When we visit my in-laws the kids love going to their local Godfather's Pizza. They enjoy the food, and they enjoy the arcade area in that Godfather's. So, we always have to make a trip there, which we did this past weekend as well. This reminded me of something I have been noticing over the past couple of years.
Ever since I have been eating healthier I have noticed that I can seriously tell when I don't eat healthy. It makes sense that eating healthier makes your digestive system feel and operate better, but the surprise to me is how much eating unhealthy makes me feel generally achy, inflamed, and lethargic. Weird things happen like my tongue feels swollen, my legs don't seem to want to move, and my feet get a little tingly. None of these effects are extreme, but they still pop out to me. I'm now not sure if this is something that I've experienced my whole life and just never identified the pattern, or if it is something that is more noticeable since I am getting older.
As someone who doesn't normally eat breakfast, I've even noticed that if I do eat something unhealthy in the morning I feel worse than if I don't eat anything. My stomach has always been a bit queasy in the morning anyway, but having something with a bit too much sugar also makes me feel generally achy and distracted for a short stretch of time afterward.
The positive from this is that it does provide extra motivation to eat right. However, part of how I've stuck with eating healthy is planning out my cheat meals and snacks, and enjoying them to the fullest. Understanding the repercussions may take away some of that enjoyment.
Am I the only one who has noticed this? How do you feel after you've had a healthy or unhealthy meal?
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
fruits and vegetables
I know I have to be getting irritating to those around me all I talk about food nowadays, but the last year has represented a huge shift in how I think about food so it's frequently on my mind. Believe it or not, this is keeping my thoughts on the matter short.
I have completely changed how I think about American healthcare system and the causes of disease and chronic health problems. When I talk about weight loss with other folks a lot of them comment about being hungry all of the time when they're on a diet. That was historically the primary thing that kept me from watching what I ate. I had that a little when I started watching what I eat, but once I started eating fruits and vegetables in significant quantities to where I was getting 30 to 40 grams of fiber a day that was rarely a problem. The only days that I get hungry are when I eat too much red meat, breads, or sweets and run out of calories by the end of the day.
Because of my experience, I'm realizing that one major factor that is driving health issues in the United States is simply access to fresh produce. When I visited a General Dollar near my in-laws a few months ago I was struck by two things. First, food there is very reasonably priced. Second, there is very little produce. If that was my nearest shopping option and my transportation was limited I would have to go out of my way to get the amount of fiber that I now try to consume. I'd probably have to mostly eat beans. Without knowing any better, which I didn't until very recently, I am certain my health would be negatively affected, and I wouldn't really know why other that to blame myself for snacking too much or not exercising enough.
I don't know what the solution to this problem is. Some people say that national policy should be changed to encourage farmers to grow healthier crops, or focus less on red meat production, or whatever. There are a host of potential consequences from that, and there is debate as to how effective it would be anyway, so I don't know what to think at this time. I suspect that agriculture policy could be tweaked to improve people's health, though.
I have also noticed that some fast food places have made it easier than others to get a low calorie option from their menu than others.While healthy fast food is an oxymoron, I have noticed some fast food places providing reasonable alternatives to fries in their combo meals. However, if your primary local options are Burger King and KFC, it's going to be difficult to stay on a calorie budget with a combo meal.
I'll just conclude with the thought that I'm realizing how extremely fortunate I am. I have been able to adjust my diet in a reasonably affordable way because I have access to healthy foods. I also don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, and I've grown to really enjoy many of snack foods I now have available at home. There are a lot of people in food deserts who can't afford healthy, satisfying foods.
I have completely changed how I think about American healthcare system and the causes of disease and chronic health problems. When I talk about weight loss with other folks a lot of them comment about being hungry all of the time when they're on a diet. That was historically the primary thing that kept me from watching what I ate. I had that a little when I started watching what I eat, but once I started eating fruits and vegetables in significant quantities to where I was getting 30 to 40 grams of fiber a day that was rarely a problem. The only days that I get hungry are when I eat too much red meat, breads, or sweets and run out of calories by the end of the day.Because of my experience, I'm realizing that one major factor that is driving health issues in the United States is simply access to fresh produce. When I visited a General Dollar near my in-laws a few months ago I was struck by two things. First, food there is very reasonably priced. Second, there is very little produce. If that was my nearest shopping option and my transportation was limited I would have to go out of my way to get the amount of fiber that I now try to consume. I'd probably have to mostly eat beans. Without knowing any better, which I didn't until very recently, I am certain my health would be negatively affected, and I wouldn't really know why other that to blame myself for snacking too much or not exercising enough.
I don't know what the solution to this problem is. Some people say that national policy should be changed to encourage farmers to grow healthier crops, or focus less on red meat production, or whatever. There are a host of potential consequences from that, and there is debate as to how effective it would be anyway, so I don't know what to think at this time. I suspect that agriculture policy could be tweaked to improve people's health, though.
I have also noticed that some fast food places have made it easier than others to get a low calorie option from their menu than others.While healthy fast food is an oxymoron, I have noticed some fast food places providing reasonable alternatives to fries in their combo meals. However, if your primary local options are Burger King and KFC, it's going to be difficult to stay on a calorie budget with a combo meal.
I'll just conclude with the thought that I'm realizing how extremely fortunate I am. I have been able to adjust my diet in a reasonably affordable way because I have access to healthy foods. I also don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, and I've grown to really enjoy many of snack foods I now have available at home. There are a lot of people in food deserts who can't afford healthy, satisfying foods.
Thursday, May 17, 2018
soft drinks
It's weird to me that, as I am shifting away from drinking soft drinks, I am seeing that I am not the only one doing so.
Growing up, my family drank some soft drinks, but limited our intake far more than other families around us. I have a distinct memory of going to a restaurant, our whole family ordering milk, and the waitress commenting how we must be a health-nut family. I was so embarrassed because I felt that drinking soft drinks was what normal or even cool people did. At a younger age I understood that soft drinks were unhealthy, but I did not see any correlation between the people who drank soft drinks and their health. The athletic kids didn't avoid sugary drinks so there was a disconnect between what I "knew" and what I saw.
Through college and early adulthood I didn't binge on soft drinks, but I didn't hold back either. They were included in the lunch plan in the school cafeteria, they were a cheap treat at home, and I could get them free at work. In the years after college I gained quite a bit of weight, but I started very skinny and my vitals on my doctor visits in my twenties were always fine. So, why not get refills on my Coke or Pepsi when out to dinner?
I've already gone through a phase where I limited my soft drinks but still drank more than I should. I also went through a phase where I drank Diet Pepsi for a while. I never thought that I would be in my current state, though, where I might have a can of some soft drink every two weeks to a month. We don't even buy soft drinks in our house any more unless we're having company, which an earlier version of myself would have found insane.
In our office we get drinks stocked by what people want and actually drink. We used to fly through Coke, Pepsi, and root beer, but people in the office don't drink it in any volume any more. As of late this means that we get a lot of Le Croix and Diet Mt. Dew. I don't drink a lot of the La Croix and I don't even like regular Mt. Dew (let alone the diet version), however I have zero complaints about what is stocked because I wouldn't drink the regular soft drinks even if they were available.
These trends are occurring nationwide as well. Coke and Pepsi are relying more on their diet soft drinks and other alternatives to their traditional soft drinks to drive profit. This is odd to me because I grew up thinking of drinking soft drinks as the normal and cool thing to do, and now it's more cool to order flavored seltzer.
Growing up, my family drank some soft drinks, but limited our intake far more than other families around us. I have a distinct memory of going to a restaurant, our whole family ordering milk, and the waitress commenting how we must be a health-nut family. I was so embarrassed because I felt that drinking soft drinks was what normal or even cool people did. At a younger age I understood that soft drinks were unhealthy, but I did not see any correlation between the people who drank soft drinks and their health. The athletic kids didn't avoid sugary drinks so there was a disconnect between what I "knew" and what I saw.
