Mom And Pop

Fat is out. But I like fat. Preferably charred. However fat's become a “no-no.” There are people more interested in my health than I am, and they control what I can eat. I remember a trip that my wife and I made to Spain about a decade ago. One of the things we did was to take an excursion and cross from there to Morocco, I think to the city of Tangier. Before recrossing the Mediterranean we stopped off in the city's open market. Everything and everybody was there. There were colors galore; fabrics, crafts, fruit and vegetables, and whatever you've seen in the movies. And there was meat. Sides of various animals were hung in front of the venders' booths, and flies swarmed around them. It was hot. There were some displays of cut meat available for purchase, and in every case the meat was trimmed to a point where there was almost no fat left. Even there the threat to health required the trimming of fat, even if insect-born diseases weren't of great concern.

I also recall an attempt I made to get what I liked from a local market in the Bronx. Unfortunately the market's owners had adopted the practices of larger stores. Their meat was already cut and packaged, and the corned-beef must have had only a sixteenth of an inch of fat. But there was a butcher there and I could have meat cut according to my wishes, so I ordered, for the following day, some corned-beef with a lot of fat. When I returned the beef set aside for me had meat with about an eighth of an inch of fat. That, I guess, was “a lot” by the standards of the day.

And, sad to say, we accept those standards and live by them because we have no choice. We can choose to have an abortion, but we cannot choose to have fatty meat. And our access to those who, in the past, would listen to us and fulfil our requests is all but nil.

I was in a shoe store a few weeks ago with my daughter and the clerk there asked he what size she was. Only when my daughter requested it was any attempt made to measure her feet. I looked for shoe laces in the store but didn't see any. And, of course, there is no place in my area to get them (actually there are a few in the local supermarket, but the selection I risible), or to have my shoes reheeled and resoled. That, unfortunately, doesn't matter since the shoes available nowadays are made with unreplaceable (and often hollow) rubber bottoms. So there is no longer any need for a cobbler. And modern manufacturing techniques have made his craft outdated.

And there are no blacksmiths, wheelwrights, real butchers, sawyers, tinkers, coopers, or many other craftsmen who once existed (fortunately we have a fish monger not too far away, although his prices are impressive). That's not to say that these skills are no longer needed, but to lament the fact that changes in society have obsoleted so many of them, or changed the magnitude or the nature of the establishment or individual who is offering a needed service. In some instances, and they're certain to increase, mechanical devices or robots do jobs once performed by humans (and another threat is the depersonalization of workers related to outsourcing); often “Mom and Pop stores have ceased to exist or been replaced by “big box” companies that deal in volume and can undercut any competition they have. (I remember going to the candy store when I was young. It was always a treat and an adventure. That experience is no longer available.)

We also live in an age when the philosophy of manufacturers is “one size fits all.” “We know best.” That allows them to package everything according to the standards of the day, and we have to take it or leave it. We take it. It may not be individualized to meet our needs, but we'll make do. We'll meet the manufacturer's needs. We have no choice.

When I was young you could get fatty corned-beef at the local delicatessen, but those days are gone. Now that we've decided that fat (and gluten and sugar and salt, as well as a host of other goodies) is bad for people, it's been eliminated or loudly rejected by a society that permits alcohol (except for pregnant women), cigarettes, and, in some states, “recreational” marijuana.

They don't float my boat. But Pop would. And fatty corned-beef would.

April 25, 2017

Our Children, Our Food

To begin with, notwithstanding the title, this essay has nothing to do with Jonathan Swift's proposal. Now that that's out of the way I'll proceed with some food for thought. Note as well that this essay and “Our Children, Ourselves” are a unit totally unrelated to other discussions of parenting and written at a later time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Crediting Hashem for our children and the way they turn out, a friend of mine wrote, “I am a firm believer in that what you get in the nursery after they are born is what you get. If you are lucky, you can move them maybe an inch, but that’s it.” I'm not quite sure I fully agree with it, but I think my view needs a little expansion.

First of all, as I mentioned in a previous essay, I'm sure the child will develop along the lines he learns from his parents and friends, and from his teachers. But even that needs to be clarified. It's more than I said before. I'm comforted by the knowledge that, according the Jewish teachings, there are three who contribute to a child's birth, the mother, the father, and Hashem. But it's not over with that. What comes next is of great importance, not only to them, but to the society, and the world, in which they live.

There's an old, and bad, Jewish joke – a chestnut as it were – that claims to express the meaning of our holidays and our celebration of them. It boils down to “They tried to destroy us. We won. Let's eat.” As I said, it's a bad joke, but in its own way it explains a lot of what we understand about our children and our religion. All references to food and Judaism begin with the “Jewish mother” who is forever trying to feed us – to stuff us – no matter the circumstances. She is our first teacher. We get our initial education along with our mother's milk. It may start as simple comforting and feeding but, sooner or later, leads to the simple stories and ideas of our people. And later on, as the parents set the table for Shabbat dinner, they are preparing their children for the Shulchan Aruch. Certainly the bentching following the meal does so.

