we made it through our first day... my baby girl's first day at day care and my first day back at work. I wont lie, it was serious trauma. i cried the whole way back to work. But once I was there, it was pretty much back to normal, I had an 8 o clock meeting. I am only doing half days this week, and then next week it is back full time. But, she did great when she was there, and I managed.
I will say this. having a kiddo means schlepping around A LOT of stuff. I had the diaper bag, my giant pump (in its own bag), my shoes, my breakfast (and eventually lunch too), my purse, and of course the baby. Along with winter coats and boots. Thank God I was only travelling across the street!
hopefully tomorrow will go as smoothly. now she is asleep as I write this, and soon it will be bath and hopefully bedtime. I dont want a long night, i am more tired than ever.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
oh...no wonder...
cookbooks make you fat. I collect cookbooks. you do the math.
Per the LA Times
'Joy of Cooking' or 'Joy of Obesity'?
In the classic cookbook, published since 1931, changes in ingredients and serving sizes have led to a 63% increase in calories per serving in 17 of the recipes, a study shows.
By Jeannine Stein February 17, 2009
Restaurants get a bad rap for serving gargantuan portions of food and contributing to Americans' expanding waistlines. But what if something in your home were equally guilty? Something as innocent as . . . "Joy of Cooking"?The classic cookbook, first published in 1931, has done some girth-expanding of its own, a study has found.
More calories
Published as a letter Tuesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the report examined 18 classic recipes found in seven editions of the book from 1936 to 2006. It found that calorie counts for 14 of the recipes have ballooned by an average of 928 calories, or 44%, per recipe. And serving sizes have grown as well.Take beef stroganoff: In the 1997 edition, the recipe called for three tablespoons of sour cream. The 2006 edition calls for one cup.Then there's waffles: In 1997, the basic recipe made 12 six-inch waffles; in 2006, the same ingredients made about six waffles.
Overall, the scientists found, changes in ingredients and serving sizes led to a 63% increase in calories per serving in 17 of the recipes between 1936 and 2006."When we talk about obesity, people like to plant the source of the issue on away-from-home dining," said Brian Wansink, the study's co-author and director of Cornell University's Food and Brand Lab. "But that raised the thought in my mind: Is that really the source of things?. . . . What has happened in what we've been doing in our own homes over the years?"Wansink and co-author Collin Payne, assistant professor of marketing at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, said they wanted to quantify how home cooking had changed, but knew that doing it anecdotally wasn't scientific. So they turned to cookbooks, settling on "Joy of Cooking" because of its history and the fact that it had enough recipes carried through all editions.In addition to beef stroganoff and waffles, recipes chosen for analysis included macaroni and cheese, goulash, Spanish rice, brownies, sugar cookies and apple pie.Wansink said similar calorie increases were found in other enduring recipe books such as the "Better Homes and Gardens Cook Book."The study found that some of the added calories in the dishes came from a substitution of ingredients -- extra meat instead of vegetables, for example. Back in the day, meat was expensive, so less of it was used, he said.In other recipes, Wansink said, sauces were added, or more butter or sugar, or extras such as nuts and raisins. "They're now there for a little more excitement," he said.Cultural shifts may have also had an effect on recipe ingredients and portion sizes, Wansink added. Families have gotten smaller, so a dish that once was consumed by eight people is now consumed by four.And because sizes of dinner plates have grown over the years, a standard 2-ounce portion of pasta can now look diminutive.Jeannie Gazzaniga-Moloo, a Roseville, Calif.-based registered dietitian and spokesperson for the American Dietetic Assn., said she was surprised by the findings."I would have expected that with the increasing awareness of nutrition, the calories would have been lower or stayed the same," she said.Beth Wareham, editor of the 2006 edition, is not losing sleep over the study."It's such a tiny number of recipes. It's really a non-event," she said.She said that the book has become more healthful overall, booting out many processed foods in favor of fresh ingredients. The 2006 edition has a chapter on nutrition written by Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health.In putting together the latest edition, writers and recipe-testers used their common sense in terms of ingredients and serving sizes, Wareham said -- and they figured readers have some common sense of their own."We give Americans credit," she added, "for knowing that eating a brownie is not as good as eating a plate of whole grains and vegetables."jeannine.stein@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-joy17-2009feb17,0,7687368.story
Per the LA Times
'Joy of Cooking' or 'Joy of Obesity'?