Through college and early adulthood I didn't binge on soft drinks, but I didn't hold back either. They were included in the lunch plan in the school cafeteria, they were a cheap treat at home, and I could get them free at work. In the years after college I gained quite a bit of weight, but I started very skinny and my vitals on my doctor visits in my twenties were always fine. So, why not get refills on my Coke or Pepsi when out to dinner?
I've already gone through a phase where I limited my soft drinks but still drank more than I should. I also went through a phase where I drank Diet Pepsi for a while. I never thought that I would be in my current state, though, where I might have a can of some soft drink every two weeks to a month. We don't even buy soft drinks in our house any more unless we're having company, which an earlier version of myself would have found insane.
In our office we get drinks stocked by what people want and actually drink. We used to fly through Coke, Pepsi, and root beer, but people in the office don't drink it in any volume any more. As of late this means that we get a lot of Le Croix and Diet Mt. Dew. I don't drink a lot of the La Croix and I don't even like regular Mt. Dew (let alone the diet version), however I have zero complaints about what is stocked because I wouldn't drink the regular soft drinks even if they were available.
These trends are occurring nationwide as well. Coke and Pepsi are relying more on their diet soft drinks and other alternatives to their traditional soft drinks to drive profit. This is odd to me because I grew up thinking of drinking soft drinks as the normal and cool thing to do, and now it's more cool to order flavored seltzer.
All of this is probably a good thing. Seltzer has to be more healthy than cola. I'm just struck by how things change for me and for society at large, over something as pervasive as what we regularly drink.
Monday, October 02, 2017
fiber
When thinking about today's topic, my mind keeps going to the old SNL skit below.
When I started watching my calories this past March I very purposefully avoided putting too many rules in place. I figured if I started trying to manage carbs, or sugar, or anything else I'd eventually give up. So, I kept it to simply managing calories, and that was a very effective approach for me in cutting weight.
In the course of managing my calories I noticed a side benefit to this as well that minor digestion issues that regularly flared up for me largely died down. Over time, I have concluded that this is because my fiber intake has increased some as I've started eating more low-calorie fruits and vegetables.
This confused me a little since the way fiber helped me seemed to be the opposite of what it's reputation is. I was visiting the bathroom less frequently rather than more. The jokes I had always heard were always about how fiber kept you chained to the toilet.
With this evidence behind me and having learned about some of the purported benefits of a high fiber diet I decided a few weeks ago that I would increase my fiber intake. If increasing my fiber intake a little helped out my digestion increasing it a lot would make it even better, right!?
WOW, have I learned a life lesson! Specifically, it is not wise to increase your fiber intake between 50% and 75% overnight. The body has to adjust to this new way of life. Fiber has to be stepped up gradually. The problem is, this is hard to do. Too much fiber produces just so much gas (Sorry for that detail!), but too little fiber will not adjust my body to being able to handle the volume of fiber I need to have in my diet. Furthermore, it's not always easy to know whether I've properly hit my fiber target.
So, I'm hopefully at the tail end of this adjustment period. Having gone through this, I really don't ever want to fall off the fiber wagon because it'll be painful getting back on.
When I started watching my calories this past March I very purposefully avoided putting too many rules in place. I figured if I started trying to manage carbs, or sugar, or anything else I'd eventually give up. So, I kept it to simply managing calories, and that was a very effective approach for me in cutting weight.
In the course of managing my calories I noticed a side benefit to this as well that minor digestion issues that regularly flared up for me largely died down. Over time, I have concluded that this is because my fiber intake has increased some as I've started eating more low-calorie fruits and vegetables.
This confused me a little since the way fiber helped me seemed to be the opposite of what it's reputation is. I was visiting the bathroom less frequently rather than more. The jokes I had always heard were always about how fiber kept you chained to the toilet.
With this evidence behind me and having learned about some of the purported benefits of a high fiber diet I decided a few weeks ago that I would increase my fiber intake. If increasing my fiber intake a little helped out my digestion increasing it a lot would make it even better, right!?
WOW, have I learned a life lesson! Specifically, it is not wise to increase your fiber intake between 50% and 75% overnight. The body has to adjust to this new way of life. Fiber has to be stepped up gradually. The problem is, this is hard to do. Too much fiber produces just so much gas (Sorry for that detail!), but too little fiber will not adjust my body to being able to handle the volume of fiber I need to have in my diet. Furthermore, it's not always easy to know whether I've properly hit my fiber target.
So, I'm hopefully at the tail end of this adjustment period. Having gone through this, I really don't ever want to fall off the fiber wagon because it'll be painful getting back on.
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
actually healthier dust
Sorry for the length of this post. My health routine has sort of taken over my life, so there's a lot I want to report. No one is under any obligation to read this entire thing.
As should be obvious, I have had the longest hiatus from posting to this blog since I opened it. This wasn't intentional, but was a direct result of my exercise routine and church teaching prep cutting into the spare time I would have had to post.
I did want to report back in on how my healthier lifestyle is progressing.
When I started this exercise routine I wasn't extremely excited about it because I had real doubts that I would be able to stick with it, and to me it was worse to start and give up than not to start at all. I still have those concerns because it's an extraordinary challenge to squeeze my routine in, but I have stuck with it. I don't know if I'll be still doing this in a few years, but my mindset right now is that nothing I'm doing now is worth it if I don't stick with it over the long haul.
One thing that changed since I last posted is that I did actually start watching what I eat. I didn't at first because I didn't want to commit to more than I could stick to. However, in March I determined to try modifying my diet because I felt like if I'm already exercising hard I should do what I can to see good and more speedy results. I started using the app Lose It! to keep track of what I eat, and I've been a real stickler to keep on top of it. This has actually helped me stick with the exercise routine because it's undeniable now that there's a benefit to what I'm doing.
At this point, the benefit I can see is having lost about 35 pounds and somewhere between three and four inches of belly fat (belly-button level). My body fat levels have gone from somewhere in the 25% to 28% range to 20% or 21%. I know my VO2Max (how much oxygen your lungs can take in) is improved too because I can breathe better when exercising, but I don't know how to measure that. All of this is gravy (hmmmmm... gravy), however. My real goal is to lower my triglycerides and LDL cholesterol, and I won't have a reading on those until my next annual doctor's appointment in January.
I've had a few observations along the way.
As should be obvious, I have had the longest hiatus from posting to this blog since I opened it. This wasn't intentional, but was a direct result of my exercise routine and church teaching prep cutting into the spare time I would have had to post.
I did want to report back in on how my healthier lifestyle is progressing.
When I started this exercise routine I wasn't extremely excited about it because I had real doubts that I would be able to stick with it, and to me it was worse to start and give up than not to start at all. I still have those concerns because it's an extraordinary challenge to squeeze my routine in, but I have stuck with it. I don't know if I'll be still doing this in a few years, but my mindset right now is that nothing I'm doing now is worth it if I don't stick with it over the long haul.
One thing that changed since I last posted is that I did actually start watching what I eat. I didn't at first because I didn't want to commit to more than I could stick to. However, in March I determined to try modifying my diet because I felt like if I'm already exercising hard I should do what I can to see good and more speedy results. I started using the app Lose It! to keep track of what I eat, and I've been a real stickler to keep on top of it. This has actually helped me stick with the exercise routine because it's undeniable now that there's a benefit to what I'm doing.
At this point, the benefit I can see is having lost about 35 pounds and somewhere between three and four inches of belly fat (belly-button level). My body fat levels have gone from somewhere in the 25% to 28% range to 20% or 21%. I know my VO2Max (how much oxygen your lungs can take in) is improved too because I can breathe better when exercising, but I don't know how to measure that. All of this is gravy (hmmmmm... gravy), however. My real goal is to lower my triglycerides and LDL cholesterol, and I won't have a reading on those until my next annual doctor's appointment in January.
