A bunch of cartoons from theoatmeal.com. The subject matter is brilliant and true. Cooking for a single person is expensive, waste prone and monotonous- not to mention unnecessary in a society where it is easy to find clean, decent and reasonably priced restaurants.
You can avoid most of the problems associated with eating out by avoiding fast food places, chain restaurants, non-busy restaurants and gourmet restaurants. You should also avoid items that are riskier (anything with ground meat, lots of raw ingredients or unpopular dishes). Plus feel free to return food that is not properly cooked or feels iffy.
Click on each thumbnail for a full-sized image.
OK, this is a disturbing question.
Why do so many people with rapidly progressive and terminal disease prefer to suffer pain, misery, extensive hospitalization to fight what they know is a losing battle?
Let me clarify- conditions such as infections, trauma, burns, heart attacks, strokes etc are worth treating to the bitter end because they is a chance of complete or partial recovery. But what about something like terminal metastasized lung cancer that is unresponsive to all method of treating it?
Isn’t keeping someone like that alive in the final stages of the disease tantamount to torturing them? I mean, it is very profitable for physicians and hospitals, but is it worth it- FOR THE PATIENT?
I am cynical enough to say that many physicians oppose legalized and transparent euthanasia for rapidly progressing terminal diseases because they are afraid of losing potential income. Those expensive holidays, bigger swimming pools, sexier cars and plastic surgeries for their aging hags are not going to pay for themselves. The slow, painful and miserable death of patients is just an unfortunate side-effect of the drive to extract more money out of the system.
You may have heard that indians have a higher incidence of diabetes and arterial disease inspite of lower ‘BMIs’. While many clever morons are still looking for a viable genetic explanation, the reality is far more mundane and obvious.
It is a self-inflicted tragedy. The two mutually connected problems are
1] A vegetarian diet: Vegetarian diets are heavy in carbohydrates, but poor in protein and animal fat.They result in significantly higher insulin levels, even if it they contain enough protein and fat.
Insulin is an anabolic hormone, of the same family as growth hormone (GH). However unlike GH which is anabolic for muscle, connective tissue and bones, Insulin is anabolic for fat cells- especially visceral fat cells. Now visceral fat cells have this annoying habit of secreting cytokines which drumroll.. cause insulin resistance resulting in the body producing even more insulin. You get the picture?
Plus carb-heavy foods do not help the person increase muscle mass, which further worsen insulin resistance. However muscularity beyond a moderately athletic physique is not beneficial.
Most indians in their infinite stupidity, not only defend such a diet but choose not to eat high-meat/low carbs diets even if they can afford them. In almost every western county, indians have a higher income than the local white population- so there is really no excuse.
2] Not Drinking: Indians also demonstrate their cultural superiority by not drinking alcohol. While binge drinking or a high chronic intake is not good for your health, chronic moderate drinking is associated with a much lower risk of insulin resistance, type 2 DM and heart disease.
Combine this with factor 1] and you get a perfect storm of insulin resistance, visceral fat, hepatic steatosis, high levels of chronic information, extensive unstable plaques in arteries and heart attacks.
All this so that they can take pride in their vegetarianism and teetolling ways. Is it really worth it? Seriously?
Often many “educated” and “high IQ” morons mention concepts such as the laws of thermodynamics to support their beliefs without reading the fine print.
Think about the popular “wisdom”: Calories IN = Calories OUT. Let us humor these simplistic morons by ignoring the metabolic effects/ endocrine functions of various types of fat cells, and the rebound effects of calorie deprivation.
The law says that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. It is usually formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work performed by the system on its surroundings.
So what type of system are we talking about? The law applies to isolated systems. But is the human body or any other form of life, an isolated system? Does the human body (or any organism) exchange matter and energy with the environment around it? because if it does, you cannot apply that law.
On another note, how many people can increase their bodies fat content (as a %) on a low-carb, but high fat and protein diet? Why not? Why does eating 1000 calories as a sugary cereal make you feel less full (satiated) than eating it as a steak sandwich with fries?