Those considerations, however, raise the question of how are children are fed both physically and spiritually. Before Sinai the Jews wailed for food and water. Perhaps, however, they sought Hashem's laws which hadn't yet been revealed. Perhaps their hunger was not only for physical food but for the Torah that revealed to them how they were to live. It would be from the Torah that learned both of their heritage and their future. That was the mahn and the water. And the quails as well. And there they would learn other lessons as well. They'd learn, along with all the other mitzvot, that, according to the laws of kashrut, they should not be eating whatever they want, but what Hashem wants. And they would learn from what they ingested into their mouths and minds, both the physical food and the message it transmitted.

They would also learn, after being instructed to “love the Lord thy G-d with all they heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might,” that if they turned aside from Hashem … the land [will] not yield her fruit.” The words come as part of a paragraph which deals with reward and punishment and, equating “fruit” with Torah and the halakhot, it tells us that if we do not follow Hashem's laws, they would not be ours. A meet punishment.

The same prayer, the Sh'ma, tells “And these words … thou shall teach them diligently unto thy children.” In the end the goal is “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land that the Lord swore unto your fathers.” Both we and our offspring will be rewarded if what we feed them is not only food for their bodies but for their spirits as well.

It is interesting to give thought to the excesses of learning, for that can be understood to be the transgression of the rebellious son mentioned in D'varim (Deuteronomy). His gluttony can be understood to be the eagerness to go beyond the Torah and learn false teachings. “They [his parents] shall say unto the elders of his city: This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he doth not hearken to our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” That is how his parents might describe the behavior of a son who has strayed from his tradition. He has ingested words and ideas other than those of Hashem, and it is as if he had eaten of foreign fruit.

As parents we have a responsibility, along with all the others, of feeding our children nourishing food for their souls as well as their bodies.

My friend accepts the idea that children are unchangeable. It's possible that we have the same view, only that when she believes “that what you get in the nursery after they are born is what you get” she is presuming that the development that we teach and encourage is already built into our offspring no matter what we do. Perhaps, but I think it's our responsibility to help them along even if they don't need help. We learn that Hashem's omniscience is compatible with our free will. Similarly proper training of our children does not interfere with the development He plans for them. It is an aid not a challenge. After all, all three of us participated in his (or her) creation.

Let's eat. Spiritually. And let's feed our children the same.

August 31, 2017

Various Thoughts XI

I've been reminded (most gently) that I sometimes get things wrong. It's something hard for me to admit since I've always seen myself as perfect. (But see “The Law Is An Ass,” June 18, 2017, Comments.) Oh well, the best I can be is close to perfect. In any event, I won't hesitate to inform you of what I consider (close to) the truth – my thoughts. Let's begin.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I heard an interesting term today. Self abuse. It referred to damage which people may do to themselves, knowingly or not. No malice is buried in the term, despite the fact that we usually understand "abuse" to imply intentional harm inflicted by one person on another. Words morph. Language changes over time. Does it matter? If children stop understanding what "clockwise" means because all they see are digital listings of the time, there will certainly be another term to convey the same idea. Or will there be?

There have been many proposals over time that we establish some kind of panel to keep track, or even pass judgment, over new words and expressions in (American) English. Is that warranted? Will it work? Words (and the ones I choose are random) don't mean what they did when I was young. "Marriage," "cool," "gay," "liberal," and, in this instance, "abuse" had different connotations if not denotations. And both are at risk of being doomed? Words are losing their value. Is there anything we can do about it? And should we? I'm not suggesting that we stop the development of new words. Only that we don't forget what words used to mean.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm an old-fashioned creep. When I was young, family entertainment included Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver. There was no cursing on TV, and sexual identities were certain. And we got to see June Cleaver, the ideal modern woman.

Times have changed. I'm a fan of Madam Secretary which, when I started watching, was fairly staid. In the past season we have seen an affair, an unplanned pregnancy, a man "coming out" as bisexual, as well as children who often "diss" their parents – at least the son does.

Now, on television and in the movies, cursing is routine and homosexual and LGBTQ themes are rife – disproportionate to the numbers in the live population. At least I hope so. Ditto what we used to call pornography. (Society seems not only to describe and illustrate what used to be viewed as "perversions," but to lionize them – to make them appear mainstream and desirable.) The Supreme Court (notwithstanding Justice Stewart) may view virtually all expression as free, but I'm not sure I agree. (They view all non-dangerous speech as allowable though we disagree about what is dangerous.) It seems to me that there should be limitations as to what we and our children should be exposed to. Not just warnings.