I've had a few observations along the way.
- Most of the diet challenge was finding foods I'm happy to regularly snack on at night. For now I've settled on a rotation of apples, celery, pickles, oranges, and carrot sticks. I'm convinced that this is the change that has effected my health the most.
- Early on, I'd occasionally still be hungry come time to go to bed, but I rarely am any more.
- I still snack on cereal and cheese and crackers occasionally. The difference is that it is more sparing, and I'm careful to limit the amount of milk I swallow with the cereal. I remember my great aunt telling me that I should use all of the milk that I poured into my cereal when I was a kid, but I believe now that advice made more sense when she was a child during the Great Depression than it does today.
- I used to make peanut butter and jelly regularly just because it was easy. I very rarely do that any more because it's a high-calorie food.
- If I'm ahead in my calorie count for the day, I absolutely splurge on some food I'm craving. There are two reasons for this. One is that eating too few calories negatively affects metabolism. The other is that there's a great psychological benefit to being able to regularly eat higher calorie foods when I'm ahead for the day.
- I track calories because those are quantifiable, but I'm coming to believe the calories matter less than that I'm eating more fruits and non-starchy vegetables.
- I personally avoid diet and fat-free foods and beverages. I used to drink Diet Pepsi, so I cast no judgment on those who use those. In fact, if you like the taste it might make sense. Whatever research I've been able to find on those products has made me doubt that diet and fat-free foods are beneficial, however.
- My weight loss has been reasonably steady at around a pound a week (maybe a little more) throughout this whole process. Everything I'm reading indicates that you don't want to lose more than two pounds a week.
- Just in the last few weeks I've started watching videos from NutritionFacts.org. They basically just walk through what the research says about different dietary habits, and it's extremely interesting. I'd recommend it for anyone who's interested in improving their health through (possibly minor) dietary changes, such as consuming a few more nuts a day or eating brown rather than white rice.
- I never dreamed I'd be the sort to look into supplements because that's the world of snake oil salesmen and bodybuilders. In fact some research indicates that vitamin supplements have a negative affect on peoples' health. However, I just ordered creatine supplements for the first time because the effects that specific supplement has on the body align with my personal health goals (namely, I'm targeting18%-ish body fat). It's a whole new world for me.
- Even after exercising for this long it's still obvious that my body has not been gifted with endurance or the ability to get a runner's high. Maybe it's because running is not part of my routine?
- I'm actually amazed at the number of minor things that these life changes have helped with (example), and I've also discovered some things that I didn't realize were an issue that I still need to put a plan together to address.
- I have never once exercised in a gym, and I don't ever expect to have a gym membership because I don't have time to go. If my exercising relied on me going to the gym, I wouldn't exercise at all. Everything I'm doing right now is from a FitnessBlender YouTube video in my living room.
So, lest anyone make the mistake of thinking I'm doing anything extraordinary, the following is the routine I've been doing.
When I first started out I was very out of shape, so I just rotated through the following routines, exercising five or six times a week until I started seeing some improvements. Mind you, they felt very slow in coming, but I did start to see them after a few weeks.
Then, I started working in some resistance exercises into my routine because I had read that it was important to have a mix of cardio and resistance to lower LDL cholesterol.
As I improved I slowly started working in more challenging and/or targeted routines and dropping old routines. Right now I have a five-day rotation that I typically go through in a week.
Day 1: Abs/Core (The hardest of all days)
Day 2: Tabata Style HIIT Aerobics
Day 3: Arms and Legs
Day 4: Beginner HIIT Aerobics
Day 5: Total Body Workout
I'm constantly reassessing this, so there will be changes in the future. I still have a lot of room for improving how challenging my cardio routines are, and I need to start stepping up my weights on "resistance" days. For now this is what I'm doing, though: about 140 minutes of exercise a week plus some watching what I eat.
Golden sometimes joins me in my exercising as well. Those are fun days.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
new year, healthier dust
I inadvertently scheduled a physical in the last couple of weeks last year. The timing was an accident, but it has led to a bit of an odd situation.
Every year I make a point of not making a New Year's resolution. I know that most people break their resolutions (if they're even specific enough to break) before the end of January, and so making a New Year's resolution always feels to me like an impulsive or a showy move. I know many people have great reasons for making resolutions, but for me to do it doesn't feel natural.
Since I went to the doctor's office and had the typical blood work done right before Christmas, I got a call over the Christmas holiday that my triglyceride and bad cholesterol levels were consistently elevated enough that I need to start exercising more regularly. For me this means that I need to start exercising at all.
Golden's first reaction was that we should get a membership to the local community center and work out there. My first reaction was thinking that I don't want to be one of those guys the regulars see as an annoyance who will give up in a few weeks.
What I have done so far is find a YouTube channel called FitnessBlender and start with some of their beginner routines. It turns out my boss uses the same channel for some of his exercises, so I'm not the only person I know who uses the channel. He's more active and healthier than me, though. I've committed to doing twenty minutes of routines every day, even when I'm very busy. This sounds great on the surface, but to this point I have primarily proven to myself that I am horribly out of shape because I have a hard time completing anything other than the beginner routines.
My short term goal is to get healthy enough to regularly complete the normal, not-beginner routines without too much trouble. My medium term goal is simply not to gain more weight, and ideally trim some (five pounds in a few months would be great at this point). That goal is more psychological than anything. My long term goal is to not have given up on this endeavor in one, two, five, or ten years.
Thus far, I have not modified my eating habits because I don't want to make major changes all at once that are unsustainable. To me, this whole thing is pointless if I don't keep this up over the long term. We'll see how committed I can remain to this since it's now more directly a question of health rather than just clothing size.
Every year I make a point of not making a New Year's resolution. I know that most people break their resolutions (if they're even specific enough to break) before the end of January, and so making a New Year's resolution always feels to me like an impulsive or a showy move. I know many people have great reasons for making resolutions, but for me to do it doesn't feel natural.
Since I went to the doctor's office and had the typical blood work done right before Christmas, I got a call over the Christmas holiday that my triglyceride and bad cholesterol levels were consistently elevated enough that I need to start exercising more regularly. For me this means that I need to start exercising at all.
Golden's first reaction was that we should get a membership to the local community center and work out there. My first reaction was thinking that I don't want to be one of those guys the regulars see as an annoyance who will give up in a few weeks.
What I have done so far is find a YouTube channel called FitnessBlender and start with some of their beginner routines. It turns out my boss uses the same channel for some of his exercises, so I'm not the only person I know who uses the channel. He's more active and healthier than me, though. I've committed to doing twenty minutes of routines every day, even when I'm very busy. This sounds great on the surface, but to this point I have primarily proven to myself that I am horribly out of shape because I have a hard time completing anything other than the beginner routines.
My short term goal is to get healthy enough to regularly complete the normal, not-beginner routines without too much trouble. My medium term goal is simply not to gain more weight, and ideally trim some (five pounds in a few months would be great at this point). That goal is more psychological than anything. My long term goal is to not have given up on this endeavor in one, two, five, or ten years.
Thus far, I have not modified my eating habits because I don't want to make major changes all at once that are unsustainable. To me, this whole thing is pointless if I don't keep this up over the long term. We'll see how committed I can remain to this since it's now more directly a question of health rather than just clothing size.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
low-fat diets
Every once in a while we'll end up with a low or no fat food product in the house. It's rarely on purpose, and is more likely due to someone not noticing the wording on the label, but those instances have led me to appreciate the effect that fat has on flavor.
Likewise, I have had a few similar instances to taste the low sodium versions of some things I like (V8 being the noteworthy one), and can appreciate the positive affect that salt has on the flavor of my food.
As long as I can remember I have heard that healthy foods are low fat, low salt, and low cholesterol. This has been promoted for decades. What I am now hearing is that much of that is wrong. The latest source I have heard this from is the following video, but it is by no means the first time I have come across this information.
