Why the chubs?

My last post dealt with the thorny issue of obesity, both it’s increasing presence in our everyday lives, and what for me is the underlying reason behind the stats that back up media scare stories concerning ‘the obesity epidemic’- the rise in size of the ‘average’ person over the last few decades. The precise causes of this trend can be put down to a whole host of societal factors within our modern age, but that story is boring as hell and has been repeated countless times by commenters far more adept in this field than me. Instead, today I wish present the case for modern-day obesity as a problem concerning the fundamental biology of a human being.

We, and our dim and distant ancestors of the scaly/furry variety, have spent the last few million years living wild; hunting, fighting and generally acting much like any other evolutionary pathway. Thus, we can learn a lot about our own inbuilt biology and instincts by studying the behaviour of animals currently alive today, and when we do so, several interesting animal eating habits become apparent. As anyone who has tried it as a child can attest (and I speak from personal experience), grass is not good stuff to eat. It’s tough, it takes a lot of chewing and processing (many herbivores have multiple stomachs to make sure they squeeze the maximum nutritional value out of their food), and there really isn’t much of it to power a fully-functional being. As such, grazers on grass and other such tough plant matter (such as leaves) will spend most of their lives doing nothing but guzzle the stuff, trying to get as much as possible through their system. Other animals will favour food with a higher nutritional content, such as fruits, tubers or, in many cases, meat, but these frequently present issues. Fruits are highly seasonal and rarely available in a large enough volume to support a large population, as well as being quite hard to get a lot of down; plants try to ‘design’ fruits so that each visitor takes only a few at a time, so as best to spread their seeds far and wide, and as such there are few animals that can sustain themselves on such a diet.  Other food such as tubers or nuts are hard to get at, needing to be dug up or broken in highly energy-consuming activities, whilst meat has the annoying habit of running away or fighting back whenever you try to get at it. As anyone who watches nature documentaries will attest, most large predators will only eat once every few days (admittedly rather heavily).

The unifying factor of all of this is that food is, in the wild, highly energy- and time-consuming to get hold of and consume, since every source of it guards its prize jealously. Therefore, any animal that wants to survive in this tough world must be near-constantly in pursuit of food simply to fulfil all of its life functions, and this is characterised by being perpetually hungry. Hunger is a body’s way of telling us that we should get more food, and in the wild this constant desire for more is kept in check by the difficulty that getting hold of it entails. Similarly, animal bodies try to assuage this desire by being lazy; if something isn’t necessary, then there’s no point wasting valuable energy going after it (since this will mean spending more time going after food to replace lost energy.)

However, in recent history (and a spectacularly short period of time from evolution’s point of view), one particular species called homo sapiens came up with this great idea called civilisation, which basically entailed the pooling and sharing of skill and resources in order to best benefit everyone as a whole. As an evolutionary success story, this is right up there with developing multicellular body structures in terms of being awesome, and it has enabled us humans to live far more comfortable lives than our ancestors did, with correspondingly far greater access to food. This has proved particularly true over the last two centuries, as technological advances in a more democratic society have improved the everyman’s access to food and comfortable living to a truly astounding degree. Unfortunately (from the point of view of our waistline) the instincts of our bodies haven’t quite caught up to the idea that when we want/need food, we can just get food, without all that inconvenient running around after it to get in the way. Not only that, but a lack of pack hierarchy combined with this increased availability means that we can stock up on food until we have eaten our absolute fill if so we wish; the difference between ‘satiated’ and ‘stuffed’ can work out as well over 1000 calories per meal, and over a long period of time it only takes a little more than we should be having every day to start packing on the pounds. Combine that with our natural predilection to laziness meaning that we don’t naturally think of going out for some exercise as fun purely for its own sake, and the fact that we no longer burn calories chasing our food, or in the muscles we build up from said chasing, and we find ourselves consuming a lot more calories than we really should be.

