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 trouble with democracy

An old friend used to say that, because he has neither an interest in nor knowledge of Irish rugby, it follows that he shouldn't have any say in who the national coach is.

So is there a better way? (Image from novelandmundane.blogspot.com.)

He used this as an analogy with the universal franchise; that is, giving everybody over a certain age the vote. 

The point he was making is that there are many people out there who display no interest in or have no real knowledge of politics, hence why should they automatically be allowed to participate in it? If you don't care and couldn't be bothered to inform yourself, then you shouldn't be given a vote.

However, comparing a national sports team with politics isn't exactly like for like. 

Those charged with running a country or district or the like will, for better or for worse, have an impact on your life, whether you like it or not. Take no interest in the rugby team or whatever and it's unlikely that it will bother you – the odd boozy night out apart, perhaps.

Yet, there still remains the question: Should you show yourself worthy, that is to say display sufficient knowledge, in order to be entitled to your political voice? Should there be a national political test?

In theory, something like that could work. However, deciding on its format would be troublesome. It could be open to much manipulation by state authorities and political activists (what isn't?).

Also, when it comes to issues that affect an individual, who is to say a person's opinion is not valid just because he/she failed a 'knowledge test' in a certain area? It's a rights and responsibilities issue in a sense; you may have the right to vote (or not vote) but you should also have the responsibility to inform yourself before you do.

The idea of setting suffrage parameters is unlikely to sit well with many. The argument against it is that it may lead to an elite controlling the masses. 

Yet, in many democratic countries that pretty much seems to be the case as is. We could just put a degree of legitimacy on it.

Plus, having a ruling elite doesn't have to be a bad thing. There are some people who are natural leaders, others who are just as happy to be led. Problems arise when those leaders don't work for the common good.

Moreover, sometimes the popular politician, elected democratically, isn't necessarily the best man/woman for the job. Just because someone or something is popular, doesn't mean he/she/it is good for you. For example, one of the most popular restaurants in the world is McDonald's. Enough said.

Churchill: Democracy man, at times. (Photo: wikipedia.org.)

So if you had a group of proven leaders, freed from the constraints of having to appeal to the majority insofar as making popular decisions just to stay in favour, and consequently in power, they would govern much more effectively. Or so the thinking goes.

But if you limit the franchise and decision making to a small number of qualified people, can it be guaranteed that you're going to get the right leadership and government each and every time? Obviously not.

Political aptitude tests aside, it could be argued that through political disengagement in many more-established democratic countries, especially among younger voters, a small group of generally elder citizens is calling the shots anyway.

Here in Colombia, anecdotally speaking, this appears to be the case. 

Not only that, but it also seems that many of these elder voters come from well-heeled, conservative backgrounds, quite removed from the lives of the country's struggling masses. Thus Colombian politics, at least at national level, follows a very predictable pattern. Plus ça change. For some that's good, for many others it's not.

That being said, the inherent problems with democracy and universal suffrage apart, it's about the best we've got for now.

Britain's former prime minister Winston Churchill caught the paradox of it well. 'The best argument against democracy', he said, 'is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.' Yet, he also mused: 'It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.'

Like everything in life where there's a choice, sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong. Even that, of course, is subjective. It is nice to have it, though.