What is particularly frustrating about this video is that it points out that when the dietary recommendations were made decades ago the evidence was already available to indicate that low fat diets were not medically beneficial. I have to say that if I learned this after going through a low fat diet or a low sodium diet I would be none too pleased. Those foods are simply not very good, and to give up those pleasures for no benefit would be difficult. That is to speak nothing of the people who died and may have survived if they knew to focus on something other than fat intake.
So, the good news is I can continue to eat food with fats in them without feeling bad about what that fat is going to do to me. The bad news is that many tasty foods that I want to eat are still known to be bad for me.
Likewise, I have had a few similar instances to taste the low sodium versions of some things I like (V8 being the noteworthy one), and can appreciate the positive affect that salt has on the flavor of my food.
As long as I can remember I have heard that healthy foods are low fat, low salt, and low cholesterol. This has been promoted for decades. What I am now hearing is that much of that is wrong. The latest source I have heard this from is the following video, but it is by no means the first time I have come across this information.
What is particularly frustrating about this video is that it points out that when the dietary recommendations were made decades ago the evidence was already available to indicate that low fat diets were not medically beneficial. I have to say that if I learned this after going through a low fat diet or a low sodium diet I would be none too pleased. Those foods are simply not very good, and to give up those pleasures for no benefit would be difficult. That is to speak nothing of the people who died and may have survived if they knew to focus on something other than fat intake.
So, the good news is I can continue to eat food with fats in them without feeling bad about what that fat is going to do to me. The bad news is that many tasty foods that I want to eat are still known to be bad for me.
Saturday, November 09, 2013
pumpkin season
 |
| Photo by: Danielle Scott |
I wouldn't say I don't like pumpkin and the things made from pumpkins. I actually do. For example, a properly made pumpkin pie can be quite good. I would say that I have never had anything with pumpkin flavoring that wouldn't taste better with a more traditional and less seasonal flavoring, though.
For example, I think pumpkin bread is perfectly fine. I'd actually prefer banana bread or zucchini bread, though. Note that this comes from someone who does not like bananas or zucchinis. Pumpkin flavored ice cream is okay, but even in autumn I'd prefer vanilla. I can definitely enjoy a slice of pumpkin pie, but I like most other types of pie far better with a few very specific exceptions. Give me apple, cherry, or blueberry over pumpkin any day.
I understand that a big part of the appeal is the same sort of appeal that certain foods have at Christmas time. It's not necessarily the flavor that is desirable, but rather the atmosphere that it creates. It's a way for a person to get their mind into the season, and it can be more pleasurable for the person who loves autumn. Even so, I'm always a little perplexed with the excitement that pumpkin flavored things garners with a lot of people. Pumpkin just isn't a flavor I can get excited about.
So, I'm interested. Do your tastes align with mine, or do you get excited about pumpkin season? If you get excited about pumpkin season is it more about the flavor or about the season itself?
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
manure cake
This builds off my recent post about the dreadful sinful state of every member of humanity, though it is not necessarily intended to be a "part two" in a series.
I have heard an illustration about sin multiple places that bugs me. It goes something like this.
My objections to this illustration are below.
We sin because we are sinners
The illustration does not typically encourage introspection as to the source of sin. If the source of sin is not addressed, all we're really doing in a best-case scenario is window dressing. The form this often takes is in enforcing a specific social code that is called a moral code, but that is not always strictly Biblical.
There should be more poop than cake
If the cake represents the good things a person does and the manure the bad things a person does, then the cake should be mostly manure no matter the person. Paul compared his lifetime of law-keeping and maintaining good standing within Judaism on the same level as dung, or "rubbish" (Phil 3:8). While we are not under the law, law itself is still the perfect measuring stick that proves our sinfulness. If any good action should be considered delicious cake to God, wouldn't keeping His law be at the top of the list? If Paul's good deeds should be considered feces, so should everyone else's.
This is important because the illustration betrays a misconception that the illustration teller has. This is that the typical Christian is mostly sanctified and really just needs a few social faux pas issues addressed rather than a complete overhaul.Most of us All of us will still need a near-complete overhaul by the time we die.
This implies that our role is to make ourselves perfect for God
I cannot emphasize enough that if I have to make myself good for God's sake I will fail. There has only ever been one good person on this earth, and it is not me. It is not ever going to be me in this life, either. Not by a long shot.
If I believe that I have to make myself perfect for God but literally cannot do this, what do you suppose the end result of this path will be? I see one of two possibilities. Either I will become embittered and fearful as I see sin in everything while always hating myself for not sizing up, or I will adopt a permissive doctrine on sin because God wouldn't send me on an impossible task. With the first possibility I will get burned out and possibly give up on God. With the second possibility I will lose sight of my sin nature, which is a symptom that I lack justification.
This puts us at odds with God's intent to be the one to change us
My responsibility is to not willingly offer the parts of my body to sin (Rom 6:12-13) and to live up to the level of my sanctification (Phil 3:15-16). The actual changing of my being into something more like God has to be performed by God.
This focuses attention on certain sins while completely ignoring others
This illustration is typically used to address quibbles about social faux pas "sins" rather than affronts to God. As an example, this approach ultimately makes it look like God cares more about whether I use a four-letter word than if I sacrifice for a brother in need, while Scripture focuses significantly more on the latter than the former.
Clarification: Sin is bad
I do want to note that I am not belittling sin or implying that it is no big deal. Sin is a reflection of a deeply flawed individual, and it ultimately needs to be addressed. What I am saying is that the cow patty cake illustration does nothing to truly deal with the sin, and by implying that we are responsible for making ourselves perfect the illustration sends the audience down a path that leads to destruction rather than salvation. Our salvation and our ultimate perfection is in Christ, and Christ offers the only path to address sin.
Addressing a potential objection
One potential response to my assertion that it is not our role to make ourselves perfect for God is Romans 12:1, presented below from the NIV and bolded to emphasize the potential objection.
The most obvious contextual clue about what this verse is stating is in the very next verse (emphasis mine).
I have a couple of other points from the context that contradict the idea that we are supposed to make ourselves perfect which I present below.
I have heard an illustration about sin multiple places that bugs me. It goes something like this.
Imagine I were to make a cake for you. The best cake you could imagine. It would be moist, full of chocolate, and delectable in every aspect save one. That cake would have just a little bit of horse or cow manure in it. Not much at all in comparison to the cake, really. There's a good chance you'd barely even taste the manure. Would you still want the cake?The person presenting the illustration typically goes on to note that this is how we should view "little sins." Justifications that they are not a big deal is similar to stating that the manure in the cake is not a big deal because it is only a little bit of manure.
My objections to this illustration are below.
We sin because we are sinners
The illustration does not typically encourage introspection as to the source of sin. If the source of sin is not addressed, all we're really doing in a best-case scenario is window dressing. The form this often takes is in enforcing a specific social code that is called a moral code, but that is not always strictly Biblical.
There should be more poop than cake
If the cake represents the good things a person does and the manure the bad things a person does, then the cake should be mostly manure no matter the person. Paul compared his lifetime of law-keeping and maintaining good standing within Judaism on the same level as dung, or "rubbish" (Phil 3:8). While we are not under the law, law itself is still the perfect measuring stick that proves our sinfulness. If any good action should be considered delicious cake to God, wouldn't keeping His law be at the top of the list? If Paul's good deeds should be considered feces, so should everyone else's.
This is important because the illustration betrays a misconception that the illustration teller has. This is that the typical Christian is mostly sanctified and really just needs a few social faux pas issues addressed rather than a complete overhaul.
This implies that our role is to make ourselves perfect for God
I cannot emphasize enough that if I have to make myself good for God's sake I will fail. There has only ever been one good person on this earth, and it is not me. It is not ever going to be me in this life, either. Not by a long shot.
