Dieting again

Yes, I'm back to dieting. I've had a run of a few bad weeks that have seen me gain back a few kilos. Enkais, going-away parties, and some general late-winter malaise have all help erode my healthier eating habits. I find I'm doing a lot of snacking, pretty much a no-no for me, but worse doing it late at night.

OK, so the buck stops here.

However, where as before I'd adopted a rather simplistic (though effective, at least at that time) approach to dieting, recent readings have gotten me thinking. In particular, I've read more and more that caloric intake ultimately has no real bearing on weight gain/loss. Neither, ultimately, does fat intake. Rather, it's the intake of carbohydrates which affect insulin levels, which affect the body's ability to burn fat that's the culprit.

This is too simplistic a description of something that is far more complex. I'll admit readily that I have no deeper or intrinsic understanding of the factors/forces at work here. In fact, there's every good chance that I have fatally misunderstood this concept. I'll plow on, regardless, and hope that any clarifications catch up with me.

First, thanks to Rob for this damned interesting blogpost that reviews a book that explores many health-related things seen as "conventional wisdom." The blogpost is all the more interesting in that it is written by a physicist, who decries the un-rigourousness of modern "soft science". In the current counter-counter-culture mood I find myself in of late, this article feels especially appropriate.

Second, all this highfalutin ego-prose aside, let me meander into my own life, as there are some recent revelations I want to share:

1) I am stronger now. I have bigger muscles.
In this sense, my weight gain doesn't bother me...of course, assuming that this is all muscle and not fat.

2) My pants feel tighter.
Ah the other shoe drops. The operative word here though is feel. I highly suspect that while my arms and chest have become bigger due to muscle, my abdomen is also bigger, meaning bigger waist-size, meaning fat. I would estimate that my waist-size has gone up about 2cm (or just under an inch). This is, I feel, directly related to...

3) I am snacking and eating more bad shit.
Like McDee's, though no where near what I used to. I used to go to McDonald's and get 2 hamburgers and 5 nuggets, but now I'm back to just ordering a combo meal. I also used to ask for smaller portions of rice, but that rarely happens now either.

OK, so obviously cutting out bad shit is key. I suppose the easiest thing to do would be to cut out the McDonald's, but really, that's never going to happen. While I'm not really all that fanatical about the evils of processed food, I nevertheless realize that they are ultimately unhealthy for you. In this particular case though, this is rather something that nourishes my psychological self, because dammit sometimes I WANT to eat that Big Mac because it taste good and makes me happy.

However, given what I've read, a more careful consideration of my carb intake is probably warranted. I don't think I'll worry about the single piece of toast that I eat for breakfast. But the bread/pastry from the canteen downstairs at my school? Out. I'll also be going back to my no fries policy, at McDonald's and elsewhere. A side-salad, even with the high-calorie dressing, is better.

I may also have to re-think my calorie counting policy, in light of the above article. While it is only one side of a multi-faceted argument, I find the fact that the review was written by a physicist to be somehow comforting. So instead of calorie counting, I might consider carbohydrate counting instead, coupled with a wiser eating regimen. The occasional skipping of a meal is also something I will consider (like tonight, thanks to my gigantic but delicious bento the English department ordered for entrance exam marking day).

Well, that was a long and possibly boring post, but whatever.

The pesticide report that nobody read

This interesting article, coupled with some of Mike Rowe's appearance on TED, has gotten me thinking about activism in general, and how they are really just two sides of the same media-manipulation coin. It's a sort of passing thought, so I won't really articulate this any further. Here are the salient points of the article, with link at the bottom. I'll also post Mike Rowe's video as well.

The pesticide report that nobody read
Posted: June 16, 2008, 7:20 PM by NP Editor

By Terence Corcoran
...For more than a decade, the likes of Greenpeace, the Ontario College of Family Physicians, The Globe and Mail and scores of activists and city politicians have waged a relentless campaign against pesticide use.

It’s easy to generate a junk science scare. You make stuff up, exaggerate the risks, politicize the subject and spin it into a corporate and ideological battle. And, above all, you ignore the facts. Which is what happened last month when Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) released its final reassessment of the leading pesticide, 2,4-D, and found the chemical to be safe when used properly.

No major media — not one — picked up the story, even though it systematically demolished every health and environmental claim the scaremongers had dumped onto a gullible community of journalists...

...So much for Health Canada’s work: One of the most comprehensive scientific reviews in Canadian history, carried out exclusively by Health Canada scientists and reviewed by independent government and university researchers trashed in 30 seconds by an activist repeating claims rejected by the review. All that work and the last media report ends with repetition of the junk science Health Canada had spent millions disproving...

...an op-ed in the Citizen by Neil Arya, of the Ontario College of Family Physicians, one of the leading proponents of the pesticide scare. Responding to Mr. Gardner, Dr. Arya trotted out the same old arguments his group has been using for years. He began with the usual catch-all scaremonger cop-out, accusing Health Canada of saying that a hazardous substance was safe. “Science cannot say 2,4-D, or any other toxic chemical designed to kill a biological organism, is safe.”

Health Canada actually said 2,4-D was safe when used as directed — a logical statement that accompanies most human activity. We don’t drive cars off cliffs because it’s not safe. Any automobile is not safe when driven unsafely. Dr. Arya is playing with the reader’s mind and warping Health Canada’s thorough review of the issue...

...It’s easy to lay the charges and mount a campaign, to convey fear and uncertainty, compared with the dry business of actually conducting a science review. The excerpts from the Health Canada 2,4-D review elsewhere on this page are no fun. It’s easy to scare people with the fact that 2,4-D is a chemical descendant of Agent Orange, but not all that interesting to learn that Agent Orange is actually a different chemical. It’s easy to mention Sweden and Denmark, countries that have banned 2,4-D, but tedious to read of the reality behind the ban and the fact that Europe as a whole and other jurisdictions continue to approve its use...

...It’s a growing activist theme — the chemical soup concept — that looms as the next big science scare. Even if one chemical is safe, it could be a risk when combined with others. The prospects for expanding popular concerns and regulatory paralysis are limitless.

Full article HERE.

Here's Mike Rowe's session from TED.