In the classic cookbook, published since 1931, changes in ingredients and serving sizes have led to a 63% increase in calories per serving in 17 of the recipes, a study shows.
By Jeannine Stein February 17, 2009
Restaurants get a bad rap for serving gargantuan portions of food and contributing to Americans' expanding waistlines. But what if something in your home were equally guilty? Something as innocent as . . . "Joy of Cooking"?The classic cookbook, first published in 1931, has done some girth-expanding of its own, a study has found.
More calories
Published as a letter Tuesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the report examined 18 classic recipes found in seven editions of the book from 1936 to 2006. It found that calorie counts for 14 of the recipes have ballooned by an average of 928 calories, or 44%, per recipe. And serving sizes have grown as well.Take beef stroganoff: In the 1997 edition, the recipe called for three tablespoons of sour cream. The 2006 edition calls for one cup.Then there's waffles: In 1997, the basic recipe made 12 six-inch waffles; in 2006, the same ingredients made about six waffles.
Overall, the scientists found, changes in ingredients and serving sizes led to a 63% increase in calories per serving in 17 of the recipes between 1936 and 2006."When we talk about obesity, people like to plant the source of the issue on away-from-home dining," said Brian Wansink, the study's co-author and director of Cornell University's Food and Brand Lab. "But that raised the thought in my mind: Is that really the source of things?. . . . What has happened in what we've been doing in our own homes over the years?"Wansink and co-author Collin Payne, assistant professor of marketing at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, said they wanted to quantify how home cooking had changed, but knew that doing it anecdotally wasn't scientific. So they turned to cookbooks, settling on "Joy of Cooking" because of its history and the fact that it had enough recipes carried through all editions.In addition to beef stroganoff and waffles, recipes chosen for analysis included macaroni and cheese, goulash, Spanish rice, brownies, sugar cookies and apple pie.Wansink said similar calorie increases were found in other enduring recipe books such as the "Better Homes and Gardens Cook Book."The study found that some of the added calories in the dishes came from a substitution of ingredients -- extra meat instead of vegetables, for example. Back in the day, meat was expensive, so less of it was used, he said.In other recipes, Wansink said, sauces were added, or more butter or sugar, or extras such as nuts and raisins. "They're now there for a little more excitement," he said.Cultural shifts may have also had an effect on recipe ingredients and portion sizes, Wansink added. Families have gotten smaller, so a dish that once was consumed by eight people is now consumed by four.And because sizes of dinner plates have grown over the years, a standard 2-ounce portion of pasta can now look diminutive.Jeannie Gazzaniga-Moloo, a Roseville, Calif.-based registered dietitian and spokesperson for the American Dietetic Assn., said she was surprised by the findings."I would have expected that with the increasing awareness of nutrition, the calories would have been lower or stayed the same," she said.Beth Wareham, editor of the 2006 edition, is not losing sleep over the study."It's such a tiny number of recipes. It's really a non-event," she said.She said that the book has become more healthful overall, booting out many processed foods in favor of fresh ingredients. The 2006 edition has a chapter on nutrition written by Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health.In putting together the latest edition, writers and recipe-testers used their common sense in terms of ingredients and serving sizes, Wareham said -- and they figured readers have some common sense of their own."We give Americans credit," she added, "for knowing that eating a brownie is not as good as eating a plate of whole grains and vegetables."jeannine.stein@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-joy17-2009feb17,0,7687368.story
Sunday, February 8, 2009
use your imagination
pretend you have a light colored carpet in your living room. And you are going to be having about 30 people over for a little luncheon party get together celebratory kind of thing. But you want to save money and have it be as easy as possible to prepare since you wont be around in the morning to get things set up. So would you get pizza and run the risk of people getting it on the carpet, or would you spend more money and get subs?
Saturday, February 7, 2009
death and taxes (ok, no death...just taxes)
Can i just say I love doing my taxes? I get so much satisfaction from doing them myself, and I get even greater satisfaction when we get a decent return. I wasn't sure when I was going to be able to get them done, but was able to get it all done this morning. a fabulous start to my weekend!
