Strident:
1. Loud and harsh, grating
2. Presenting a point of view, especially a controversial one, in an excessively and unpleasantly forceful way
Oh well, calling it as I see it.
Empirical:
1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.
2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation and experiment.
3. Guided by practical experience and not theory - or hearsay.
Yes, that's precisely what I am talking about, no blind faith or handbooks needed.
Earnest:
1. Serious in intention, purpose, or effort, sincerely zealous.
2. Showing depth and sincerity of feeling.
Yes, always. And goes hand in hand with the first one, sadly.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
A trifle strident...
Something that knocks around my brain is an innocuous comment a friend made, "as a species we have forgotten how to eat."
In this health nut phase of mine, something I am wishing will be more than just a phase, like the violin turned out to be, the deeper I dig the more awed I am at the extent to which we, as a species, have forgotten how and what to eat, not to mention how we live.
We live in "camps", camps of frequently obese and overweight people who appear lean and svelte one day and inflated or bloated soon thereafter. Some turn on an IV (intravenous) diet, some eat only cabbage for awhile, some turn to something called a General Motors diet and some eat like hunters and gatherers on a paleolithic diet without considering the lifespan of paleolithic man.
The last line of this Wikipedia passage probably underscores the hilarity of the paleolithic diet philosophy:
We met someone who, along with his seven year old daughter, was on this diet. He told us that there was nothing but venison, obtained via a Pennsylvania supplier, in his freezer. Perhaps some vegetables but really nothing else. Really? He defended against the lifespan arguments by stating that they cooked their food in their tiny little caves and inhaled a lot of smoke which is why they died early, not because of this so called paleo diet ("so called", in my opinion because I don't think the original paleo diet was so venison skewed, they probably didn't just eat what they killed).
Each of these food camps are insistent and can present compelling reasons for their choices.
Intuition, however, always gets short shrift in this land we call our land. We like standardized approaches, we like to force a framework on things. We box everything within rigid outlines. We like creating formulas and "bibles". We then swear by our little handbooks so that we can set aside things like reasoning, logic and foresight. It is compelling to be spoon fed a way of eating (Atkins), a way of living (The Secret), a way of thinking (any number of Dr Phil types getting richer by the minute).
So we have enough experts out there. If something works for someone they decide that their singular insight can be packaged and sold in bite-sized pieces to all the blind, stumbling masses. All sheep need shepherds.
Millions get minted on the basis of something that worked for someone. One size fits all, what could possibly sell better?
Take the debate over whether three meals a day or constant grazing needs to be the norm, the healthier strategy. There are as many dogmatic opinions and "bibles" here as there are people on the leanness and obesity karmic wheel!
Each person is different, each person's metabolic needs are different, their hereditary factors dictate their needs, their biochemical wiring dictates requirements. One size can never fit all.
The only prevailing logic, the only decision driver should be the fact that all things are interconnected: your psychological state, your habits, how you adapt, how you grow, your very own personal circumstances. Perhaps your post-prandial insulin spikes send the right neuro-transmitters through your system, perhaps some others need to minimize those spikes and keep them steady. Perhaps some can only do well with a three-meal strategy while others need to graze throughout the day. It can't be dictated through someone's idea of a one size health and nutrition blockbuster for all.
One size never fits all. Not in life, not in nutrition. "Schools of thought" simply skew thought. We have to be our own monitors, our own judges. We have to think for ourselves, be curious, be empirical and above all - be earnest.
In this health nut phase of mine, something I am wishing will be more than just a phase, like the violin turned out to be, the deeper I dig the more awed I am at the extent to which we, as a species, have forgotten how and what to eat, not to mention how we live.
We live in "camps", camps of frequently obese and overweight people who appear lean and svelte one day and inflated or bloated soon thereafter. Some turn on an IV (intravenous) diet, some eat only cabbage for awhile, some turn to something called a General Motors diet and some eat like hunters and gatherers on a paleolithic diet without considering the lifespan of paleolithic man.
The last line of this Wikipedia passage probably underscores the hilarity of the paleolithic diet philosophy:
Overall, Paleolithic peoples experienced less famine and malnutrition than the Neolithic farming tribes that followed them.[16][98] This was partly because Paleolithic hunter-gatherers had access to a wider variety of plants and other foods, which allowed them a more nutritious diet and a decreased risk of famine.[16][18][58] Many of the famines experienced by Neolithic (and some modern) farmers were caused or amplified by their dependence on a small number of crops.[16][18][58] The greater amount of meat obtained by hunting big game animals in Paleolithic diets than in Mesolithic and Neolithic diets may have also allowed Paleolithic Hunter-gatherers to enjoy a more nutritious diet than both Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic agriculturalists.[98] It is also unlikely that Paleolithic hunter-gatherers were affected by modern diseases of affluence and extended life such as Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease andcerebrovascular disease, because they ate mostly lean meats and plants and frequently engaged in intense physical activity [99][100], and because the average lifespan was shorter than the age of common-onset of these conditions.[101][102]That's right, they were gone before any diseases could hit. And did paleo woman really look like this, the heart disease, diabetes, blood pressure trifecta waiting to happen? My health insurance company would refuse to insure me if I aimed for this:
We met someone who, along with his seven year old daughter, was on this diet. He told us that there was nothing but venison, obtained via a Pennsylvania supplier, in his freezer. Perhaps some vegetables but really nothing else. Really? He defended against the lifespan arguments by stating that they cooked their food in their tiny little caves and inhaled a lot of smoke which is why they died early, not because of this so called paleo diet ("so called", in my opinion because I don't think the original paleo diet was so venison skewed, they probably didn't just eat what they killed).
