“I’m on a seafood diet, I see food, I eat it.” - Dolly Parton<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Day 29: Maybe now I’ll have more time for roller skating and dog training. Went in to step on the scale and get blood work done this morning. Preliminary results are a weight LOSS from 175 pounds to 165 pounds and my cholesterol is DOWN from 237 to 197. There are more numbers and I will report them in the final entry once I have them interpreted. I feel great, very energetic and alert, no libido problems and don’t expect to suffer any long-term effects. Quite a different result than experienced by Mr. Spurlock while filming Super <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Size Me. Some of the press is already playing up the brave man putting his life on the line angle, sideshow entertainment such as vomiting included.
I skewed the results of my “test diet” at McDonalds by limiting myself to a certain number of calories and making healthy choices in order to achieve certain desired results just as Morgan Spurlock did with his film. The difference? I admit what I was doing, Morgan still seems to think that what he did was some sort of real science experiment which actually proved something such as the long term effects of eating at McDonalds. Real science experiments are performed far differently than the flawed example seen in this “satirical” piece.
The sad thing about Super Size Me is that it takes advantage of the plethora of bogus science claims we are bombarded with every day. It’s no wonder that we are having such a hard time separating the wheat from the chaff, especially when we are confronted with such confusing messages as those seen in the Spurlock film.
The May issue of Popular Science features a very interesting article entitled 106 Science Claims and a Truckful of Baloney by William Speed Weed (you’ll have to ask him yourself if that’s a real moniker). This guy took on the very real challenge of taking note and decoding the science claims he heard during one day. Well written but I do have a complaint about his claim that “Nature never “intended” humans to drink cow milk nor to put cattle or pasture land in upstate New York.”
The notion that cattle weren’t meant to be in upstate New York is just plain silly. Animals will migrate, or be herded to, and take up residence in areas where they find plenty of food and water as well as comfortable living conditions. As far as I can tell, cattle seem to do very well living in upstate New York. These are notions usually espoused by animal rights activists so I have no doubt that this erroneous thinking came from that arena. However, I think the real prejudice comes from a politically correct, negative view of terra forming.
As for whether or not nature intended for humans to drink milk, allow me to quote from Richard Conniff’s book The Natural History of the Rich:
“…….we know of only a few significant changes in human physiology: Because of dairying, roughly 30 percent of the world population has evolved the ability to digest lactose as adults. This tolerance occurs mostly in groups with a long history of drinking animal milk; some scientists date its proliferation back little more than a thousand years. At the same time, two genetic adaptations to a grain-based diet have proliferated in populations with a lengthy history of practicing agriculture.” – page 42-43
Apparently, my ancestors engaged in dairying because I have absolutely no problem ingesting dairy foods. To imply in general that man was not made to ingest cows milk once again plays into the hands of animal rights arguments against the use of animal products in any way. I am not about to give up my enjoyment of things like milk, ice cream, and yogurt because someone thinks “nature never “intended” humans to drink milk”. As long as my body can process and use the energy source then I see no reason to eliminate it from my diet in order to satisfy someone else’s notion of what people should be eating.