Not only that, but during this time we have also got into the habit of spending a lot of time worrying over the taste and texture of our food. This means that, unlike our ancestors who were just fine with simply jumping on a squirrel and devouring the thing, we have to go through the whole rigmarole of getting stuff out of the fridge, spending two hours slaving away in a kitchen and attempting to cook something vaguely resembling tasty. This wait is not something out bodies enjoy very much, meaning we often turn to ‘quick fixes’ when in need of food; stuff like bread, pasta or ready meals. Whilst we all know how much crap goes into ready meals (which should, as a rule, never be bought by anyone who cares even in the slightest about their health; salt content of those things is insane) and other such ‘quick fixes’, fewer people are aware of the impact a high intake of whole grains can have on our bodies. Stuff like bread and rice only started being eaten by humans a few thousand years ago, as we discovered the benefits of farming and cooking, and whilst they are undoubtedly a good food source (and are very, very difficult to cut from one’s diet whilst still remaining healthy) our bodies have simply not had enough time, evolutionarily speaking, to get used to them. This means they have a tendency to not make us feel as full as their calorie content should suggest, thus meaning that we eat more than our body in fact needs (if you want to feel full whilst not taking in so many calories, protein is the way to go; meat, fish and dairy are great for this).

This is all rather academic, but what does it mean for you if you want to lose a bit of weight? I am no expert on this, but then again neither are most of the people acting as self-proclaimed nutritionists in the general media, and anyway, I don’t have any better ideas for posts. So, look at my next post for my, admittedly basic, advice for anyone trying to make themselves that little bit healthier, especially if you’re trying to work of a few of the pounds built up over this festive season.

Advertisements

Why we made the bid in the first place

…and now we arrive at the slack time, that couple of weeks between the end of the Olympics and start of the Paralympics where everyone gets a chance to relax, wind down a little, and take time away from being as resolutely enthusiastic and patriotic as we have been required to for the last two weeks (or a lot longer if you factor in the Royal Wedding and Queen’s Jubilee). However, it’s also an undoubtedly good time to reflect on what have been, whatever your viewpoint, a very eventful last couple of weeks.

To my mind, and certainly to those of the Olympic organisers, these games have been a success. Whether you feel that it was all a colossal waste of money (although how anyone can think that of an event featuring the Queen parachuting out of a helicopter alongside James Bond is somewhat puzzling to me), or the single most amazing thing to grace the earth this side of its existence (in which case you could probably do with a nice lie down at the very least), its motto has been to ‘Inspire a Generation’. From a purely numerical perspective, it appears to have worked- sports clubs of all sorts up and down the land, even in niche areas such as handball, have been inundated with requests from enthusiastic youngsters after membership, and every other sentence among BBC pundits at the moment appears to include the phrase ‘the next Mo Farah/Usain Bolt/Ben Ainslie/Chris Hoy’ (delete as applicable).

However, I think that in this respect they are missing the point slightly, but to explain what I mean I’m going to have to go on a bit of a tangent. Trust me, it’ll make sense by the end.

So…, what is the point of sport? This has always been a tricky one to answer, the kind of question posed by the kind of awkward people who are likely to soon find an answer flying swiftly towards them in foot-shaped form. In fact, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to exactly why we watch sport, apart from that it is for some unexplained reason compelling to do so. But even if we stick to the act of participation, why do we bother?

Academics and non-sportspeople have always had a whole host of reasons why not, ever since the days that they were the skinny, speccy one last to be picked in the dreaded playground football lineup (I’ve been there- not fun). Humans are naturally lazy (an evolutionary side-effect of using our brains rather than brawn to get ahead), and the idea of running around a wet, muddy field expending a lot of precious energy for no immediately obvious reason is obviously unappealing. Then we consider that the gain of sport, the extent to which it contributes to making the world a better place is, in material terms at least, apparently quite small. Humankind’s sporting endeavours use up a lot of material for equipment, burn a lot of precious calories that could be used elsewhere around the world to help the starving, and often demand truly vast expenses in terms of facilities and, in the professional world, salaries. Even this economic consideration does not take into account the loss in income presented by the using up of acres upon acres of valuable land for sports facilities and pitches. Sport also increases the danger factor of our lives, with a heavy risk of injury ranging from minor knocks to severe, debilitating disabilities (such as spinal injury), all of which only adds to the strain on health services worldwide and further increases the ‘cost’ of sport to the world.