I don't consider myself an enemy of free speech, but parents should not have to read children's books before deciding their appropriateness for their offspring. Or is that unjustified censorship? Should there be some restrictions on freedom of expression or do we live in a world where, as Cole Porter put it, Anything Goes?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lemon flavoured custards, puddings and pies have been enjoyed since Mediaeval times, but meringue was perfected in the 17th century. Lemon meringue pie, as it is known today, is a 19th-century product. The earliest recorded recipe [for lemon meringue pie] was attributed to Alexander Frehse, a Swiss baker from Romandie. (Wikipedia)

I love lemon meringue pie, but I can't imagine how Alexander Frehse came up with the idea. More and more bizarre (in my not-so-humble opinion) combinations of flavors are being promoted – lemon and meringue are, however, not bizarre. What prompts chefs to come up with these recipes other than a desire to “wow” the public, impress the critics, and make money?

It's not just an American phenomenon. The idea of merging chocolate, hot peppers, and chicken is totally foreign to me and I've never tried chicken mole pablano. Neither have I any desire to do so. Talk about illegal immigrants. Perhaps I'm narrow minded but a charred steak is much more appealing. If you start with a tasty product you don't have to add or cover it with strange ingredients. Except, of course, to attract attention and money. I guess those are good reasons.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Time to turn off my brain.

We're All Killers

            All men like meat and potatoes.

I am a man.

Therefore I like meat and potatoes.

The logic is irrefutable. And the reality is that I do like meat and potatoes. It works. Well, maybe it works. But there are problems of various kinds.

To start, you may not accept the premises on which the logical conclusion is based. I'll agree. Not all men like meat and potatoes. (And, although I maintain that I am a man, the definitions of the sexes nowadays are becoming a little trickier. I won't deal with that question now.) But that's only one issue.

You may object to the meal itself. If you're a vegan you certainly will. You'll object even if you're a run-of-the-mill vegetarian. You'll consider the killing of any animal wrong, let alone eating it. (If you're a vegan you'll take issue with any “ab”use of an animal – all use constitutes abuse – but that's not the point of this essay so I won't pursue it.) Which brings us to the question of what constitutes “killing.” Let me provide one dictionary's definition:

Kill – cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

The definition, however, is not explicit enough. I'm not much of a gardener, and I've killed many a plant. They're “living things” as well, and it's hard to be certain where to draw the line. So we use objective (I'll deal with the differentiation of “objective” and “subjective” in another essay) criteria. For that we're aided by the work of Carolus (Carl) Linnaeus who (sort of) solved the problem for us. Linnaeus (1707-1778) classified all forms of life as he knew them. His classification was based on observation, and he relied on the physical characteristics he could identify using the instruments he had available. Subsequently his categorization has been modified, but we still use a differentiation between animals and other kingdoms, as did he.

Here's the Merriam Webster view of an animal:

any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation

As for plants, another dictionary sees one as

any member of the kingdom Plantae, comprising multicellular organisms that typically produce their own food from inorganic matter by the process of photosynthesis and that have more or less rigid cell walls containing cellulose, including vascular plants, mosses, liverworts, and hornworts: some classification schemes may include fungi, algae, bacteria, blue-green algae, and certain single-celled eukaryotes that have plantlike qualities, as rigid cell walls or photosynthesis.

We presume that all life is descended from the first single-celled organism, whatever that was. “Life,” therefore, includes not only what most of us think of as plants and animals, but also bacteria, fungi, and everything else that scientists may describe. So we have a problem concerning our distinctions. We can use the scientific definitions, but we know that they are, to a very great extent, artificial. (Remember that these definitions are man-made and arbitrary.  We could have defined animal and plant differently if we so chose.)   The steak we eat and the streptococcus we treat have a common ancestor. And so does the nail fungus that embarrasses us so. Are we any more justified in killing that fungus, or a malarial parasite, than a calf? What should we do about termites, mosquitoes, and rattlesnakes? Is it legitimate to use antibiotics to eliminate deadly bacteria? Are we allowed to wash our hands and brush our teeth? They will kill bacteria as well.

And what about the potatoes I eat with my beef? Linnaeus lacked access to, among other things, the microscopes we use now and to DNA analysis, so his classification has required modification (as ours will be modified by future scientists, who will consider our tools to have been primitive). But we know that we can change the definitions of the specific kingdoms at will while accepting the idea of a common origin of all life. And Darwin has instructed us on how it all came to be. Evolution presumably began with that first organism.

You don't have to bounce a ball on an ant (or step on one by accident) to kill – to end life. You can do so by stepping on one while walking or by uprooting a stalk of wheat to make “the staff of life.” And is the cause of dysentery, an amoeba, a one-celled animal, more precious and worth preserving than an oak tree? After all, an oak is only a vegetable.

Our differentiations are artificial. There are some “plants” that move and others, like the pitcher plant, that eat animals. There are “animals” that contain chlorophyll. Can we really draw fine lines concerning what constitutes life and what constitutes killing? Can we differentiate the important from the unimportant? Am I just as “guilty” for eating the french fries as the steak? And is killing and eating that potato a form of cannibalism? (I usually have tomato ketchup with my fries. Where does that fit in?)

I think I'll stick with logic. Right or wrong, it's more understandable. I know I'm a killer, but so are you.

Heresy

Alright. I admit it. I'm an anomaly.