If I believe that I have to make myself perfect for God but literally cannot do this, what do you suppose the end result of this path will be? I see one of two possibilities. Either I will become embittered and fearful as I see sin in everything while always hating myself for not sizing up, or I will adopt a permissive doctrine on sin because God wouldn't send me on an impossible task. With the first possibility I will get burned out and possibly give up on God. With the second possibility I will lose sight of my sin nature, which is a symptom that I lack justification.
This puts us at odds with God's intent to be the one to change us
My responsibility is to not willingly offer the parts of my body to sin (Rom 6:12-13) and to live up to the level of my sanctification (Phil 3:15-16). The actual changing of my being into something more like God has to be performed by God.
This focuses attention on certain sins while completely ignoring others
This illustration is typically used to address quibbles about social faux pas "sins" rather than affronts to God. As an example, this approach ultimately makes it look like God cares more about whether I use a four-letter word than if I sacrifice for a brother in need, while Scripture focuses significantly more on the latter than the former.
Clarification: Sin is bad
I do want to note that I am not belittling sin or implying that it is no big deal. Sin is a reflection of a deeply flawed individual, and it ultimately needs to be addressed. What I am saying is that the cow patty cake illustration does nothing to truly deal with the sin, and by implying that we are responsible for making ourselves perfect the illustration sends the audience down a path that leads to destruction rather than salvation. Our salvation and our ultimate perfection is in Christ, and Christ offers the only path to address sin.
Addressing a potential objection
One potential response to my assertion that it is not our role to make ourselves perfect for God is Romans 12:1, presented below from the NIV and bolded to emphasize the potential objection.
"Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship."Paul appears to be telling his audience that they need to make themselves perfect and present themselves to God when read without context, doesn't he? Not only that, it looks like we cannot worship properly without doing this as well. Context paints a slightly different picture, though.
The most obvious contextual clue about what this verse is stating is in the very next verse (emphasis mine).
"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."While there is certainly action that is expected from us in this passage, it is clear in this verse where perfection comes from. We are not presenting our bodies to God as perfect. We are not transforming ourselves. We are presenting our bodies to God as sacrifices to be ultimately be transformed into something perfect. By God. This fits into Paul's earlier statements in Romans (6:16) that we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. We might have some say in our path, but we can't in ourselves do anything to make ourselves less sinful (or less slaves to the sin nature).
I have a couple of other points from the context that contradict the idea that we are supposed to make ourselves perfect which I present below.
- The sentence in Romans 12:1 begins with the word, "therefore." This implies that the verse is in response to something from the preceding verses, and Paul is clear that that something is God's mercy. Paul has just completed talking about both the Jews' and the Gentiles' rebellion against God, and how this ultimately leads to God's mercy toward both (11:30-31). Presenting your bodies is therefore an act of someone who has already received (or is receiving) God's mercy and, even in the most law-based of theologies, should not presently need to prove something to God.
- In the "Doxology" passage that is typically seen as the conclusion of the thoughts from the first half of Romans Paul makes clear that we cannot give God anything (11:35). This means that we cannot offer God perfection, as that would certainly qualify as a gift to Him. The verse reads as follows and is the perfect conclusion to this piece.
"Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?"Definitely not me!
Friday, March 09, 2012
something light
I actually have a very difficult time coming up with light topics for this blog. The deeper or more involved ones take some time to type, but I usually have several in the back of my mind that I am mulling. The problem with that is I expect that most people wanting to read a blog are not looking to commit a lot of time reading through multiple treatises that simply state the blogger's personal viewpoint, and are instead looking for something light.
So, here's a random list of statements about light.
So, here's a random list of statements about light.
- I used to think that foods labeled as "lite" were labeled using an improper spelling to get around FDA rules. At least today, there are FDA rules for what can be labeled as "lite," so I was probably wrong.
- Thomas Edison did not create the world's first incandescent light bulb. He created the world's first economically viable incandescent light bulb.
- A lightsaber's colors are determined by the crystal used in its creation.
- The person who was struck the most times in his life by lightning was Roy Sullivan, who was struck seven times over a period of thirty-five years and change. He died at his own hand due to relationship troubles rather than directly due to the lightning.
- A boxer who is in the official Lightweight class weighs between 135 and 140 pounds. The limit for heavyweight is a mere sixty pounds more than the upper bound of this at 200 pounds.
- About ten years ago some researchers successfully stopped and restarted light by forcing it through a super cold cloud of atoms. This all occurred in the span of a thousandth of a second, which makes you wonder if the validation process was the researchers asking each other, "You saw that, right?" and responding in the affirmative to make each other feel good.
- The poem Charge of the Light Brigade retells the true story of a cavalry charge in the Crimean War that occurred due to miscommunication. The poem supposes that the soldiers knew the charge was a mistake, but gave their lives for it anyway.
- Hasbro has an online Lite-Brite that you can use to make and print designs.
- The first traffic light in a form similar to today had two colors (red and green) and used a buzzer as a warning of light change rather than a yellow light.
- Gordon Lightfoot's Wikipedia page lists his various musical styles as, "folk, folk-rock, and country music." I could have sworn that was three different ways of saying the same thing.
- The word, "lite," in Swedish means, "a little."
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
only in america
One list that I have come across several times in my time online is a series of things that could happen, "Only in America." A typical representation of the list is here, and common observations are that pizza can get to your house faster than an ambulance and that there are handicap spaces in front of skating rinks. The observation that has always stuck with me is the following, though.
The implications with the observation is two-fold. First, someone who orders double cheeseburgers and large fries truly has little self-control. Second, diet Coke is a lazy and ineffective means of offsetting the calories consumed in the burger and fries. I believe that both of these assumptions is false, so I would like to address them.
Double cheeseburger and fries
Is this really that much food? On a calorie for calorie basis I know that a burger and fries tends to be more expensive than most other equivalent entree options, but this does not mean that ordering the food equals a lack of self-control. Everyone splurges on some things, which can be healthy when it is controlled, so splurging on the double cheeseburger (rather than the triple cheeseburger) does not seem like such a big deal. It is a big deal if someone with a sedentary lifestyle orders the burger and fries every single day, but that scenario is not implied in the joke.
Diet Coke and calories
While I am sure that a diet Coke contains many things that are not good for the body, a twelve-ounce diet Coke contains just under 200 calories less than a regular Coke of the same size. The average adult would have to walk almost two miles to burn that many calories. Doesn't it make sense that the person who should order the diet Coke to trim those 200 calories should be the one who is splurging on the double cheeseburger rather than the person ordering a salad?
I like to think of this in budgeting terms. Let's say that I have budgeted to spend 800 calories this meal. If my double cheeseburger and fries gets me to 790 calories, I would have to drink the diet drink or a water to stay under budget. This is the same concept that if I have $800 to do repair work around the house, once I hit my budgetary limit and spend my $800 I have to only repair the things that can be repaired for free. It is not absurd to cut back in spending on one part of a renovation project to offset splurging in another part.
Why do I care? Because only in America... are the burgers so good.
"Only in America... do people order double cheeseburgers, large fries, and a diet Coke."It sounds good at first, and the reason it initially stuck out to me was that I thought it was more insightful than the other observations in the list the first time I read it. Upon further introspection, and the fact that I have started drinking diet cola with more frequency, I now believe that this observation not very insightful at all.
The implications with the observation is two-fold. First, someone who orders double cheeseburgers and large fries truly has little self-control. Second, diet Coke is a lazy and ineffective means of offsetting the calories consumed in the burger and fries. I believe that both of these assumptions is false, so I would like to address them.
