|
Saturday, December 13, 2003: Fatty Fat Fat Fat
This morning was the pre-concert dress rehearsal with the entire orchestra (three timpanis and a bass drum) and the soloists and a choir of tiny boys. Well, not so tiny -- nine or so. (I'm not so good with estimating little kid ages.) I love little boy singers; there's something so beautifully incongruous about a herd of rowdy little boys singing a dainty, pretty tune. The piece sounds fantastic. A lot of people were surprised how good it sounded, since they weren't so keen on it when all they had heard was the choral part. It's going to be an excellent concert, which is good because it's already sold out. I can't imagine why it's already sold out, because it's not a popular piece like Messiah. Then again, it's not often performed, so I bet there are people who have waited years to hear a live performance of Hodie. I hope it's worth it for them. (I invited Rob, but he's all off in Austin with his fancy-pants new job, and I expect he thinks I'm some crazy stalker, inviting him to a whole 'nother country. His loss. Fneh.)
I gotta write this down: Michael Smith says put your prime rib roast in for 30 minutes at 500 degrees, then turn it down to 200, let it cook until the internal temperature is 130 degrees, and then take it out and let it rest for 20 minutes. I'll try that and let you know how it works.
I just watched a special called "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying" about how American government subsidies are contributing to the obesity epidemic. The problem, it seems, is mostly corn and soybeans which are used in pretty much all the crap food available and also are fed to meat animals. They're heavily subsidized, so they're really cheap which makes it easy to manufacture, sell, buy and eat food which is really bad for you. The show also highlighted the disparity between the food pyramid, which illustrates the distribution of types of food you're supposed to eat, and the distribution of subsidies to different types of farming. Crops used to produce sugar (corn, which is used to make high-fructose corn syrup) and fat (soybeans for oil) are subsidised way more than fruit crops, for example. In fact, America doesn't even produce enough fruit to feed its population the recommended amount of fruit. The other issue they covered was food marketing, and particularly marketing towards children. They had some interesting interviews with some really weaselly food industry guys. One fellow said that food choices were entirely the responsibility of parents, and if kids end up eating crap, parents are to blame and food marketing is innocent. A woman from the Center for Science in the Public Interest wondered how they can claim parents are entirely responsible for children's intake and at the same time, market directly and knowingly towards children, actively invoking the nag factor. (Did I mention I don't ever want Delphine to watch television? Ever?) Another weaselly guy was asked whether food marketing was designed to encourage people to eat more food; he answered that of course it wasn't, it was designed to address the public's wants. Um. There's so much wrong with that, I don't even have anything to say about it. I watched a different show about obesity last week, called "The Weight of the World", on The Nature of Things. Its focus was also on how systemic changes in how we live are conspiring to make us fat, but it addressed the increasing dependence on cars and reduction of movement in our daily lives, and the availability of massive amounts of sugar and fat. The common thread between the two shows was the contrast between the systemic nature of the causes of obesity, and the societal expectation that the solution to the obesity epidemic is individual responsibility. Problem is societal; solution is individual. It's kind of a pisser. Both shows had ideas for societal solutions. The American show suggested changing the pattern of subsidies to better reflect a healthy diet, but they didn't think that was going to happen any time soon. They also liked the idea of banning marketing to children, although apparently some body (I don't remember which, it was a TLA) tried that back in 1979 and it didn't go anywhere because the food lobby was too powerful. (One of the weaselly talking heads didn't think that it was right to limit advertising in a "free society", apparently forgetting about those nasty tobacco marketing restrictions). The Canadian show discussed three communities which are addressing the problem on a more municipal level. One, a small town in the north of Ontario which had the third-highest level of diabetes in the world, actually made the one grocery store in town publically owned, so the people control what's for sale and can market and label healthy food appropriately. They also built tons of walking paths all around town. The second community, Philadelphia, is addressing the problem in schools, by teaching kids how to eat properly, by serving good food in the cafeteria, and by insisting that Coca-Cola only sell fruit juice and water in their school vending machines. The third community is a new neighbourhood in BC which is being designed to encourage activity in daily life, with local stores within walking distance of homes, wide sidewalks, and accomodation for people-powered transportation like skateboards, rollerblades and bikes. So, I don't really know what my point is here, apart from very generously giving y'all a precis of the two shows. I'm not sure whether it's encouraging or discouraging that I'm fighting an uphill battle against our whole society, rather than just against my appetite and natural sloth. It's still hard for me to convince myself that it's not a moral issue; sometimes I get myself all turned around and start to believe that I eat a lot because I'm fat, rather than the other way around -- that the fact that I'm fat makes me weak, and therefore I eat too much, as if "fat" is a fundamental part of my moral makeup rather than simply a consequence of lifestyle and genetics. Anyway, on that note, I've pretty much recovered from my 2600 calorie day a few days ago, largely by only eating one actual meal today. I know that's a lousy way to diet, but it serves the purpose, for now. (I figure I'll work my way down to 1600 calories a day, and then fine-tune the fat/carb/protein proportions and nutrients. It's all a little too much to deal with right now. One thing at a time.) I'm loving the calorie counting. I know it's the kiss of death for most dieters, but for me it makes it so easy and so non-judgemental. There is no "good" food or "bad" food, it all just costs more or less of my daily allowance, just like money. If I spend it all now, I won't have any later; simple. Most of the holiday badness is over, calorie-wise. Blake and I both had our office parties in the last two weeks, and the condo building's party was a week ago too. The only remaining hurdles are Hannukah latkes tomorrow night, and Christmas Day itself, with its attendant huge meal and many chocolates. I figure I will consume a huge number of calories that week, but I will try and recover gracefully in the week or two after. I guess the other fallout of watching those two shows on obesity is that it reassured me that my fatness really is a health problem, that watching calories and trying to lose weight is actually a good thing to do for my health (and my daughter), not just for vanity. And it's kind of nice to take part in the ubiquitous conversations about calories and fat grams and points, I must admit. |