shoehorn's brooding grounds

i was watching larry king live a few days ago and on the show, joy behar was interviewing gary taubes and mehmet oz - the physician who occasionally appears on oprah. the topic of discussion was diet as it relates to obesity and general health.

sometime between the late 70s and early 80s, health officials in north america began to push the idea that because fats and cholesterol cause heart disease, people should consume diets consisting of less meat and more carbohydrates. what's very interesting to note, however, is that the rate of obesity in north america during this time period actually skyrocketed. science writer gary taubes cites this as one of the many indicators that our accepted knowledge about dietary health is in serious need of research and revision. but i think his main premise is that these ideas, which have been perpetuated since the 70s, had always been based on bad science. it seems in actuality, there exists little to no scientific evidence to prove that low fat diets prevent either obesity or heart disease.

the most resounding point he made in one of his articles, imo, is the fact that there are people who do adhere to strict diets as advocated by their physicians, yet, they don't see any results. most people are quick to ridicule, blaming it on psychology rather than physiology, saying that the person lacks any will-power and that losing weight is all about will-power. i'll admit that i was once one of these people. i mean, i wouldn't actually ridicule anybody, but i did believe that losing weight was all in the mind. how stupid of me. gary talks about the oft ignored, though, very known fact that the hormone insulin reacts differently to carbohydrates than it does to fats. carbs raises the level of insulin moreso that fats. so if ingesting high carbs and low fats leads to the deposition of calories in the form of fats, which leads to obesity, then how can health officials continue to promote this archaic idea?

near the end of one of his interviews, and this was a thought that i've held for a while now, he mentions that the perfect diet is the one which we've evolved to consume over the last 2 million years on the planet. a diet that consists of lean meats, non-refined carbs, fruits and berries etc. now this doesn't mean i'm going to start dining like a caveman, but i certainly won't feel as bad about consuming things like meat and mayo and i will try to cut back on sweets, sodas and grains while taking in more vegetables.

pbs interview
mit interview

i'm pretty big on action movies so live free or die hard was a bit of a must-see. especially because i'm a huge fan of the first two. not so much the third though, it was a little weak, even with samuel l. jackson costarring. but enough about the movie. what's interesting to me is the resurgence of 80s and early 90s action stars and action franchises when most people had already expected a changing of the guard, so to speak. a few years back, it was generally expected that guys like vin diesel and the rock would take over roles that would otherwise be played by a younger stallone, schwarzenegger or willis. yet, today, these old-timers are making comebacks with a vengeance! rocky balboa was a quality movie and it was rewarded at the box office. live free or die hard had all the elements of the quintessential action movie and boy did bruce deliver. it'd come as a shock to me if the upcoming rambo movie isn't as successful.

so what makes these movies successful other than the special effects and action sequences? i mean, those two aspects are important but scenes that are just as impressive can be found in a lot of movies that are less successful. perhaps it's the enormous nostalgic fanbase? folks that have grown up watching and loving these action franchises who are just die-hard fans? i think that's part of it. i think another advantage that the old guys have is something i like to call rooting-for-the-underdog syndrome that afflicts the fans. i could be completely off base but i think a lot of fans wish to see stallone and willis overcome the odds and go out on a positive light. of course, all of these things would mean nothing without a decent script and storyline. maybe action movies of today have strayed too far from the original formula that made the careers of stallone, willis and schwarzenegger that a return to is exactly what the doctor ordered.

i know it's a little childish but i must confess that this past few days i've been about as excited as a 9 year old on christmas morning with not only the release of the latest hp movie, but also the forthcoming resolution to the story in a week's time. never thought i'd be a fanatic, but 6 books and 5 movies later, i fear that's exactly what i've become. heh.

anyway, i caught the movie yesterday evening and i have to say that i didn't enjoy it as much as i thought i would. reason being, this was the first time that i'd read the book before seeing the movie and so nothing came as a surprise. however, as far as second impressions go, after mulling things over for a bit, i feel that the movie was entirely up to par with the others. the perpetual problem with film adaptations of novels, especially long ones is that there will always be a lot that's left out due to time constraints. generally speaking, each movie has done a pretty good job of choosing which parts to include and which to exclude, yet things still felt incomplete this time around. let me just end by suggesting that you read the book. it's really the only remedy.



on another note, i need to watch transformers again. so good.