No! Wait. I'm being too harsh on myself. I'm trying to be politically correct. But deep down I know that I'm right and the world is wrong.

These thoughts crossed my mind last night as I had dinner out with my wife. It was at a nearby Chinese restaurant. It was her choice. Believe me it was her choice. My preference is for a steak house, since I love a nice steak with lots of burnt fat. Or a few similarly prepared lamb chops. With a nice glass of wine. Perhaps I'd choose a fancy dessert as well.

But I'm a good husband. So I had skinless fried chicken cutlets with peas and carrots. The name was fancier and, from the endless menu, it sounded tolerable. But it wasn't. Chicken is chicken and peas and carrots can, run but they can't hide. You can serve “snap peas” with grated raw carrots, but it's still peas and carrots. And schnitzel is schnitzel even with “plum” sauce. Moreover I suspect that the sauce was really a commercial combination of water, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial color, and artificial flavor – but I have no beef with high-fructose corn syrup and artificial stuff, so I'll let that pass. (Actually I had chicken, not beef, with the combination of water, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial color, and artificial flavor.) Fortunately it wasn't organic. (Or, at least, it didn't say so.)

Bottom line, though, is that I had chicken with peas and carrots. And the chicken was already sliced for me. People who eat in Chinese restaurants use chopsticks and they don't know how to cut food or they can't. (And maybe they all have false teeth.) There were lots of other things on the menu, but almost all of them were combinations of small pieces of meat and vegetables in some kind of thick, nondescript, sauce. Page after page of them. Far more than I cared to read. (There were also Thai dishes listed, as well as sushi, but all that proves is that the restaurant was keeping up with the fads. The food itself was no better.)

And, of course, there was a bowl of tasteless rice to fill me up, although there was no lack of food. What the dish lacked in quality it more than made up for in quantity. A big glass of water accompanied my meal. Fortunately it was tap water rather than some of the pretentious and overpriced bottled variety. I suppose I could have had green tea, but there's a limit to my masochism. I can take just so much.

As for dessert, everyone got a couple slices of orange and a commercial fortune cookie which I was smart enough not to eat. I eschewed the pop philosophy and my “lucky” numbers. I'm sure it wasn't my loss.

So where am I going with this? I'm Jewish and I don't like Chinese “food.” It ain't food! I don't care if half the world eats it or something similar (I don't like Japanese or Thai fare either), it just ain't food. Anything you have to eat with sticks isn't worth the time. I'd rather pick something up in my hands. (We're Henry the Eighth, we are.)

I guess this means that I fail in the test of multiculturalism. I'm ethnocentric. I've got teeth. I'm a heretic. A pariah. And I don't want everything mixed together.

But I don't care. Others, and I don't exclude Jews, can eat whatever they want. Even if it isn't food. It's their (foolish) choice. And I'll dutifully observe the ritual myself every now and again in order to keep up the ethnic image and maintain family peace, however I don't have to like it. And I don't.

Pass the bagels and lox. And the herring. And the rugelach.

And I'll have a steak tonight.

Next episode: “Miss Bishop, Mitchel Grossberg, Dr. Ralph Goldin, and Socrates” – Different, but the same.

 

Heresy

Alright. I admit it. I'm an anomaly.

No! Wait. I'm being too harsh on myself. I'm trying to be politically correct. I'm right and the world is wrong.

These thoughts crossed my mind last night as I had dinner out with my wife. It was at a nearby Chinese restaurant. It was her choice. Believe me it was her choice. My preference is for a steak house, since I love a nice steak with lots of burnt fat. Or a few similarly prepared lamb chops. With a nice glass of wine. Perhaps I'd choose a fancy dessert as well.

But I'm a good husband. So I had skinless fried chicken cutlets with peas and carrots. The name was fancier and, from the endless menu, it sounded tolerable. But it wasn't. Chicken is chicken and peas and carrots can, run but they can't hide. You can serve “snap peas” with grated raw carrots, but it's still peas and carrots. And schnitzel is schnitzel even with “plum” sauce. Moreover I suspect that the sauce was really a commercial combination of water, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial color, and artificial flavor – but I have no beef with high-fructose corn syrup and artificial stuff, so I'll let that pass. (Actually I had chicken, not beef, with the combination of water, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial color, and artificial flavor.) Fortunately it wasn't organic. (Or, at least, it didn't say so.)

Bottom line, though, is that I had chicken with peas and carrots. And the chicken was already sliced for me. People who eat in Chinese restaurants don't know how to cut food. (And maybe they all have false teeth.) There were lots of other things on the menu, but almost all of them were combinations of small pieces of meat and vegetables in some kind of thick, nondescript, sauce. Page after page of them. Far more than I cared to read. (There were also Thai dishes listed, as well as sushi, but all that proves is that the restaurant was keeping up with the fads. The food itself was no better.)

And, of course, there was a bowl of tasteless rice to fill me up, although there was no lack of food. What the dish lacked in quality it more than made up for in quantity. A big glass of water accompanied my meal. Fortunately it was tap water rather than some of the pretentious and overpriced bottled variety. I suppose I could have had green tea, but there's a limit to my masochism. I can take just so much.

