we are learning something new about the food we eat, either that the food is now more dangerous or more beneficial. Scientists are always studying the effect of various foods, and their results can change the way people diet.  It can be hard to keep up so what food can you really trust? Well, there is a new study adding to the confusion, and Ill try to keep the science lesson to a minimum.

MicroRNAs, which have come to the forefront of scientists' attention during the last ten years, are fragments of genetic material and they contribute to gene regulation, basically helping to determine how and when genes shut on or off. These microRNAs are found in both animals, including humans, and plants. Analysis and study of these microRNAs could lead to very positive results in defeating diseases from cancer to diabetes. But there is a potential dark side as well, which is only at the infancy of comprehension.

A recent Chinese study found, by studying rice, that microRNA in plants can actually enter the human body when those plants are ingested. Despite being digested, these microRNA can still survive and travel into the human bloodstream. Tests were performed on mice using a specific microRNA called MIR618, and the results showed that increased levels of this microRNA led to elevated cholesterol levels. So, eating rice could thus increase your cholesterol through these microRNAs.  If true, does that mean Japanese sake, made from rice, could also cause increased cholesterol? I really hope not.

Some plants could pass on positive microRNA but as the field is still very new, there are many unknowns. Their effect could even turn out to be so minimal that it could be ignored. But questions remain. For example, what types of microRNA can grapes, and thus wine, pass on? Should you really eat your broccoli? Are vegans and vegetarians playing Russian Roulette, not really understanding what the vegetables they ingest might do to their health?

Read More