Double cheeseburger and fries
Is this really that much food? On a calorie for calorie basis I know that a burger and fries tends to be more expensive than most other equivalent entree options, but this does not mean that ordering the food equals a lack of self-control. Everyone splurges on some things, which can be healthy when it is controlled, so splurging on the double cheeseburger (rather than the triple cheeseburger) does not seem like such a big deal. It is a big deal if someone with a sedentary lifestyle orders the burger and fries every single day, but that scenario is not implied in the joke.
Diet Coke and calories
While I am sure that a diet Coke contains many things that are not good for the body, a twelve-ounce diet Coke contains just under 200 calories less than a regular Coke of the same size. The average adult would have to walk almost two miles to burn that many calories. Doesn't it make sense that the person who should order the diet Coke to trim those 200 calories should be the one who is splurging on the double cheeseburger rather than the person ordering a salad?
I like to think of this in budgeting terms. Let's say that I have budgeted to spend 800 calories this meal. If my double cheeseburger and fries gets me to 790 calories, I would have to drink the diet drink or a water to stay under budget. This is the same concept that if I have $800 to do repair work around the house, once I hit my budgetary limit and spend my $800 I have to only repair the things that can be repaired for free. It is not absurd to cut back in spending on one part of a renovation project to offset splurging in another part.
Why do I care? Because only in America... are the burgers so good.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
smokin'
Gallup released some data last week stating what is probably obvious, that smokers as a whole have a statistically lower quality of life than non-smokers by several different measures. While one could argue that low quality of life causes cigarette smoking, I would have to say it works the other way too. This does not surprise me and it should not surprise many other people, but what perplexes me is what the appeal of cigarettes are.
As I understand it, most people who smoke as adults started as teens, possibly under peer pressure, then stick with the habit because it is hard to break later. What I do not understand is how this specific vice has caught on. I assume that most people who are smokers and started since our culture has been inundated with information about how unhealthy smoking is are more short-term thinkers who do not picture themselves at age fifty with emphysema or lung cancer.
When I was in high school I worked as a cashier and a bagger at a grocery store. Probably the majority of the observations I have made about cigarettes and smokers came out of the experience of that job. Since I was frequently the person who had to retrieve customer's cigarettes from the locked display case, I got a good sense of who was buying cigarettes. Granted, no one was quite young enough to be in my age group because I was under eighteen, but my observation of the general cigarette purchaser demographic did not make me think that I would be more cool if I smoked. I am sure that I was heavily influenced by a strong correlation that I saw between people who used food stamps and people who bought a multiple cartons of cigarettes. I am not saying anything about those who have to turn to food stamps. I just did not want to emulate the lives of those people in that situation.
That grocery store had a small break room where most employees spent their breaks and where it was not yet illegal to smoke, though it probably would be illegal today with the lack of proper ventilation and all. If there was any question about the impact that cigarette smoke can have on lungs a person would only need to look at the walls of that room. The originally white walls had been turned what I assume was a brownish yellow. They were repainted while I was there and very quickly started to look dingy again. Of course, this illustrated what everyone in this country knows, that cigarette smoke will damage whatever it comes in contact with over extended periods of time.
One of the managers at the store once was illustrating how old he was using the price of cigarettes as an example. He noted that he had given up on cigarettes in his younger days because the habit was too expensive at fifteen cents a pack. At the time a typical pack of brand name cigarettes cost about two dollars. I do not know what a pack of cigarettes costs today, but I do know that in Pennsylvania where I had that grocery job that the taxes on a pack of cigarettes is now more than two dollars, which would imply a price approaching four dollars a pack. At more than $1400 a year, who has the kind of money to be able to afford a pack-a-day habit? I certainly do not.
A final thing I noticed when I worked at the grocery store was that, whether I was judging them fairly or not, the middle-aged to older people who bought cigarettes nearly always looked noticeably worse for the wear than those who did not. A few had severe creases around their lips where they had pursed them to hold their tobacco container of choice. A handful had obviously damaged their voice boxes in some way. Who wants to start a habit that almost guarantees they will appear an aged fifty or sixty years old rather than an attractive fifty or sixty?
Of all of the vices there are, smoking is one of the ones that I just do not understand. There are many addictions I that I understand how someone could get sucked into them because they offer a fleeting but significant endorphin rush. I guess that smoking must too, but as someone who has never smoked I just don't see it.
I have heard some people claim that smoking is a sin, but I do not think that is necessarily the case. It is an addiction, and those are the sorts of things that have to be dealt with as we prioritize Christ. It is not necessarily any more sinful than other addictions that people see as benign, though, such as to a specific food or television show.
Even if I did not have all of these reasons not to smoke, I would probably still have to pass on it. I already have a dependence to a chemical substance that stains my teeth, ruins my breath, impacts my mood, and is associated with relaxation. I drink my share of coffee every day and that is good enough for me.
As I understand it, most people who smoke as adults started as teens, possibly under peer pressure, then stick with the habit because it is hard to break later. What I do not understand is how this specific vice has caught on. I assume that most people who are smokers and started since our culture has been inundated with information about how unhealthy smoking is are more short-term thinkers who do not picture themselves at age fifty with emphysema or lung cancer.
When I was in high school I worked as a cashier and a bagger at a grocery store. Probably the majority of the observations I have made about cigarettes and smokers came out of the experience of that job. Since I was frequently the person who had to retrieve customer's cigarettes from the locked display case, I got a good sense of who was buying cigarettes. Granted, no one was quite young enough to be in my age group because I was under eighteen, but my observation of the general cigarette purchaser demographic did not make me think that I would be more cool if I smoked. I am sure that I was heavily influenced by a strong correlation that I saw between people who used food stamps and people who bought a multiple cartons of cigarettes. I am not saying anything about those who have to turn to food stamps. I just did not want to emulate the lives of those people in that situation.
That grocery store had a small break room where most employees spent their breaks and where it was not yet illegal to smoke, though it probably would be illegal today with the lack of proper ventilation and all. If there was any question about the impact that cigarette smoke can have on lungs a person would only need to look at the walls of that room. The originally white walls had been turned what I assume was a brownish yellow. They were repainted while I was there and very quickly started to look dingy again. Of course, this illustrated what everyone in this country knows, that cigarette smoke will damage whatever it comes in contact with over extended periods of time.
One of the managers at the store once was illustrating how old he was using the price of cigarettes as an example. He noted that he had given up on cigarettes in his younger days because the habit was too expensive at fifteen cents a pack. At the time a typical pack of brand name cigarettes cost about two dollars. I do not know what a pack of cigarettes costs today, but I do know that in Pennsylvania where I had that grocery job that the taxes on a pack of cigarettes is now more than two dollars, which would imply a price approaching four dollars a pack. At more than $1400 a year, who has the kind of money to be able to afford a pack-a-day habit? I certainly do not.
A final thing I noticed when I worked at the grocery store was that, whether I was judging them fairly or not, the middle-aged to older people who bought cigarettes nearly always looked noticeably worse for the wear than those who did not. A few had severe creases around their lips where they had pursed them to hold their tobacco container of choice. A handful had obviously damaged their voice boxes in some way. Who wants to start a habit that almost guarantees they will appear an aged fifty or sixty years old rather than an attractive fifty or sixty?
Of all of the vices there are, smoking is one of the ones that I just do not understand. There are many addictions I that I understand how someone could get sucked into them because they offer a fleeting but significant endorphin rush. I guess that smoking must too, but as someone who has never smoked I just don't see it.
I have heard some people claim that smoking is a sin, but I do not think that is necessarily the case. It is an addiction, and those are the sorts of things that have to be dealt with as we prioritize Christ. It is not necessarily any more sinful than other addictions that people see as benign, though, such as to a specific food or television show.
Even if I did not have all of these reasons not to smoke, I would probably still have to pass on it. I already have a dependence to a chemical substance that stains my teeth, ruins my breath, impacts my mood, and is associated with relaxation. I drink my share of coffee every day and that is good enough for me.