As for dessert, everyone got a couple slices of orange and a commercial fortune cookie which I was smart enough not to eat. I eschewed the pop philosophy and my “lucky” numbers. I'm sure it wasn't my loss.

So where am I going with this? I'm Jewish and I don't like Chinese “food.” It ain't food! I don't care if half the world eats it or something similar (I don't like Japanese or Thai fare either), it just ain't food. Anything you have to eat with sticks isn't worth the time. I'd rather pick something up in my hands. (We're Henry the Eighth, we are.)

I guess this means that I fail in the test of multiculturalism. I'm ethnocentric. I've got teeth. I'm a heretic. A pariah. And I don't want everything mixed together.

But I don't care. Others, and I don't exclude Jews, can eat what they want. Even if it isn't food. And I'll dutifully observe the ritual myself every now and again in order to keep up the ethnic image and maintain family peace, however I don't have to like it. And I don't.

Pass the bagels and lox. And the herring. And the rugelach.

And I'll have a steak tonight.

My Ideal

I weigh 180 pounds. I'm five feet, eleven inches tall.ⁱ All the listings of ideal weight tell me that I'm overweight. At least I weigh more than is ideal. I know. I checked.ⁱⁱ The closest I could get (and it's top of the scale) is a little over 179 pounds, but that seems to be a minority opinion. Still, I feel fine.ⁱⁱⁱ

I don't know what triggered this revelation – this insight into my body mass. I always thought I was ideal but now I've been disabused of that illusion. Not that there aren't ways to deal with the problem. Like (ugh) dieting.

Instead I decided to convert.

No, not that way. My weight. It's 81.82 kilograms or 12.86 stones.^iv But it's still 180 pounds, and it's still more than ideal.

Wait. What does it all mean? With all the disagreement about what mine should be, I wonder if there is such a thing as “ideal” weight. And how is it determined. Even if there is such a thing, though, is it important?

According to The Fiscal Times of June 19, 2014

Until now, Americans have been losing the battle of the bulge. 

More than a third of all adults and 17 percent of young people are obese, according to the experts, and many of them have been consigned to troubled lives with obesity-related health problems such as type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and stroke, hypertension, arthritis and even cancer. Without major government and private intervention and a sea change in many Americans’ unhealthy eating habits, the adult obesity rate could reach 50 percent by 2030, according to one study.

The cost to society in terms of damaged lives, soaring health care costs and diminished economic growth and productivity is staggering.

A new analysis prepared for The Fiscal Times by Scott Kahan, director of the National Center for Weight & Wellness at George Washington University, pegs the total cost of obesity – including direct medical and non-medical services, decreased worker productivity, disability and premature death – at $305.1 billion annually.^v

Other studies, including one I heard about yesterday that cited JAMA, put the numbers of overweight and obese at 65 to 75% of our population. In addition to the loss of productivity and death, the costs may be secondary to the medical costs of the obesity and resulting diseases,^vi the direct costs,^vii and the costs of various therapies (both established and those that are promoted by get rich quick artists)^viii and their results.^ix There are costs as well to vendors^x whose products may be banned or restricted by government edicts, or when relabeling is required.^xi

I shouldn't overlook the psychological basis of some obesity, but I leave it to the psychiatrists to expand on that.

That's not the whole story, though. “Up to 30 million people of all ages and genders suffer from an eating disorder (anorexia, bulimia and binge eating disorder) in the U.S.”^xii And “[a]ccording to a study done by colleagues at the American Journal of Psychiatry (2009), crude mortality rates were: 4% for anorexia nervosa, 3.9%  for bulimia nervosa, 5.2% for eating disorder not otherwise specified.”^xiii

As with obesity, the reasons for (and results of) under-eating may be medical or psychological^xiv – or perhaps even the psychological is medical. It can certainly result in medical problems. But it is very good for the fashion industry.^xv Some of the thinness that is apparent, and perhaps admired, is the result of chronic disease. Cachexia secondary to cancer is something not to be envied.

It's a little confusing. I know that I shouldn't weigh too much, but I'd better not obsess over it if I know what's good for me, and nothing related to weight seems to be good for me.

So the only logical conclusion is that I should go on some kind of a diet. Or maybe not. And that's exactly what I'll do.

Tomorrow.

Next episode: “Identity Unknown” – I am what I am. Unless I'm not.