Friday, February 6, 2009
return to the dark side
I made my official return to work plans. Boo. Hiss. Yuck.
The day care called me on Wednesday, and they let me know they had an opening sooner. Originally, they were not going to be able to take my little girl until March 13th. But they had an opening sooner. When you ask? Any time I wanted. (I want to never send her...)
So I called my boss. I will be going back to work on the 23rd of February. That week I will work only half days (more for my sanity than for anyone else) and then starting in March it will be full time again.
I am so sad and devastated. I think what makes it harder to deal with is that my mother in law will be coming for a visit the week before I go back. She is visiting from Florida. So really, that week with my daughter will not be about me and her. She will be all consumed by grandma, as she should be. My mother in law actually leaves that Monday morning. Which really leaves me only next week with her before she is with someone else all the time.
Don't get me wrong. I am in awe of this day care. they have amazing staff, a great curriculum in every classroom, and it is across the street from my house. I cant ask for better. I am impressed with them and I know she will do very very well there. It is just I never knew how hard it would be to face leaving her. I haven't been away from her for more than an hour in the last 8 weeks.
I have turned into a total sap. I guess kids will do that to you. I guess one good thing is that I will save a lot of vacation time this way, which I can then take later on. (If we all still have jobs then...)
The day care called me on Wednesday, and they let me know they had an opening sooner. Originally, they were not going to be able to take my little girl until March 13th. But they had an opening sooner. When you ask? Any time I wanted. (I want to never send her...)
So I called my boss. I will be going back to work on the 23rd of February. That week I will work only half days (more for my sanity than for anyone else) and then starting in March it will be full time again.
I am so sad and devastated. I think what makes it harder to deal with is that my mother in law will be coming for a visit the week before I go back. She is visiting from Florida. So really, that week with my daughter will not be about me and her. She will be all consumed by grandma, as she should be. My mother in law actually leaves that Monday morning. Which really leaves me only next week with her before she is with someone else all the time.
Don't get me wrong. I am in awe of this day care. they have amazing staff, a great curriculum in every classroom, and it is across the street from my house. I cant ask for better. I am impressed with them and I know she will do very very well there. It is just I never knew how hard it would be to face leaving her. I haven't been away from her for more than an hour in the last 8 weeks.
I have turned into a total sap. I guess kids will do that to you. I guess one good thing is that I will save a lot of vacation time this way, which I can then take later on. (If we all still have jobs then...)
Monday, February 2, 2009
super miserly superbowl
So, I am on a serious pay off our debts so I can stay home kick lately.
We were having some friends over for a low key Superbowl party, and the guys wanted to get Country Sweet for dinner. Which in all fairness, they get like once a year now. (When we were younger, we used to get it once a week.) So the wives agreed that this is what we will eat.
One morning last week, at about 3am, I got a brilliant miserly idea. We will buy frozen chicken fingers, frozen french fries, and Country Sweet sauce, and I will make my own for a fraction of the price.
It was really good. The chicken fingers tasted EXACTLY the same. No difference what so ever. Even our picky eater guest thought they were good. The fries - well, there is something to be said for fries that are actually fried. But they were good enough.
But the best part was the fact that the cost of the entire 8 pounds of french fries (we didn't use all of them) and the 4 pounds of chicken was the same as if my husband and I purchased 2 dinners from the restaurant. Approximately 20 buckaroonies for an entire super bowl party.
I feel proud of my miserly self.
We were having some friends over for a low key Superbowl party, and the guys wanted to get Country Sweet for dinner. Which in all fairness, they get like once a year now. (When we were younger, we used to get it once a week.) So the wives agreed that this is what we will eat.
One morning last week, at about 3am, I got a brilliant miserly idea. We will buy frozen chicken fingers, frozen french fries, and Country Sweet sauce, and I will make my own for a fraction of the price.
It was really good. The chicken fingers tasted EXACTLY the same. No difference what so ever. Even our picky eater guest thought they were good. The fries - well, there is something to be said for fries that are actually fried. But they were good enough.
But the best part was the fact that the cost of the entire 8 pounds of french fries (we didn't use all of them) and the 4 pounds of chicken was the same as if my husband and I purchased 2 dinners from the restaurant. Approximately 20 buckaroonies for an entire super bowl party.
I feel proud of my miserly self.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
