Finding that savoury spot between feasting and fasting

@wwaycorrigan
[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'I came out of McDonald's the other day with two Quarter Pounders, a Big Mac, a chicken burger and three large portions of chips (or fries, if you will). A homeless guy sitting on the street mumbled to me, "Please sir, I haven't eaten in three days." My reply: "I admire your willpower."'

Some of you may have heard that one or a version of it before.

Eating foods as close to their natural state as possible can work wonders for our health. 

Fast life

It's a sign of the times that such a "joke" would be deemed offensive now, on all sides. That is, people would take umbrage at mocking a starving individual while there would also be outrage at making light of somebody who overeats. It's an addition after all, not a lifestyle choice. Poor victims.

Remember the not-too-distant past when we didn't focus on the potential offensive elements of every utterance? They are fading fast from memory.

In any case, there is plenty to suggest that humanity would be in a healthier state if we matched more so the homeless man on the forced fast (for starters, check out Dr Pradip Jamnadas at https://youtu.be/Yg6UhhV_K1s).

OK, when it comes to dieting and one's overall health and well-being, what's hot and what's not seem to be constantly changing. One week a study suggests a particular food works wonders, the next week we're told the opposite. It can get a bit confusing.

Nonetheless, I do place trust in robust, stress-tested science (not the just-get-jabbed-and-wear-a-facemask' #Science™. On top of that, the medical experts who extol the virtues of fasting aren't trying to sell a product or asking us to invest our hard-earned money in some new device or way of life.

It's the opposite, actually. By incorporating regular fasting into our lives we'd eat less and potentially save money.

I'm not going to go into all the apparent beneficial biological processes at play when one fasts, Dr Pradip Jamnadas' video referenced above does that in detail.

What I will say is that the approach endorsed by Dr Jamnadas and many others is something that I'd naturally been drifting towards — and feeling better for it. It's just more reassuring to hear respected doctors and scientists not only talk up its virtues but also explain the science behind it. I'm usually wary of those who instantly opt for the pharmaceutical "solution" for all ailments.

'What helps me to focus on eating less but eating well when I do is the idea that I'm not succumbing to the marketing of addictive products.'

While some people in high-income nations may be experiencing a cost-of-living crisis — it's all relative — almost always there's a fast feast available. And this is normally one of poor nutritional quality i.e. highly processed and starchy-carbohydrate heavy.

Alongside that, many are still stuck in the three-meals-a-day mindset. Even if these meals were of optimum nutritional value, they most likely equate to excessive consumption for the majority.

What should be kept in mind is that the most important meal of the day is the next one you eat. So what that consists of is key (this video by Dr Sten Ekberg is one useful guide https://youtu.be/F7gDIshc-S0).

Do note, there is evidence to suggest that eating first thing in the morning is not best practice. In layman's terms, allowing your body an hour or two — or more — to "warm up" before consuming a meal is more beneficial. It's also not usually a good idea to eat just before sleeping.

Food junkies

Now, I must admit that when I listen to these experts who endorse regular fasting, I do wonder if an extremely active person can get the same benefits — cell regeneration and suchlike — more quickly. 

My thinking is that such types burn off what they consume at a quicker rate than somebody with a more sedentary lifestyle. Thus, fasting bonuses might kick in earlier. Dr Jamnadas, let us know your thoughts!

Whatever the case, I have been doing my best to reduce my eating window. I try to regularly have a 14- to 18-hour gap between ingesting food. And as mentioned earlier, I feel better for it, whether that's a placebo effect more than anything else.

I am not, though, obsessive about dietary matters. I also have weak points, which I've documented before. Although, my "BBC" addiction is nothing like that hedonistic period in 2020 when I was eating up to six mogolla chicharronas per day. Goodness! I was turning into the bread with pork fat I was scoffing.

What helps me to focus on eating less but eating well when I do is the idea that I'm not succumbing to the marketing of addictive products. And this drug pushing doesn't just come from food and beverage companies. Even governments, naively well-meaning perhaps, often endorse nonsensical nutritional advice (have you had your five-a-day yet?).