 

 

I        And a quarter of an inch (but who's measuring?). They take age and sex into consideration as well so let me inform you that I'm 76 and was male the last time I looked.

ii          Based on the Robinson formula (1983), your ideal weight is 160.7 lbs
Based on the Miller formula (1983), your ideal weight is 158.1 lbs
Based on the Devine formula (1974), your ideal weight is 166.0 lbs
Based on the Hamwi formula (1964), your ideal weight is 171.3 lbs
Based on the healthy BMI recommendation, your recommended weight is 132.6 lbs -   179.2 lbs

         The numbers are based on various formulae.

iii       Actually, I'm hungry.

iv       I even tried Celsius. It's 82.22.

v        It's important to remember that there are psychological costs as well. In fact, some of what is viewed as “obesity” is imagined. It may be treated also. Add that to the price tag.

vi       Diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, etc.

vii      More food, larger (more expensive) clothes, increased insurance costs.

viii     I leave it to you to decide what's established and what results from the efforts of get rich quick artists, but they include surgery, medicines, diets, supplements, diet books and programs, prepared diet meals delivered to your home, etc.

ix       If you actually manage to lose weight you'll need new clothes or alterations in the ones you have.

x        And negative effects on citizens' rights.

xi       For example soda, as well as sugar, fats, salt, and the products that include them.

xii      Wade, T. D., Keski-Rahkonen A., & Hudson J. Epidemiology of eating disorders. In M. Tsuang and M. Tohen (Eds.), Textbook in Psychiatric Epidemiology (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley, 2011. p. 343-360.

xiii     Crow, S.J., Peterson, C.B., Swanson, S.A., Raymond, N.C., Specker, S., Eckert, E.D., Mitchell, J.E. (2009) Increased mortality in bulimia nervosa and other eating disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry 166, 1342-1346.

xiv     Or even economic. Poverty, especially in the Third World, is a major cause of starvation.

xv     From the pictures of models that I see, especially their expressionless countenances, I suspect that the drug industry is a large contributor to the phenomenon.

L'chaim

I should be dead.

I do everything wrong.

That's enough of the philippic. Let me get down to facts. I'm not being responsible. I'm supposed to walk 10,000 steps every day. I read that somewhere so it must be true.ⁱ But I don't do that much and I never have.ⁱⁱ And I don't jog, either. How am I supposed to keep fit? I like sitting in a comfortable chair listening to music and nodding off. And when I'm tired of that I take a nap.

And my food habits are wrong too. I love fat and salt. It was good enough for ancient sacrifices and it's good enough for me. Especially burnt fat.ⁱⁱⁱ An olfactory and a culinary treat. And I should add that I like other foods burnt as well – especially meat. From my perspective vegetarians are missing out on the best foods in order to satisfy some sort of religious belief system. Now I'm all in favor of religion, but they've missed the mark by quite a lot. And vegans are the worst. I think they're like Vulcans and come from another solar system.^iv In any event, I'm a carnivore.^v

There are some other facts worth mention: I'm twenty pounds over what one internet program tells me is my ideal weight. That must be because I love junk food – particularly cheese balls and potato chips. But I don't want to sell cake short (or shortcake for that matter), or cookies, candy, and Coke (especially the “Classic” variety).^vi I already mentioned that I love fat, even the saturated and trans varieties though I usually don't read food labels to see if they're present.

I don't take megavitamins, fiber, or food supplements, and I'm not a fan of anti-oxidants or the nine (I think it's nine) portions of fruit daily that will provide them. You can be sure I don't eat an apple every day (nor do I take a shower, so I don't have to worry about keeping the doctor away). I love gluten and high-fructose corn syrup. 

I prefer tap water to the bottled variety – especially to bottled water with all sorts of supplements and food colors in it. I also avoid all of the products that are supposed to support my immune system. (It's bewildering that so many people eschew immunizations for their children based on “scientific” studies long discredited and retracted.) I avoid “immune support supplements” like the plague (and yogurt).

 

I love inorganic and unnatural foods. Especially those that have been radiated and are derived from sources that contain genetic modifications. They tend to last longer and have fewer bugs and other pathogens. And they're usually cheaper.

I didn't mention, but now I shall, that I don't stop and smell the roses or hug trees. And I don't talk to my plants, although sometimes they talk to me.^vii I've been in a few automobile accidents – the last when I lost consciousness while driving^viii – and a plane crash. So far I'm still alive.

But I'd better watch my step or I'll die young. No, wait. It's too late for that. But I should still correct my behavior in order to add to my years. Though I've never been convinced that that was such a good idea. As John Mortimer wrote, “I refuse to spend my life worrying about what I eat. There is no pleasure worth forgoing just for an extra three years in the geriatric ward.”

And I wonder if it would do any good anyway. Linda McCartney, Paul's first wife, was a vegetarian and an animal rights activist – an active member of PETA. She died of metastatic breast cancer, and one of the comments made after that was that she shouldn't have died. “She did everything right.”

So what's the answer? Can you prolong your life by doing everything right? Do you want to? And do you shorten it by doing things wrong?

There is no answer. G-d (or fate or whatever else, if anything, in which you believe) governs the length of your life irrespective of what you do. That's not to suggest that you engage in risky behavior like smoking, drinking, and texting while driving, but only that some of the things people do in search of immortality are overkill. Engaging in health crazes is not only costly, it's close to useless. From my perspective, the best approach is to do whatever you enjoy the most and believe is most responsible and best for you and everyone else (even if it's vegetarianism) without getting caught up in all the latest fads – especially those that promise eternal life or bliss.

