In fields of food I pass my time
I've learnt some worrying things during my two-year battle to get my weight down to a sensible level. The first, and probably most important thing I've learnt is that there's no single universal way to lose weight. Lots of people claim there is, but they're trying to get money out of you.
The quest for the single answer has derailed a lot of promising ideas in the past, Albert Einstein, for example, decided that there had to be a grand unified theory and went off to find it. If there were to be such a theory, it sounds frighteningly like it would be God, and the thought of being able to program a computer to be God is not a nice thought.
Gods are another good example of man's folly in looking for one single answer. There are at least three major religions that each claim there is only one God, and he brooks no competition. I would find it much easier to believe there are many gods, because then the activities of the supporters look slightly less outrageous, they're simply bigging up their particular dieu-de-choice. I've decided that the sentence 'God made man in his image' makes more sense if it is reversed; 'Man made God in his image'
I didn't find any single weight-loss method that screamed out 'I'm the one, follow me until the ends of the earth and your sagging belly will waist away' (sic). All I really managed to do was work out the two major principles behind dieting; 'Don't eat more than you need', and 'burn away the fat'. Both are gloriously simple to remember, and could probably take a lifetime to understand and implement.
I'll come onto the 'burn away the fat' principle some time in the future, becausae I have found it to be the most interesting one, but this post is about something I've noticed very recently that is a bit worrying.
I have found that the simplest way for me to stop eating too much is to be physically active. It is a bit of a paradox; I expected, once I started riding the bike for an hour each evening, to come back in through the door in a ravenous state. I was puzzled to find the opposite was happening. I would be thirsty, and drink a litre of water, but it would be at least an hour after the bike ride before I felt that I really did need to have supper. By chance, the BBC News site published a short article claiming that the body produces endorphins during exercise that suppress hunger pangs.
I noticed the same thing during my recent spell clearing gardens. I could work all morning and not feel hungry at all, and when I did finally stop for lunch, I ate the small amount I had brought along, and didn't have any desire to go in search of more. And yet, back at home, sitting at this computer typing in the story of my travels, I am constantly wandering through to the kitchen for another nibble. The story of the journey is every bit as absorbing as is pulling brambles out of apple trees, but requires almost no physical effort.
What has worried me is recognising that this behaviour pattern is quite easily observable in another large segment of the population of this planet. Farm animals spend all day with their heads down in the grass, munching. It's about all they ever do in the fields, except rear up on their hind legs and play shag. Locked up in their fields all day, given the occasional trip to a different field, or to the market, eating is the only thing they can do as an expression of their free will and creativity.
Are we, sat at our desks all day long, a form of cattle?
The quest for the single answer has derailed a lot of promising ideas in the past, Albert Einstein, for example, decided that there had to be a grand unified theory and went off to find it. If there were to be such a theory, it sounds frighteningly like it would be God, and the thought of being able to program a computer to be God is not a nice thought.
Gods are another good example of man's folly in looking for one single answer. There are at least three major religions that each claim there is only one God, and he brooks no competition. I would find it much easier to believe there are many gods, because then the activities of the supporters look slightly less outrageous, they're simply bigging up their particular dieu-de-choice. I've decided that the sentence 'God made man in his image' makes more sense if it is reversed; 'Man made God in his image'
I didn't find any single weight-loss method that screamed out 'I'm the one, follow me until the ends of the earth and your sagging belly will waist away' (sic). All I really managed to do was work out the two major principles behind dieting; 'Don't eat more than you need', and 'burn away the fat'. Both are gloriously simple to remember, and could probably take a lifetime to understand and implement.
I'll come onto the 'burn away the fat' principle some time in the future, becausae I have found it to be the most interesting one, but this post is about something I've noticed very recently that is a bit worrying.
I have found that the simplest way for me to stop eating too much is to be physically active. It is a bit of a paradox; I expected, once I started riding the bike for an hour each evening, to come back in through the door in a ravenous state. I was puzzled to find the opposite was happening. I would be thirsty, and drink a litre of water, but it would be at least an hour after the bike ride before I felt that I really did need to have supper. By chance, the BBC News site published a short article claiming that the body produces endorphins during exercise that suppress hunger pangs.
I noticed the same thing during my recent spell clearing gardens. I could work all morning and not feel hungry at all, and when I did finally stop for lunch, I ate the small amount I had brought along, and didn't have any desire to go in search of more. And yet, back at home, sitting at this computer typing in the story of my travels, I am constantly wandering through to the kitchen for another nibble. The story of the journey is every bit as absorbing as is pulling brambles out of apple trees, but requires almost no physical effort.
What has worried me is recognising that this behaviour pattern is quite easily observable in another large segment of the population of this planet. Farm animals spend all day with their heads down in the grass, munching. It's about all they ever do in the fields, except rear up on their hind legs and play shag. Locked up in their fields all day, given the occasional trip to a different field, or to the market, eating is the only thing they can do as an expression of their free will and creativity.