So why do we bother with it at all? Why is it that the question governments are asking themselves is “why aren’t enough kids playing sport?” rather than ‘why are so many of them doing so’? Simple reason is that, from every analytical perspective, the benefits of sport far outweigh the costs. 10% of the NHS’ entire budget is spent on dealing with diabetes, just one of a host of health problems associated with obesity, and if just half of these cases were to disappear thanks to a healthier lifestyle it would free up around an extra £5 billion- by 2035, diabetes could be costing the country around £17 billion unless something changes. Then there are the physical benefits of sport, the stuff it enables us to do. In the modern world being able to run a kilometre and a half in four minutes might seem like a pointless skill, but when you’re being chased down the street by a potential mugger (bad example I know, but it’ll do) then you’d definitely rather be a fit, athletic runner than slow, lumbering and overweight. Sport is also one of the largest commercial industries on earth, if not on a professional level then at least in terms of manufacture and sale of equipment and such, worth billions worldwide each year and providing many thousands or even millions of jobs (although some of the manufacturing does admittedly have a dubious human rights record). The health benefits of sport go far beyond the physical & economic too, as both the endorphins released during physical activity and the benefits of a healthy lifestyle are known to increase happiness & general well-being, surely the ultimate goals of all our lives. But perhaps most valuable of all is the social side of sport. Whilst some sports (or, more specifically, some of the &%^$£*)@s involved) have a reputation for being exclusive and for demoralising hopeful youngsters, sport when done properly is a powerful force for social interaction & making friends, as well as being a great social equaliser. As old Etonian, heir his father’s baronet and Olympic 110m hurdles finalist Lawrence Clarke recently pointed out in an interview ‘On the track it doesn’t matter how rich your family is or where you’ve come from or where you went to school; all that matters is how fast you can get to the finish line’ (I’m paraphrasing, but that was the general gist). Over the years, sport has allowed mixing between people of a myriad of different genders and nationalities, allowing messages of goodwill to spread between them and changing the world’s social and political landscape immeasurably. This Olympics was, for example, the first in which Palestinian and Saudi Arabian women competed, potentially paving the way for increased gender equality in these two countries.

Clearly, when we all get behind it, sport has the power to be an immense tool for good. But notice that nowhere in that argument was any mention made of being the physical best, being on top of the world, breaking world records because, try as one might, the value of such achievement is solely that of entertainment and the odd moment of inspiration. Valuable though those two things surely are, they cannot begin to compare with the incalculable benefits of a population, a country, a world united by sport for the good of us all. So, in many respects, the success of an Olympic games should not be judged by whether it inspires a new superstar, but rather by how it encourages the guy who turns up with him at that first training session, who might never be that good a competitor… but who carries on turning up anyway. The aim of top-flight sport should not be to inspire the best. It should simply be to inspire the average.

Weekend=Rugby. Rugby=Blogging

Yes, it’s Monday again, and another excuse for me to relive the weekend’s Six Nations action (don’t worry, the tournament finishes next Saturday, so you don’t have to put up with me for much longer). As always, scores are at the bottom, and I refer you to iPlayer for highlights of the weekend’s matches.

We begin with ITALY‘s game against the high-flying Welsh, a game which I was unfortunately unable to watch and so have  had to cobble together a picture of from the highlights and my brother’s opinions on the game. From what I can pick up, I hardly missed much- despite Wales scoring two tries, both were uninteresting and the half-time score of 9-3 tells a more realistic picture of the game than the final score does. Italy themselves pick up the Deja Vu Award for Eerily Familiar Defensive Responses, referring specifically to Wales’ tries. Both were scored from out wide, the first by Jamie Roberts, who cut straight through the defence like a hot knife through butter and forcing Italian winger Luke McLean to turn and hare after him on the outside- not that it made any difference, with that much space in front of him. Then, half an hour later, Alex Cuthbert got Wales’ second try, smashing through the Italian line to go over in the corner, causing, once again, Luke McLean to turn, on Cuthbert’s outside, and sprint after him, in almost mirrored fashion to his run after Roberts. At least, that’s what stood out for me about the tries.

As for WALES, they can only be awarded, from what I have heard of them, the My Imagination Is Clearly On The Wane Award for Least Award-Worthy Performance. Wales were undoubtedly clinical and efficient in their dispatching of Italy, only conceding 3 points to what was, admittedly, a weak Italian kicking side. They were also clearly incisive enough (when it suited them) to score twice- and yet this week, for the first time in this tournament, I have yet to read a single match report concerning their game containing the words ‘spectacular’, ‘nerve-wracking’ or ‘breathtaking’. Efficient, they may well have been, but inspiring? Entertaining? Creative of anything to really stick in the memory? No.

