We've heard it many times before - we are what we eat. I came across two articles from a national daily and these articles made me reevaluate what I have been gobbling up and stuffing my body with.
I agree with his premise. Though I am a heavy rice-eater, I believe that eating less rice, maybe, one cup less than what most of us usually have, would, in a way, help those who have been continuously challenged to lose weight or those who are in a constant battle with the bathroom scale. Losing weight would ward us away from the problems that go with being overweight or with being obese.
Obesity is a story that has three sides which we all need to hear. Since the genetic predisposition is entirely out of our control, we can work on the other two departments which include dietary intake and physical activity. Now the intake of rice may matter in the former but of course, cutting off on our rice intake is not everything. There is still the need to cut off on our consumption of trans fat.
Trans fat is the common name of unsaturated fat. It is one of those culprits that increase the risk of coronary heart disease by increasing the levels of bad cholesterol in the body. It is usually found in fried food, fast food, and even in baked goodies. Now can you wave goodbye to McDonald's, or KFC, or Red Ribbon? That is of course aside from resisting the temptation to add an order of extra rice while you are in the restaurant, or to add one more gantang of uncooked rice into the rice cooker.
Now on to the second article about food. It operates on the proposition that (and I quote) - "If you are what you eat, then it necessarily follows that your brain is what you eat, as well." This reminds me of the many propositions in Logic Class way back in my university days. I have to confess, that Logic is one of the few subjects (and I could not even remember what those few other subjects are) which I reviewed every night without fail, yes - even during weekends - because I was dead scared to get a low grade. I could still remember my professor emphasizing the if-and-only-if proposition. He made an effort to make us laugh during his lectures, even singing for us a few lines from his favorite song, just to send his points across. He was lanky and almost had nothing for the barber, and he has a resemblance to the villain in the movie Meet the Robinsons. Logic Class was fun, we laughed (like we were proud of our uvulas) at the professor's antics during lectures but we would drip heavily with cold sweat during exams. Now, please excuse me for yakking and straying away from my point, but the opening proposition of the article seems correct to me. Trust me, I got good grades in that subject (wink, wink).
Maybe these assumptions have some truth in it. However, I choose to take a to-see-is-to-believe stand as of the moment. In the language of logic, an if-and-only-if rebuttal. If and only if the study that yielded these results would be cited, and the reading public would be given a way to access it, then I would believe. It is the only way to dispel the doubts of Doubting Thomases like me. How many years were the cohort studies made? What was the sample size? What were the study tools utilized? What was the endpoint of the study? How was the study analyzed? Now, this makes me feel I am carried back to my Epidemiology Class in medical school. I think it's time to go and grab a bite before I yak like crazy. I am not mad. Of course not. This in fact is the most graceful way I can conclude this article. Trust me, I am not mad. Of course not. Just a little hungry maybe. Of course. Who won't be? :-) (Wink, wink.)