Are we, sat at our desks all day long, a form of cattle?
posted by Sopwith-Camel | 8:53 am
12 Comments:
i'm struggling with the comparison, i'll be honest. were cows ever athletic?
i see where you're coming from with the physical activity thing though but you're missing entirely what most fat people are looking for - and that's the easy way out. The diet that means the last thing they are forced to do is get on a bike and pedal. No one wants easy concepts, simple explanations - people want "sit on your arse, eat what the fuck you like and get thin!" diets. Ones that are deeply scientific, incredibly technical, celebrity endorsed and, in the main, utter bullshit.
P, I'm sure that wild cows ran fast enough to have a reasonable chance of escaping predators.
I've seen what most fat people are looking for, I watched them wandering around the supermarket picking out low-fat dressings to put on their beefburgers. I know they don;t want to get on a bke. I don;t care, I can't save the world, much as I would like to. I hope that one or two people read what I've written and think about it, and if only one of them actually achieves something from it I'll be overjoyed, but first and foremost I'm trying to rescue myself.
Not sure if I agree with the cow comparison. My understanding is that it's so difficult to extract sustenance from grass that herbivores have to graze for much of the day just to get the necessary calories to survive.
For humans though it's different. I remember a GP saying many years ago that 'there were no fatties in Belsen'. I'm sure this wasn't intended as an insensitive remark. What he meant was that *all* humans, if deprived of enough calories, will be thin. The overweight who complain of heavy bones, slow metabolism, faulty glands, etc, are deluding themselves. If we're overweight (myself included) it's because we eat more than our body requires.
i haven't researched but based on its almost total usefulness, i'd imagine that man has always been the cow's nemeses. Our most basic needs were/are served by the animal stupid enough to stand still for long enough to be killed. I suspect it was some centuries later before we developed a taste for rabbit - so even then, we were lazy fuckers, within our means. Humans have and always will take the easy route if it's open to them.
But I did not mean to put down your very noble attempt to kick us all up the arse. Please don't take it as such. I admire your stamina.
LS, the Belsen connection is one I'll have to mention in the future post, but as well as no fat people, there were no pain-killers or time off for cracked ribs in the camps either. But your GP was right, extreme conditions will make the body burn any stored fat.
Anonymiss, here's a thought for you, which human came first, the meat-eater, or the vegetarian?
Vegies - I remember arguing in a newsgroup with someone who said vegetarianism isn't natural :) Of course we'd be vegies, plants tend to stand the stillest of all.
here's a thought for you, which human came first, the meat-eater, or the vegetarian?
Apes were Vegetarian, low calorie low protein diet, when apes started to eat meat they began to evolve in to homo erectus, as the high protein high calorie diet enabled them to have leisure time this combined with a high protein diet enabled the human brain to develop brains to develop. Meat eating Chimpanzees are more intelligent than there vegetarian cousins.
Grant, I don't find the theory of apes turning into humans because of diet changes credible; why are they no longer still changing? And, of course, although there are some distinct similarities between apes and men, there are also some distinct differences, such as physiology. Apes have indeed been shown to be able to mimic human behaviour, (the famous "baby in my soup" message is probably the best example of this).
IF ( and that's a big if) mankind did evolve from the apes, I suspect something else caused the set of changes, possibly a period of radiation. But then, why didn't anything else change over the same period?
Oh dear modern apes are relatives they are not our Ancestors. Thats where all the difference lay. We diverged at some time in the past we evolved to to modern man the other branch evolved in to modern apes.
I suspect something else caused the set of changes, possibly a period of radiation. But then, why didn't anything else change over the same period?
Because your theory is incorect.
Evolution is environment driven Apes and man's common ancestors were probably inhabiting different regions one region went through dramatic changes the other stayed relatively stable thus negating the need to change (evolve)
Grant, it's not my theory, it is one that is regularly trotted out to counter the other theory, that we are descended from or evolved from the apes.
The trouble I have with theories is that they are no different from religious beliefs; you are required to ignore contradictory evidence or accept gaping holes in the supportive structure, and arguing over theories has been almost as bad as arguing over which god is the one true one (although the massacres have been considerably less from differences over scientific theories than over faiths).
That said, if you personally wish to support the theory that you (personally) are related to or descended from apes or chimpanzees, then I respect your right to do so, and hope that it brings you fulfillment in your life.
I actually said Man and Apes have a common ancestor, which would have been a primate of some description.
Are you a creationist?
By the sounds of it you have descended from something that resembles to Jabba the Hut!
http://www.maniacworld.com/star_wars_jokes/Star_Wars_Jokes.html
I am not an -ist and don't really follow any -isms either. They all impose restrictions on what you're allowed to think.
Did you mean Star wars jokes? If anything, I would be descended from a wookie. It's the yawning thing, but you wouldn't know that.
Post a Comment
<< Home