Financially difficult times and perpetual poverty spots notwithstanding, we are in an age of abundance: an abundance of relatively cheap food available at the touch of a button but also an abundance of knowledge as to what a lot of this "convenience" food does to our bodies.

Unfortunately, coupled with this age of abundance is a society well versed in its rights but very often lacking when it comes to accepting its responsibilities. Behave recklessly, fail to take care of yourself, then expect society to come up with the solutions, at a cost to us all.

The result is greater government control. A caring nanny state is just a perceived apocalyptic threat away from a wicked witch state. We've had plenty of evidence of this lately.

Thankfully, though, we still — for the most part — have control over what we put into our bodies. The eat-well-but-less-often approach may help us to keep this control for a little longer, on both the individual and societal levels.

Think fast, folks!
__________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

The just-how-it-is society

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'I'm sorry, but we can't accept that photocopy of your ID.'
'Eh, why not? It's legible, isn't it?'
'Oh, it is, it's just it has to be enlarged to 150 per cent of its actual size.'
'But why?'
'Those are the rules, Sir. It's just the way it is.'

'Don't ask questions, just follow the "rules".'

Anyone who has ever had to do official business in Colombia over the years will relate to the above. There's this fastidiousness, or at least there had been, about having photocopies of documents set to a specific size.

No doubt there was some valid reason for this when it was first introduced but few — if anybody — appear to know what that reason is now. Yet, I believe, it's still a requirement in some places.

A price for pay

Such occurrences are far from unique to these parts. Across the world, there are procedures that must be followed yet when one asks why this or that is the case, hardly anyone knows the reason. Basically, they've become customary and nobody bothers to question them.

Government bodies tend to be the worst culprits (the following satirical video gives a good idea of this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYcZc62Gf6w) but it happens elsewhere, too.

The one that always bemuses me is the need to supply paymasters with a certificate issued by my bank stating that the account exists and is genuine. Why on earth would I not give details of an active, "real" account when I want to receive money owed to me for services rendered?

I've heard it said that this is to prove that I am the account holder. OK, but what business is it of those paying me where the money goes, particularly when we're talking about private individuals? Maybe, on the odd occasion, I'd like the money sent to one of my barrio buddies (at least that way there'd be a paper record of these frequent loans I give).

'Whatever we're doing or following may indeed be broken or causing harm and we don't realise it.'

I've also been told that this payment protocol is done to cut out money laundering. I'm not sure how it manages to do that exactly.

Mentioning payments, there is a tendency in the largely toxic TV and film industry here to pay contractors a minimum of 90 days after work has been done. Again, when you ask why this is, you get the standard retort: 'It's just how it is.'

What would happen if I took the same line with paying my bills? Well, I've actually a very good idea of what the consequences are — see my previous post, Grupo Vanti's vanity: 'The customer is rarely right', for more on that.

We are, though, creatures of habit and routine. And if everything seems to be just fine, we'll stick to it: The if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it approach. The problem is, whatever we're doing or following may indeed be broken or causing harm and we don't realise it.

Fishy feeling

Take people's approach to eating. We've been conditioned, particularly since the Industrial Revolution, into believing that we must eat at least three substantial meals in a 12-hour period or so. With the sedentary lifestyles many lead these days, they'd most likely get by on just one decent dish a day, if that's even needed.

We do, of course, face many challenges in rethinking our consumption habits. There's a whole industry with lots of money, power and influence that wants us to eat, drink and be merry all the time. Then there's an associated industry ready to ease the pain on our overfed bodies with even more addictive goodies.

What all this should lead to is plenty of food for thought. Alas, when it comes to critically thinking about what we're doing, what we're being asked to do and why we're doing it, many, literally, don't give these considerations a second's thought.

I'm reminded of a story of a family who used to cut raw, whole fish in a very particular, time-consuming way before frying it in the pan. Eventually, somebody questioned the practice. It was found that it started simply because a great-grandmother only had one very small pan to cook with, so she had to cut the fish the way she did.

This made perfect sense at the time and in the circumstances — in fact, it was necessary — but the reason for its continuance had long since passed.

