The Way We Eat Now, Originally from June 18, 2004. Relevant excerpts:
He looked for the most extreme examples of people eating a pure raw-food diet, but failed to find any, "except for people in urban settings who were philosophically committed to raw food," he says. One researcher studied several hundred German raw-foodists, who had access to food of "astonishingly high quality" relative to wild raw foods, says Wrangham. Nonetheless, 25 percent of this group was chronically underweight, and 50 percent of the females "were so low in energy that they stopped having menstrual periods," he says. So even under exceptionally good conditions of superb year-round food availability, people had low energy and were "biologically incapable of appropriate reproduction, " says Wrangham. From an evolutionary point of view, sterility gets you bounced from the gene pool.
So much for the food purists. But here's what describes me:
In 1981, David Jenkins, a professor of nutrition at the University of Toronto, led a team that tested various foods to determine which were best for diabetics. They developed a "glycemic index" that ranked foods from 0 to 100, depending on how rapidly the body turned them into glucose. This work overturned some established bromides, such as the distinction between "simple" and "complex" carbohydrates: a baked russet potato, for example, traditionally defined as a complex carbohydrate, has a glycemic rating of 85 (±12; studies vary) whereas a 12-ounce can of Coca-Cola appears on some glycemic indices at 63.Eating high-glycemic foods dumps large amounts of glucose suddenly into the bloodstream, triggering the pancreas to secrete insulin, the hormone that allows glucose to enter the body's cells for metabolism or storage. The pancreas over-responds to the spike in glucose—a more rapid rise than a hunter-gatherer's bloodstream was likely to encounter—and secretes lots of insulin. But while high-glycemic foods raise blood sugar quickly, "they also leave the gastrointestinal tract quickly," Ludwig explains. "The plug gets pulled." With so much insulin circulating, blood sugar plummets. This triggers a second wave of hormones, including stress hormones like epinephrine. "The body puts on the emergency brakes," says Ludwig. "It releases any stored fuels—the liver starts releasing glucose. This raises blood sugar back into the normal range, but at a cost to the body."
One cost, documented by studies at the School of Public Health, is that going through this kind of physiologic stress three to five times per day doubles the risk of heart attacks. Another cost is excess hunger. The precipitous drop in blood sugar triggers primal mechanisms in the brain: "The brain thinks the body is starving," Ludwig explains. "It doesn't care about the 30 pounds of fat socked away, so it sends you to the refrigerator to get a quick fix, like a can of soda."
Glycemic spikes may underlie Ludwig and Gortmaker's finding, published in the Lancet two years ago, that each additional daily serving of a sugar-sweetened beverage multiplies the risk of obesity by 1.6. Some argue that people compensate for such sugary intake by eating less later on, to balance it out, but Ludwig asserts, "We don't compensate well when calories come in liquid form. The meal has to go through your gut, where the brain gets satiety signals that slow you down. On the other hand, you could drink a 64-ounce soft drink before you knew what hit you."
The last paragraph in particular is where my problem is. That's not to say that I have a problem with weight, it's just that I don't think that I have the body I should have naturally, without the artificial EVERYTHING. (By the way, the next time someone complains something about something not being natural, like homosexuality or Internet social activity, point them to this article and ask them when was the last time they did ANYTHING natural, and how often they do these things. I don't think that people who can't even eat naturally are in any position to judge someone who they think fucks or relates to the world unnaturally.)
This article is quite long and covers a lot of ground. What I got out of it, though, was a reinforcement of the notion that eating less is a very good thing, unless the food (or is it "phood" these days?) is filles with water and air. There's a certain admirable strength to it that I, for one, seem to lack.
Just don't ask me to stop with the beer.
And I always have. Actually, I am not impressed by much jewelry anyway, whether it be the finest stone set in alabaster whogivesafuck, or something that came out of a vending machine. I generally do not care.
Martine made a post about why diamonds may not be the most desirable token of love in the world. I chimed in:
This is what I have believed for at least five years. But you know, despite the fact that a woman might know and understand these facts she wants this shiny trinket regardless. The idea of diamonds has a meaning that logical, even moral facts cannot touch. "If a guy is going to spend a lot of money on a trinket just to please me, even if it's clear that it may ruin him financially, it must mean that he really loves me." I have heard women who said, "If there's no diamond, there's no love. You've gotta get rid of that guy.I have a huge problem with that; it pisses me off to no end."
I would add to this: The money for the ring would better be used towards paying down debts a house, a car, RRSPs, RESPs, children's needs, professional needs, household needs, a trip...practically anything that the COUPLE would need. In light of the absolute requirement for a diamond, everything else that he did for her in the relationship which may have lasted 10 years, doesn't really mean shit.
I really fucking hate diamonds.
Read this headline.
When I read it, the first thing I thought was, "How the hell are they putting monkeys on trial? And what does this have to do with AIDS research?" Of course I quickly dismissed this and thought of the Scopes Monkey Trial. I was wrong. Without reading the article, I thought that it might have to do with this:
Prosecutor: "We will prove, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that these monkeys, in an ill-fated attempt to create a separate race of supermonkeys that would evenutally supplant human beings, engineered a plot to willfully seduce a carefully selected weak-minded human male to impregnate this particular monkey (points finger accusingly at female monkey)."Defense: "We object, Your Honour, on the basis of bullshit!"
Judge: "Watch yourself, councillor. You may "call bullshit", but I will not tolerate your unbridled use of the word "bullshit". Keep it clean."
This has been another episode of "How My Mind Works Sometimes".
P.S.; I STILL haven't read the article. I'm sure it's interesting, though.
That's the headline for this article from the CBC. First of all, I hate this spelling (Quebecer). Please include the "k". French and English people alike are confused.
But really, is Gérald Tremblay justifiably worried? Is there reason to believe that there is a connection between what almost happened in Ontario and anything that has or will happen here? Also, is Lawrence Cannon on crack when he says that he is confident that Canadian intelligence agents would know about any link between the suspects and Quebec? Quite possibly, I think. I don't know why I feel so pessimistic about it, but I do.
I feel secure, but not because the government has invested millions to make me feel that way. I just feel that way. It's part of my charm.