When you try to cheat death you only cheat yourself.

Next episode: “Look At Me – I'm A Liberal” – I'm sensitive.

I         I think it was in a blog, and all bloggers know what they're talking about, and they're all in agreement.

ii       But who's counting?

iii      That's the way they served up sacrifices, and they knew what they were doing.

iv       Or universe. Or reality.

v        Actually I'm an omnivore (as long as it's kosher) but I don't like to waste my calories on salad and other varieties of animal food. (In truth, no calories are wasted. They all go to the common good. And the individual waist.)

vi       As you can see, I favor the C food group, and that includes Cheese balls and potato Chips. Of course when Linus Pauling urged us to take large amounts of vitamin C, I knew it was just a crock.

vii       I must admit that I find that somewhat unnerving.

viii     I've had no problems for the last few years having returned to driving after about a month of medical tests.

More Food For Thought

                                                                                                  

When was the last time you had a good home-cooked meal?

I asked that question last weekⁱ as I bewailed the change in food preparation methods in our country in recent years.

But it was the wrong question. It made too many assumptions – most of them either incorrect or too smug. Let's start by taking apart the question itself:

     a. When was the last time

     b. you

     c. had

     d. a good home

     e. cooked

     f. meal?

“When was the last time” – The implication is that it was some time in the past.

“you” – It's not clear, but this probably includes your family, or others for whom you are responsible.

“had” – Once again there is the assumption that you did. And that means that it is no longer the case.

“a good home” – Indeed. Any home. Too many of our own citizens, let alone others around the world, lack any home at all – good or otherwise.

“cooked” – Whatever home they have would need cooking implements and fuel which aren't necessarily available and affordable.

“meal?” – As opposed to whatever – if any – food can be found.

Those, however, are only details. More important questions revolve around the assumption that you have had a “good home-cooked meal” at some time. If so, it seems that it must have been some time back. But there is also the implication that such a meal is desirable and that you are entitled to it. Why should that be the case? Is anyone “entitled” to have such a meal, and if so, aren't we all entitled to it?

The original question seemed straightforward, but there are implications that require some comment. Whoever is asking the question seems to assume that he deserves such a meal, and on a regular basis. It's likely that he expects someone to make it for him and that the failure is not his own. He probably has to go out to some (expensive) restaurant in order to enjoy the kind of meal that is his due.ⁱⁱ Presumably his cook (who may be a spouse) has been cutting corners.

At this momentⁱⁱⁱ there are over 7,137,291,000 people in the world. The original question would probably never occur to most of them. And many among them would have no other experience than making rice, or some other cheap staple, with little else to nourish them. They only have home-cooked meals, if they eat at all. Indeed, some would have little to eat of any sort, apart from what they find in the fields or forests. When we wonder about home-cooked meals, we are dealing with a quandry of the privileged.

We are privileged. And we are responsible. It's easy to say that the poor – even those in our own country – should fend for themselves.^iv Or that their own governments should provide for them. The United States gives aid to many countries that are in need, but many of our own citizens resent the sending of their tax dollars elsewhere. Charity begins at home.

But that view has its own problems. Many of those same people resent paying the taxes that fund such home-grown programs as food stamps, and other plans to assist the poor. For them, “home” is the address at which they live, and while they are happy to accept government benefits, they are reluctant to pay for them. Another problem is that for many of them, charity doesn't begin at all. And whether or not we agree with their perspective, it is easy to understand a view that says that others have no right to give charity in their names – to give away their money. Moreover, if anything is given, they should have the right to choose the recipients. After all, it's their money.^v

So a better attitude is for you to choose the charities and donate before you are asked.^vi And, before you ponder the complexities regarding the issue of your own home-cooked meals, it would be appropriate to give some thought to those who don't even understand the question.

Next episode: “Complex Problems” – Do they require complex answers?

i       “A La Whatever,” January 19, 2014.

ii      Even then, there's no guarantee that it's made from scratch. More likely there are partially prepared products for restaurants. There may be many dishes on the menu, and it may be difficult to prepare them from fresh ingredients every day. “In Season” is often used to suggest that the product is fresh, but don't forget that it's always in season somewhere.

iii     Ten thirty AM on December 30, 2013.

iv      We are quick to find ways to blame the victim and to justify our own behavior.

v       Decisions of this sort are difficult, and legislators and regulators use their own preferences and biases to make them. Sometimes the choices are based on voter preferences, but not very often, and only after the legislators have told the voters what is “good” and what is “right.”

vi      You. Not the other guy.

A La Whatever

                                                                                                       

                                                                                               

When was the last time you had a good home-cooked meal? Not one that came from the freezer and was simply defrosted.

(The times are different from what they were when our great-grandparents were young.ⁱ In their time there were no pre-cooked foods except the ones they made and stored themselves. There were only home cannedⁱⁱ fruits and vegetables, and some foods that were preserved in salt or by drying,ⁱⁱⁱ but these preparations were usually done by the cook herself.^iv And although commercially produced frozen foods appeared in the mid-1940s, some dishes were probably made and frozen at home before that. And others were canned.)