Each of these food camps are insistent and can present compelling reasons for their choices.
Intuition, however, always gets short shrift in this land we call our land. We like standardized approaches, we like to force a framework on things. We box everything within rigid outlines. We like creating formulas and "bibles". We then swear by our little handbooks so that we can set aside things like reasoning, logic and foresight. It is compelling to be spoon fed a way of eating (Atkins), a way of living (The Secret), a way of thinking (any number of Dr Phil types getting richer by the minute).
So we have enough experts out there. If something works for someone they decide that their singular insight can be packaged and sold in bite-sized pieces to all the blind, stumbling masses. All sheep need shepherds.
Millions get minted on the basis of something that worked for someone. One size fits all, what could possibly sell better?
Take the debate over whether three meals a day or constant grazing needs to be the norm, the healthier strategy. There are as many dogmatic opinions and "bibles" here as there are people on the leanness and obesity karmic wheel!
Each person is different, each person's metabolic needs are different, their hereditary factors dictate their needs, their biochemical wiring dictates requirements. One size can never fit all.
The only prevailing logic, the only decision driver should be the fact that all things are interconnected: your psychological state, your habits, how you adapt, how you grow, your very own personal circumstances. Perhaps your post-prandial insulin spikes send the right neuro-transmitters through your system, perhaps some others need to minimize those spikes and keep them steady. Perhaps some can only do well with a three-meal strategy while others need to graze throughout the day. It can't be dictated through someone's idea of a one size health and nutrition blockbuster for all.
One size never fits all. Not in life, not in nutrition. "Schools of thought" simply skew thought. We have to be our own monitors, our own judges. We have to think for ourselves, be curious, be empirical and above all - be earnest.
An upstart
This world is new to me. For decades I've been languishing under the rock of nonchalance and indifference to food related matters. I ate things that were readily available in frozen boxes, I believed that three packets of sugar in my morning coffee were fine because I wouldn't add sugar to anything for the rest of the day (goes without saying that I would conveniently forget that cake had sugar or gulab jamuns had sugar as long as I told myself a slice or two won't hurt me, after all I wasn't necessarily on a three-square-meals-of-cake diet).
Such nonchalance is expected, I learnt, for someone at least a decade, or even two, younger than me, in fact it is apparently an attractive representation of the state of being youthful, youthfully svelte and carefree. Much to my chagrin, this thought was confirmed in a random line from a Michel Houellebecq novel called, "The Map and the Territory":
"...standing in front of the Salad Bar where a few middle-aged women calculated, sceptically, the calorie content of the ingredients on offer."
These days I am often found, eyes agog, in organic food store aisles, reading nutrient labels, I just never thought I was screaming out my biological age in this act of nutrition consciousness! Why must such consciousness be treated as a middle-aged affliction? I guess that could be the subject of another rambling post.
For now, let's just say, I am really feeling the result of the changes I have made. It's as though every cell in my body is singing hallelujah at my having come to my senses. It's shedding all the fat it clung to as a comfort blanket in a formerly nutritionally challenged environment.
I started my day today with a berry bonanza smoothie. I blended together every berry imaginable with almond and cashew cream, water, ice cubes and some honey and it was probably the best thing I had ever tasted. I am certain I have never felt such tissue-level, deep satisfaction from anything else I've ever ingested.
Energized by the smoothie I tried my own twist on a veggie omelet. I whipped up my great tasting organic brown eggs with thinly sliced sweet orange peppers, added in a dash of garam masala, some sprinkles of garlic and parsley, a dash of sea salt, a tiny bit of the same almond-cashew cream that was used in the aforementioned smoothie and then made an omelet out of it all. It is tasting amazing, I am eating it as I write. Who in their right mind waits for 45 years before making room in their grocery budget for sweet orange peppers? No one, I imagine.
That's what makes me a parvenu to this right-eating strata of society. The people who are the Mayflower elite of this strata weren't "health nuts", "rabbit-food eaters" or food activists. They were right. So many of these right thinking people are my friends here (none of them will be tagged, it is, after all, embarrassing to announce to the world how much of a troglodyte one has been).
They solved the food mystery eons ago. Now they'll pat me on my head in a patronizing way, saying things like better late than never, and try this, try that, you don't know the half of it...etc. I realize I don't. But being empirical about this whole thing is so much more satisfying than digging for or seeking advice.
Basic biochemistry in laymen's terms (readily available on Google), knowledge of the Kreb's Cycle (also readily at one's service via Wikipedia) and realization that all human organs talk to each other via certain neuro-transmitters that signal well-being or need, almost in zero and one like sequences of response or lack of response, that's about all one needs in order to get this whole thing right.
Nutrient label reading middle-aged person and proud to be a newly minted one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)