On to SCOTLAND, who not only won the Are We Done Yet? Award for Most Tedious Second Half (after a fast, competitive first half capped by a superb try, the second saw a grand total of 10 points scored, all Irish, and Scotland being about as proactive as a disabled hippo), but also the But He Was Your Man! Award for Most Baffling Defensive Moment. I refer, of course, to Ireland’s second try- with the Scots holding their line strongly, the pressing Irish won a ruck near the corner. Somehow (no camera seemed able of picking up how, in any case), the ball shot out of the back of it, surprising everyone concerned and allowing several delighted Scotland defenders to leap towards it with relish. However, Irish scrum-half Eoin Reddan was there first and, in a single instant the Scots lost the plot, the ball, and quite possibly the match. All three of the defenders going for Reddan appeared to be expecting him to drop it, and all seemed to dive for the space behind him rather than the man himself. As such, all of their ‘tackles’, simply bounced straight off him, leaving a presumably both bemused and delighted scrum half the wrong side of the defensive line, allowing him to dart over for a score. Oh Scotland, what will we ever do with you?

IRELAND follow Scotland’s lead by claiming a defensive award, this time for the Biggest Schoolboy Error. As every coach will tell you, the cardinal sin for any player, and particularly a full-back, is to follow a pass rather than the man, for thus are dummies sold and tries conceded- a lesson Rob Kearney learned with painful clarity on Saturday. Scotland had strung together another attacking move when their blonde second row giant, Richie Gray, suddenly made a break down the right and was bearing down on Kearney, running a very slight angle to the outside. Whether it was this angle, the fact that the ‘slow forward’ Gray had a winger unmarked outside him, or simply fear of getting crushed under the 6’10” giant we may never know, but either way Kearney made a fatal error. Instead of simply smashing into Gray’s legs and trusting in a mixture of defenders and blind faith, he ran straight in front of Gray towards the winger, leaving clear space for the lock to sell an almost apologetic dummy and crash in for Scotland’s first and, as it transpired, only try of the game. Ah well, chalk it down to karma I suppose.

And now to what was undoubtedly the weekend’s most interesting game- England v. FRANCE. Both sides played some brilliant rugby, and it is with a little sadness that what most sticks out to me about France’s game wins them the Ah, We’ll Get Over Eventually Award for Least Clinical Finishing. England blitzed the first 20 minutes, but France managed to wrest control back for about the next half-hour, and in the minutes before half-time they looked especially dangerous. They made several clean line breaks, not least through everyone’s new favourite centre Wesley Fofana, but all they ever seemed to gain from them was field position. This can partly be attributed to a splendid defensive performance from England full-back Ben Foden, but to concede as many opportunities as they did, especially for a team who, on the opening weekend, I thought were by far the most clinical side, almost flirts with carelessness. The most obvious example came from a Fofana break in the second half. For a moment, Fofana had a perfect window of opportunity- about five metres away from both Foden and the chasing defenders, he was short on space, especially to the outside, but inside him scrum-half Morgan Parra must have been screaming for the ball. One pass, and France were a try up with an easy conversion under the posts. As it was, Fofana swerved left, was hammered by Foden, and the chance went begging. On such margins are famous victories won and lost.

As for ENGLAND, it’s hard to think of an award that best sums up what was a great day for the side- fast, fluid and full of ambition. But, in a weekend of some superb hard-running action, No. 8 Ben Morgan has to take the Wrecking Balls Ain’t Got Nothin’ On Me Award for Most Devastating Break. Early in the first half, with England already a try ahead, the French put a kick up to Morgan. Much was made in the analysis afterwards of the staggered nature of the French line, and how spread out it was, but this does not detract from the fact that, with next to no time to gather himself, Morgan pouched the ball perfectly, before setting off on a devastating run in which he beat four defenders without so much as breaking stride, before clattering into a fifth and delivering an outside offload to Foden that would have made Sonny Bill Williams start making embarrassing noises. In that one move, Ben Morgan made the try that set the platform for a famous English victory. I may even forgive him for being Welsh.

Final Scores:
Wales 24 – 3 Italy
Ireland 32 – 14 Scotland
England 24 – 22 France