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".

Lest we forget

@wwaycorrigan

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

Sitting unhidden in one of my barrio tiendas sipping on a litre of Poker beer, it dawned on me that less than a year ago such behaviour was officially prohibited and had been for the guts of 12 months.

Saving face: Colombians seem particularly keen on facemasks.

I'm not sure about you, but as things gradually return, for the most part anyway, to how they were pre-pandemic, I've nearly forgotten how absurd those "lockdown"/restricted-movement days were (it's good to have my various blog posts during the period as a reference point. See, for example, https://wwcorrigan.blogspot.com/2020/03/coronavirus-collateral-damage.html and https://wwcorrigan.blogspot.com/2020/06/coronavirus-auxiliary-killers.html. Here's hoping the internet's Ministry of Truth doesn't get at them).

Failed estate

This isn't to say that my tried-and-trusted Bogotá tiendas are devoid of signs of those crazy times. Clientele's wearing of facemasks under the chin is one rather inane reminder. There's also the odd sign to wash one's hands (a tad difficult in establishments without adequate facilities in this regard), to wear aforementioned masks and even notices to disinfect your footwear, a practice that was found early on to be rather ineffective in combatting contagion in most settings.

As for the facemasks, Colombians seem quite happy to wear them, anywhere and everywhere. Whatever about their efficacy in terms of reducing the spread of respiratory infections — the jury is still very much out — they may at least offer some protection from Bogotá's contaminated air. Although, when worn around the chin, it's unlikely they'll be of much help.

Nonetheless, it's good to have some reminders of what we've just gone through — as long as they're kept at a safe physical distance that is.

Of course, people still afflicted by coronavirus monomania will not only say that all draconian measures introduced were necessary but they are also likely to argue that they didn't go far enough nor last long enough.

Again, the evidence that strict lockdowns work in combatting a disease such as covid-19 is far from conclusive. And when viewed solely through the lens of Sars-CoV-2, one is guilty of inflicting other causes of pain and death on those who would otherwise be fine. It's a delicate balance, one that many countries appear to have got shockingly wrong.

"Those who have been most faithful to the creed, if they're not quite rewriting recent history their changing tack is explained as 'we weren't to know.' Really?"

As we begin to accept that we must learn to live with covid rather than stop living and as we move our focus onto the next global cause for concern, any proper, unbiased analysis of the last two years must critically examine the role of much of the media in unquestioningly following the official line.

A majority in the Fourth Estate, not for the first time and it certainly won't be for the last, decided to take refuge elsewhere.

A dubious narrative was established and followed with fervour. "The Science" — the one that promoted heavy-handed containment measures and has coerced people into taking covid vaccines even when it is clear that some have robust natural defences against the infection — became the true faith.

Signs of the time. Careful now ...

Those of us who dared ask fair and reasonable questions were blasted as heretics. We were selfish, content to needlessly let people die, so the attacks went. Very early on in this collective, dangerous insanity I called out what was for the most part nauseating, hypocritical virtue signalling (see https://wwcorrigan.blogspot.com/2020/03/coronavirus-fallout-virtue-signalling.html).

We now have some of those who were most faithful to the creed backtracking. If they're not quite rewriting recent history their changing tack is explained as 'we weren't to know.' Really? They seemed utterly convinced of their righteousness at the time, trying to rubbish those of us who went against them.

Centre fight

In any case, it's quite easy for them to shrug all this off now. Vaccine certs proudly in hand, life is pretty much back to normal. (More power to the countries that are doing away with jab passes — little by little, society appears to be taking a more reasonable, rounded approach to this. Let's not mention atrocious Australia, crazy Canada or nefarious New Zealand, though.)

Thus, some people tell me I should get over all this, 'hum a different tune'. For the most part, I am doing that.

However, the agents of coercion and control who were given a new lease of life with the arrival of the novel coronavirus continue to try to make life difficult for us "infidels". 'Just conform, goddamn it!'

Many appear quite happy to have the state overseeing more aspects of their lives, often falsely believing that it's for the greater good of society. It generally means a little less personal responsibility, too, so they'll acquiesce.

Yet, an all-powerful state with much of the media in tow, doing its best to silence — or cancel, if you will — dissenting voices, painting any opposition as conspiracy theorists and so refusing to engage with it, is not something to be endorsed.

It's why I won't simply let this go, not while we still have what is effectively nothing more than official opinion or debatable science being peddled as unquestionable fact.

As we've seen over the last couple of years and as history has repeatedly shown us, giving free rein to such forces rarely leads to positive outcomes.

The centre can hold for a little while longer. We have to be prepared, though, to battle hard to keep it together.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

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