Friday, March 27, 2009
potlucky
This Sunday our church is having a potluck. I don't really have strong opinions about whether they are good or bad. There are good things about them and bad things. I know that they make for easy inside jokes in churches that have a lot of potlucks, so that's something. The thing that I like least about them, though, is how difficult it is to tell what exactly it is that is in specific pots.
Almost any time I attend a potluck I cannot identify between a quarter and a third of the dishes in the lineup. This stems from the fact that almost everything is a casserole or some other dish whose ingredients are difficult to identify. I think my colorblindness may play a part too. My guess is that most people identify questionable dishes by their color, but the common casserole colors (yellow, orange, tan, green, light brown) look very similar to me. As a result I almost always have at least one thing on my plate that I cannot identify until I have tasted it.
Very frequently at a potluck someone brings a KFC bucket, and while it sticks out, it is always one of the first things to go. As much as I like KFC, I think the main reason that it goes quickly is because people know what it is, rather than that they like it more than anything else on the table. When compared with difficult-to-identify food, a piece of original recipe is safer which simply makes it the better choice.
Almost any time I attend a potluck I cannot identify between a quarter and a third of the dishes in the lineup. This stems from the fact that almost everything is a casserole or some other dish whose ingredients are difficult to identify. I think my colorblindness may play a part too. My guess is that most people identify questionable dishes by their color, but the common casserole colors (yellow, orange, tan, green, light brown) look very similar to me. As a result I almost always have at least one thing on my plate that I cannot identify until I have tasted it.
Very frequently at a potluck someone brings a KFC bucket, and while it sticks out, it is always one of the first things to go. As much as I like KFC, I think the main reason that it goes quickly is because people know what it is, rather than that they like it more than anything else on the table. When compared with difficult-to-identify food, a piece of original recipe is safer which simply makes it the better choice.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
gmail spam
I think most of the people who read this have a Gmail account, but for those who don't there is a small bar along the top of the screen that contains a link relevant to the content of the email. As an example, when I viewed an email with mortgage payment information in it this morning, the link in that bar was for "10 Ways to Start Living the Frugal Life."
Something that I have noticed pretty much since I first got my Gmail account is that when I go to my "Spam" folder I invariably get a link to some Spam recipe. If I refresh a different Spam recipe is presented, so I have to assume that there are a lot of recipes online that call for Spam. I also assume that I can't possibly be the only person who has noticed this. I keep expecting the Spam recipe links to get replaced by something more targeted to me based on the contents of my actual emails.
Am I the only one who has noticed this? Do you think this has been intentionally left this way for laughs? Does creamy Spam broccoli casserole sound appetizing at all?
Something that I have noticed pretty much since I first got my Gmail account is that when I go to my "Spam" folder I invariably get a link to some Spam recipe. If I refresh a different Spam recipe is presented, so I have to assume that there are a lot of recipes online that call for Spam. I also assume that I can't possibly be the only person who has noticed this. I keep expecting the Spam recipe links to get replaced by something more targeted to me based on the contents of my actual emails.
Am I the only one who has noticed this? Do you think this has been intentionally left this way for laughs? Does creamy Spam broccoli casserole sound appetizing at all?
Friday, March 06, 2009
frozen peas
I have debated whether to discuss today's topic at all because some people may be a bit uncomfortable with it. The option I have chosen is to discuss it delicately here and not mention it at all on Facebook. If the topic bothers you, just stop reading.
Today, I went to the doctor to take steps to not have any more kids. I figure most people can figure out what that means. A few things about the visit stick out.
First, there were a couple of guys in the office who had apparently ridden there together with the intention to have their procedures done at the same time. One guy was called, then the next was, then the first one came back to the waiting room when he was done and waited for the other. I think that I would sooner do this alone than with a friend.
Second, the doctor's office was way behind schedule today. When I was called from the waiting room the individual who took me to the room where the procedure would be performed apologized and made a comment implying that one of the procedures earlier in the morning had some complications. Had I been nervous about my procedure this would have probably disarmed me. It really didn't register high on my radar, though.
Next, the procedure was a bit more painful than I expected, but it was much shorter and the recovery has been much better than I expected. I'll leave it at that.
Also, I determined today that pretty much my entire sense of modesty is culturally derived. I expected to be more uncomfortable with the level of exposure the procedure involves. I really wasn't. That probably sounds more disturbing than it needs to sound. I don't intend to become an exhibitionist any time soon.
Finally, the doctor recommended using an ice pack for a day, but Dash has noted many times that frozen peas are effective. I am thankful for this advice. I don't know if I will be psychologically able to force myself to eat peas for a few weeks now, but they work for this tertiary purpose.
Today, I went to the doctor to take steps to not have any more kids. I figure most people can figure out what that means. A few things about the visit stick out.
First, there were a couple of guys in the office who had apparently ridden there together with the intention to have their procedures done at the same time. One guy was called, then the next was, then the first one came back to the waiting room when he was done and waited for the other. I think that I would sooner do this alone than with a friend.
Second, the doctor's office was way behind schedule today. When I was called from the waiting room the individual who took me to the room where the procedure would be performed apologized and made a comment implying that one of the procedures earlier in the morning had some complications. Had I been nervous about my procedure this would have probably disarmed me. It really didn't register high on my radar, though.
Next, the procedure was a bit more painful than I expected, but it was much shorter and the recovery has been much better than I expected. I'll leave it at that.
Also, I determined today that pretty much my entire sense of modesty is culturally derived. I expected to be more uncomfortable with the level of exposure the procedure involves. I really wasn't. That probably sounds more disturbing than it needs to sound. I don't intend to become an exhibitionist any time soon.
Finally, the doctor recommended using an ice pack for a day, but Dash has noted many times that frozen peas are effective. I am thankful for this advice. I don't know if I will be psychologically able to force myself to eat peas for a few weeks now, but they work for this tertiary purpose.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
the new ranch
The last few months Golden has been writing up the grocery list and I have been doing the shopping because it is easier for me to get out and about. As a result, I have gotten quite used to the details of most of the items that we tend to buy in our house. Some of the ones that we don't purchase very often are still a bit complicated, though. One example is ranch dressing.I am pretty certain that we have generally purchased Kraft ranch dressing more than other brands rather consistently in the past. Regardless, I always kind of thought of ranch dressing as something that has been relatively standardized. The only real flavor dangers should be in either buying some strange ranch variant (like garlic ranch) or fat-free ranch (which I think tastes a bit like plastic). I have learned that I was wrong.
A few weeks ago I picked up a container of Kraft ranch dressing on the weekly grocery run. I noticed that the bottle looked different, but I was careful to check that it was the plain ranch dressing and was not a fat-free variation. When it came time to use the dressing I found that it had more in common with Elmer's glue than with the ranch dressing that I am used to. After considering for a while whether I just got a bad bottle I came across this website and this website where others describe running into the same issue that I did. Apparently, Kraft changed the recipe for a few of its dressings and this ranch dressing is but one example.
This leads me to some obvious thoughts. First, Kraft apparently didn't learn from the New Coke that changing up flavors is not always a positive thing. Sticking with the old formula would definitely have been a better move in both cases. Second, does Kraft not do reliable market testing? This sort of thing should get caught in test markets rather than in nationwide releases. Third, is there anyone who actually liked this version? I can't imagine anyone really going for it. The best I can conjure in my mind is someone who doesn't absolutely hate it. Finally, what do I do with it? Is it stupid to toss a nearly completely unused container of ranch dressing? Does anyone else want a sample before I toss it?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
seeking direction
The laptop is a lost cause, so I will be posting from the home PC for a while. I will probably get back on track with posting after the baby is born. I will try to update when it is possible until then.
I don't like stopping to ask for directions. I know it is very cliche, but in my case that stereotype is true. I will stop and ask for directions if I have to, but I have to have come to the point where it is a necessity. I do not know whether most women understand why a lot of men will not stop to ask for directions, so that is what I am going discuss in this post.