Additional sources of pre-prepared foods are the local take-out restaurant and the counter in the supermarket that holds the salads, meat dishes, and the like. And the supermarkets also have the packaged cereals, candies, cookies, salad dressings and the numerous other items that are so popular in the last-minute preparation of the meal on the fly that you get at home.

You may choose to go out and get a Big Mac^® or have a pizza delivered at home, or even have daily deliveries of fully prepared meals – especially if you're on a diet. Those meals are likely to have small portions and large prices, but they save the work of actually cooking the meal.

But why not? Why should we live in the past? There was a time when the cleaning of clothes required that they be beaten by rocks in a nearby stream. Now we use washing machines. And at one time we rode on horses if we didn't walk, but now we drive automobiles with GPS units. We now prefer antibiotics and other modern medicines to leeches and enemas. Times are changing, and we should as well. Ready-made meals – “less work for mother”^v – is a concept that makes sense.

Well, yes and no.

For the most part the modern improvements are just that. They are improvements. Washing machines clean better than rocks; automobiles get us to our destination faster than horses or our own legs; and modern medicines have far better results than leeches. The same can be said for many other devices. And in addition they work faster than the methods they're replacing. That concept certainly makes sense. Society has chosen to adopt these practices even though aware of the potential of some laundry products to cause allergies, the cost of automobile accidents in lives and money, and the side effects of many medicines.

But food products don't have such a clear record of benefits in relation to costs. It is undeniable that cooking from scratch has become more difficult as families have been forced into the position of requiring two bread-winners. One of the problems is that there is no one home to cook, and a particular dish may require more time than is available following return from work in the late afternoon or in the evening. And both partners may be exhausted and hungry by that time, so it is easier to assemble a meal than to cook. It's also hard to pass up food that's already prepared and food you can pass off as home-made by just heating it up. Some may even taste good, but there's more to the story than that.^vi You may even notice that the ready-made products often come in pans that can be used for cooking and then thrown out rather than washed. More time saved. Not only that, but with things like TV dinners, and other plastic meals, each diner can have something different. Something for everyone, including the person preparing the meal.

But, as I said, there's more to the story. Whereas the ingredients for meals made in season from scratch are typically tasty and of high quality, the main considerations in formulating the ready-made treats and the fast foods are shelf-life, appearance, and price. That means additives of various sorts, including artificial colors, stabilizing agents, and numerous preservatives.^vii When it comes to taste, which isn't the first consideration, in addition to added salt, sugar, and fats,^viii there are many artificial flavorings. Portion sizes tend to be small so the manufacturer can advertise a lower price (and calorie count) per “serving.”

In this age of easy travel, transport, and communication, everything is in season somewhere, and available all year around. But because it takes time to bring fruits and vegetables to market from somewhere around the world, harvesting may be necessary before the produce is ripe so that it won't be past its peak when it reaches the consumer. Or a variety may be produced that looks^ix and travels well even if its taste is not all you might like. It's far better to sell a product that may not taste good, than not to sell one that tastes better but doesn't look as good.

So people wind up without the meal made from scratch. The “comfort” foods don't do the trick. And the portions aren't big enough.^x And whoever made dinner isn't eager to talk about how (s)he defrosted or reheated what was on sale at the local store and was served. No one will beg for the recipe anyway. On the other hand, talking about a dinner made from fresh local ingredients will probably be a source of enjoyment for the chef, and a tasty home-made dish is the kind of thing that guests will want to repeat in their own kitchens, so be prepared for recipe requests.

There's nothing like a home-cooked meal. But wait. There's more.

Next episode: “More Food For Thought” – There are more important problems with that home-cooked meal.

i       Or at least mine. The level of ancestry needed to reach back to the early twentieth century and before will depend on your age.

ii       Actually they were bottled, but the term used now is “canning.”

iii     Fermentation also has a long history as a method of preservation (at least 10,000 years to drying's 12, 000 years – see http://nchfp.uga.edu/publications/nchfp/factsheets/food_pres_hist.html for more history), but is somewhat more limited in its application than some of the other methods and infuses the contents with alcohol.

iv      I do not mean to be considered sexist, but the reality is that most of the cooking at home was done by women – wives and mothers or, in the case of a well-to-do family, by a paid cook.

v       Horn and Hardart.

vi      Somewhere below. I haven't figured out where just yet.

vii     In order to return some of the nourishment which the processing has removed from the food, and in order to add something for advertising value, there may be added vitamins, or something else that happens to be in vogue, proclaimed on the package, along with disclaimers of allergins and gluten – especially in products that never contain gluten – and fat where it would not ordinarily be anyway.

viii    Including poly-unsaturated fats, oils, and transfats.

ix      Wax coatings are often of value here.

x       I like “man-sized” portions. I know that sounds sexist, but when I get up from the table I like to loosen my belt.