So it can often pay off to rediscover that unceasing child inquisitiveness, to regularly ask 'Why?'. With that, we might find that there's little substance or sense behind much of what we're being asked to do.
__________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Addicted to a prescribed life

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

Thanks to a means-tested health system and with my parents — seven children in tow — deemed too well off to receive government assistance, the idea of going to the doctor for the slightest — and not-so-slight — complaint was generally discouraged in the household of my youth.

Once you pop, you just can't stop. This is what most pharmaceutical companies want to be the case anyway.

Popping pills

Fair enough, by the time I, the youngest, started going to secondary school, our lot had improved quite a bit and would continue to do so through the Celtic Tiger years (until it all went belly up).

Nonetheless, due to the austerity that had prevailed before then, I'd learned that a trip to the general practitioner (GP) was considered an "exclusive" event. And one would have to show very good cause to gain entry. 

In any case, by about the age of 15, I'd started to match — to an extent — my father's trait where showing any momentary physical or mental infirmity was reprehensible.  

I do, though, recall those childhood days when being deemed sick enough to receive the sweet Calpol over-the-counter pain reliever was a joyous occasion.

Looking back on it now, it's as if the pharmaceutical company that produced that syrup did so with the idea of making it addictive in mind. Ludicrous thought, I know.

There were times, too, when I liked being on prescribed medication. I'm not sure why this was, but popping pills stored in a little plastic container with my name printed on it seemed kind of cool.

That's all changed now. For better or for worse, I do my best to avoid visiting the doctor or seeking pharmaceutical help.

OK, at almost 37 years of age, leading what I believe to be a largely healthy lifestyle and with no underlying conditions that I know of, there's nothing startling in the fact that I haven't felt the need for regular medical check-ups or medication.

'A vaccine's modus operandi is to induce or increase an organism's natural immunity mechanisms. Without them for certain potentially deadly diseases, the human body would simply be overwhelmed.'

Yes, it may not be the wisest move to be so reluctant to seek medical assistance should the need arise, but I'd like to think that my body would give me signs if there was something malignant at play that required outside help.

Also — and many of us have plenty of anecdotes to back this up — just because a medical practitioner gives one the all-clear doesn't mean that everything is fine.

What's more, when there is something untoward, some doctors have a tendency to automatically reach for their old reliable, the prescription: 'Pelt them with pills.'

A late aunt of mine used to uncontrollably, albeit mildly, shake. It was put down as just one symptom of various complications she had following a brain haemorrhage. 

It was subsequently discovered it was due to a chemical imbalance from the myriad of medications she was taking. Little wonder. I recall her handbag being like a portable pharmacy.

Body and mind over matter

This is not to say that I'm against all modern medicine and medical procedures. One risks severely reducing one's life expectancy in taking such a stance.

On that point, the argument could be made that my late sister would still be with us had she opted for chemotherapy to deal with her breast cancer rather than go an alternative route. We'll never know.

If you're not fully in agreement with whatever treatment you receive, there is a possibility it won't work. The mind is a powerful force after all. And we all do have to face death at some stage.

Then, of course, there are vaccines, perhaps the greatest medical discovery humankind has ever made.

A vaccine's modus operandi — important to mention in these times — is to induce or increase an organism's natural immunity mechanisms. Without vaccines for certain potentially deadly diseases, the human body would simply be overwhelmed.

One's organism could, in theory, fend off the likes of polio or yellow fever without the aid of a vaccine. Based on case fatality rates for those diseases, however, one would be taking a huge gamble adopting such an approach.  

With Sars-Cov-2, on the other hand, we've known from an early stage that many people have solid defences against the infection, an infection that kills quite discriminately i.e. the elderly and the obese have a far greater risk of severe illness and death.  

Thus, the need for covid-19 vaccines for all has always been questionable, particularly when there are some not-insignificant, genuine doubts hanging over these jabs. This push for compulsory vaccines appears to have more to do with exerting control than being for the greater good of public health.

While the great advancements in medical science have significantly increased our life expectancy, we must be aware of our limitations. We must also remain cognisant of the fact that sometimes the natural process is better left alone.