Men, and I have to use myself as an example, generally do not like to admit to weakness. I doubt the reason for this is much deeper than that men do not want to feel weak, either physically or intellectually, but this tendency runs deep. Boys who run to their mothers when things are bad are called sissies (or much worse). Girls aren't. I know of one situation that illustrated this for me where one guy was teased mercilessly when he sent an email to his department (composed entirely of men) saying he was taking a sick day because he was "feeling weak." I was not that guy.
When a man stops and asks for directions he is admitting that he has a glaring weakness. He is so incapable of finding his way that he has to bow to someone else's superior sense of direction. It may sound crazy to most women and some of the less stereotypical men, but this really is the rationalization involved. Admitting you are lost can be the same as admitting that you are a failure in this area of your life.
I actually take this to a further level. Today as we were in the grocery store Golden got a free sample of some food. I found a way to walk around the display unnoticed. I have a very difficult time accepting even a sample of food for free. This is because I feel like I am putting myself in the position of accepting a handout, and that gives me the feeling that I am somehow not providing for myself. Again, this may sound crazy, but it doesn't make it any less true. I can pay for my food, thank you very much.
I don't like stopping to ask for directions. I know it is very cliche, but in my case that stereotype is true. I will stop and ask for directions if I have to, but I have to have come to the point where it is a necessity. I do not know whether most women understand why a lot of men will not stop to ask for directions, so that is what I am going discuss in this post.
Men, and I have to use myself as an example, generally do not like to admit to weakness. I doubt the reason for this is much deeper than that men do not want to feel weak, either physically or intellectually, but this tendency runs deep. Boys who run to their mothers when things are bad are called sissies (or much worse). Girls aren't. I know of one situation that illustrated this for me where one guy was teased mercilessly when he sent an email to his department (composed entirely of men) saying he was taking a sick day because he was "feeling weak." I was not that guy.
When a man stops and asks for directions he is admitting that he has a glaring weakness. He is so incapable of finding his way that he has to bow to someone else's superior sense of direction. It may sound crazy to most women and some of the less stereotypical men, but this really is the rationalization involved. Admitting you are lost can be the same as admitting that you are a failure in this area of your life.
I actually take this to a further level. Today as we were in the grocery store Golden got a free sample of some food. I found a way to walk around the display unnoticed. I have a very difficult time accepting even a sample of food for free. This is because I feel like I am putting myself in the position of accepting a handout, and that gives me the feeling that I am somehow not providing for myself. Again, this may sound crazy, but it doesn't make it any less true. I can pay for my food, thank you very much.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
a cat with a pipe
I am amazed that the commercial above is actually for a film festival since it pretty effectively illustrates the feelings of those who don't get film festivals. I am wondering if the purpose is to keep those who don't like film festivals away, or if it is to make those who appreciate independent film feel superior in that they get it.
I may not always be the brightest bulb, as they say, but I don't think I am stupid. I am surprised, then, by how often the video above epitomizes my experience with works that are supposed to be heady. I think, and I have speculated on this before, that most of the stuff that I do not get is usually related to the emotional content of the book, movie, play, art, etc. Since I understand colorblindness, I compare my feelings about these works to my inability to see certain shades of color. I just don't understand certain nuances of red, and I just don't understand certain nuances of emotion.
One other thing I don't understand is why the people who do get certain artistic works (or at least who say they do) seem to credit it to superior intelligence or taste. I don't think that intelligence usually plays a role, and I think taste is subjective. To me that's the same as if I got arrogant over the fact that I think I appreciate a Chipotle fajita more than most people can. That kind of conceit borders on the ludicrous.
I guess this means that I won't be visiting any independent film festivals in the near future. As if that's a real shock.
Friday, July 25, 2008
parents visiting
My parents are visiting this upcoming week. As usual, there are things that my dad will probably be doing on the house. As usual, there really isn't much of a plan as to what is happening when. As usual, the most important thing is that NJ's grandparents get to spend quality time with him.
Golden has been a little stressed trying to get the house prepared while NJ has been busy getting it unprepared. Golden has done a good job, though. It's not easy keeping this place clean with a two-year-old whose purpose it is to make the house messy.
The biggest issue that we run across when having people over is figuring out what to prepare for meals and snacks. I grew up with my parents and I cannot remember half of what they like to eat. I should have paid closer attention when I was growing up I guess.
They were talking like they would be getting in late Saturday night, but they are leaving from Columbus, Ohio, in the morning, and I cannot imagine that trip taking more than ten hours. Maybe it could take twelve hours if there was a lot of construction.
Hopefully the trip goes well and NJ enjoys the time with his grandparents, since that's the entire purpose of the trip anyway.
Golden has been a little stressed trying to get the house prepared while NJ has been busy getting it unprepared. Golden has done a good job, though. It's not easy keeping this place clean with a two-year-old whose purpose it is to make the house messy.
The biggest issue that we run across when having people over is figuring out what to prepare for meals and snacks. I grew up with my parents and I cannot remember half of what they like to eat. I should have paid closer attention when I was growing up I guess.
They were talking like they would be getting in late Saturday night, but they are leaving from Columbus, Ohio, in the morning, and I cannot imagine that trip taking more than ten hours. Maybe it could take twelve hours if there was a lot of construction.
Hopefully the trip goes well and NJ enjoys the time with his grandparents, since that's the entire purpose of the trip anyway.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
odd tastes
There are certain foods that I simply do not like. Of the foods that I do not like, most do not fit into the category of foods that I do not like due to some repressed memory that manifests itself in a gag reflex. Most I genuinely distaste because of the flavor, texture, or some combination of the two. These include most forms of fish, squash, and liver, among other things. Why it is that I naturally don't like the foods while there are people who absolutely crave them, though, I don't know.
Why is it that food tastes are not universal? I like tastes such as coffee, dill pickles, and spinach but many other people do not. In my mind it would make more sense if everyone in the world had roughly the same tastes rather than the wide variety of tastes that exist. I assume that the human tongue and nose are pretty standard in how they operate, so I would think this would lead to stronger standards as to what foods taste good or bad.
I think most people also have foods that they have disliked for psychological reasons at one time or another as well. This makes sense to me. I just do not understand the difference between the physical repulsion and craving that different people can have for the same foods.
If I were somehow transported into someone else's body would I acquire that person's tastes? Do different food flavors taste different to different people? Do certain cravings indicate a lack of specific nutrients?
I have said in the past that I eat because I am hungry rather than for a food experience. This is mostly true, but not completely. There are foods that seem to release more endorphins in me than others, like a Chipotle fajita or one of those miniature chocolate doughnuts. Does everyone have a list of foods that essentially performs the same function?
Now that I have typed this and started thinking about the foods I like, I can't think too clearly. All I can think about is that I'm getting hungry.
Why is it that food tastes are not universal? I like tastes such as coffee, dill pickles, and spinach but many other people do not. In my mind it would make more sense if everyone in the world had roughly the same tastes rather than the wide variety of tastes that exist. I assume that the human tongue and nose are pretty standard in how they operate, so I would think this would lead to stronger standards as to what foods taste good or bad.
I think most people also have foods that they have disliked for psychological reasons at one time or another as well. This makes sense to me. I just do not understand the difference between the physical repulsion and craving that different people can have for the same foods.
If I were somehow transported into someone else's body would I acquire that person's tastes? Do different food flavors taste different to different people? Do certain cravings indicate a lack of specific nutrients?
I have said in the past that I eat because I am hungry rather than for a food experience. This is mostly true, but not completely. There are foods that seem to release more endorphins in me than others, like a Chipotle fajita or one of those miniature chocolate doughnuts. Does everyone have a list of foods that essentially performs the same function?
Now that I have typed this and started thinking about the foods I like, I can't think too clearly. All I can think about is that I'm getting hungry.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