One doesn't need to be a scholar of history to know that human interference — even when done in good faith — doesn't always produce positive outcomes.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

 

The vaccine vexers

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'He dreamt that the whole world was condemned to a terrible new strange plague that had come to Europe from the depths of Asia ... Some new sorts of microbes were attacking the bodies of men, but these microbes were endowed with intelligence and will. Men attacked by them became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible. Whole villages, whole towns and peoples went mad from the infection ... Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands. They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know whom to blame, whom to justify.'

Thus dreamt Raskolnikov in Fyodor Dostoevsky's classic novel, Crime and Punishment. Published in 1866 and a dream in a work of fiction it may be, yet the passage could be used with some accuracy to describe human behaviour during this covid-19 pandemic.

Lifesaver. Or is it?

Pandemonium

Since the novel coronavirus arrived on the world stage, I've touched on pretty much all of the contentious issues. 

Namely, the collateral damage of wholesale lockdowns together with the certainty of those endorsing them that they actually work and are worth it, and the coercive mass vaccination drive that with each passing day leaves more questions than answers.

As the pandemic becomes endemic, it's that vaccine question that vexes the most. 

When I wrote The case against vaccine passports it was thought likely that getting a jab would mean one would carry less of a viral load if infected, thus helping to reduce contagion, while also becoming less ill. The latter appears to hold true for the elderly and vulnerable yet data are emerging showing that the former is not the case.

So, the vaccine pushers' argument that young, healthy individuals would be 'doing their bit for society' by being jabbed loses its weight. Basically, the vaccine may help to provide protection against severe covid-19 infection, particularly in the elderly, yet one is not protecting others by getting it.

However, judging by social media, many still seem to believe that in getting a jab they've helped save humanity. 

It's become common practice to publicly declare it, normally via updated profile pictures with colourful I-got-the-vaccine graphics. You'd swear they'd just discovered the cure for cancer.

These pietistic pronouncements are nauseating considering there is much we still don't know. They only serve to distance those with genuine questions that have yet to be satisfactorily answered. 

'One must be willing to change tack when new information dictates but even allowing for that our decision-makers have been suspiciously contradictory, within the myopic mindset that covid is practically the only mortal threat we face.'

Even worse is the palpable anger from some of those vaccinated directed at those who are not. It's baffling. You're protected, guys, so why the annoyance?

In fact, maybe all of us 'stupid folk' not pharmaceutically protected will die from covid soon, pruning humanity of much of its current asininity. You should be happy.

I must add, I'd rather see vaccines administered to those who would truly benefit from them, no matter where they are in the world, ahead of some young Sam or Samantha in a high-income country, with the finest medical care at their disposal.

The unaccountables

Just to be clear, I'm not anti-vax as a rule, despite being labelled thus by some people. I've had numerous inoculations throughout my life. It's simply that when it comes to the covid jab, I'm far from convinced of its benefits for somebody like me at this remove.

It also doesn't help that the leaders and public health officials now imploring, nay threatening us to get vaccinated have been anything but consistent throughout the pandemic.

OK, one must be willing to change tack when new information dictates but even allowing for that our decision-makers have been suspiciously contradictory, within the myopic mindset that covid is practically the only mortal threat we face.

That many have now lost any remaining trust they had had in them is not at all surprising.

This returns us nicely to that prescient passage in Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov's dream concluded:

'The alarm bell was ringing all day long in the towns; men rushed together, but why they were summoned and who was summoning them no one knew ... Men met in groups, agreed on something, swore to keep together, but at once began on something quite different from what they had proposed. They accused one another, fought and killed each other ... The plague spread and moved further and further. Only a few men could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people, destined to found a new race and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their voices.'

For our 21st-Century, real-life pandemic, there were early hopes that we would come out of it cleaner and greener, renewed and purified, with more shared responsibility.

Alas, it looks like we'll only become more centrally controlled, less independent and with greater inequality.

In the same way that people both believe(d) and fear(ed) a god that we cannot see, Big Tech and its affiliates are now filling this  godless void.

Largely invisible, unaccountable masters, moulding the masses to fit into their utopia. Worryingly, most are marching merrily to the madness.
_______________________________________________________________

Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".