I made a video discussion about Coconut water yesterday... because i have been drinking a lot of this these last few weeks, as its got huge ammounts of potassium in it and fairly low calories... But i didnt really acknowledge the sugar content which is not huge but still significant. And sugars have started to creep back into my diet. which is no good.
So i put a video discussion down for Dr.Berg asking if he thinks the coconut water is worth it? is the potassium pay off worth the sugar content?
Also, one of the things i have been thinking about is the sugar content of MILK and when was the MILK round first introduced?
As for keeping slim, when milk strted to be delivered to everybodys doorsteps we seem set up to loose at dieting.
And do we really need so much liquid anyway? well milk bottles were smaller then.. but now they are huge 2L containers sold 2 for £1 and other offers...
According to this website, People used to take their own containers to get filled with milk. Then the glass milk bottle was introduced in America
1879 So it sort of ties in with the industrial era and seeking for better hygeine.
But did we really need milk in the first place?!
www.wired.com/2010/04/0408first-glass-milk-bottles/Flour, Butter, Eggs, Milk, Meat.
We have always had Hunters and Fruit gathering people and obviously the introduction of farming and Corn..
Which looking back is sort of silly. Potatoes.?
And although we did not have scientists back then to analyze food content, i'm certain some people could see its pretty obvious what a good diet is and what our adequate requirements were. Did they just want to "breed mass numbers of people? supply & demand? Were there really that many people around before the industrial revolution?
Was it not obvious to sailors that they simply needed to take a lot of nettles and leafy veg for soups, through trial & error on boat trips to avoid scurvy? for example? was it a way for the captains to have more control & power over their crew if they were under nourished?
Mushroom foraging & mushroom farming could easily have removed the need for meat & hunting. Also Cheese & dairy.. but when did they realize that cheese provided enough Protein for us? And hunting has been an age long Male sport & tradition.
Now we have got to a stage where Creativity, packaging, product design, promotion, marketing & proffits have taken over the true underlying food requirements.. so we have food "just for buisness" not simply to give us sustenance. Its entertainment on television programmes and political in terms of economy and buisness and BBC bosses and culture and livelihood of producers of foods... But also movies & television artists & producers have huge impact and influence on society as well.
Including the social aspects of food. And general entertainment.
Popularity.
Producers and television bosses are not needed when people have more real friendships and relationships and their own entertainment. People dont "NEED" to be popular. Popularity is "COMPETITIVE" its a competition, sport, entertainment.
Really its not needed for social live, true, regular social live.
Its "Surplus" to requirements.
A bit like Hunting really is not needed for food. not anymore. Its just a sport, entertainment at the detriment to animals who have to suffer.
Social hunters, seek to get people hooked on their produce (TV shows) so people think they need it, but ultimately it serves only to feed and expand the success of the people who are creating & producing & at the centre of attention of these programmes..
Unless they are of pure educational purpose, in which case they do have a value and importance, if trying to help us in some way, or educate us.
But, like foods.... that contain required vitamins and minerals & proteins that we need... but too much FAT or SUGAR..
A television Programme is the same.. It provides, information, help, guidance and yes a certain ammount of entertainment and education.. but it also can contain too much "FAME" and focus on creating winners & loosers and people then needing to be popular or have attention of certain houses or clothing to feel normal...
This is the FAT & SUGAR (rubbish) of the TV world.
The surplus excess content added to programes, "the Excess Produce" making us not FAT, but making us obsessed with fame and entertainment, products, Dr Who toys, TV voting programs of celebrity orientated rubbish that we would all be better without in life.
If education is the vitamins of television.
Then "Fame and entertainment" must be similar to the FAT & SUGAR of the food world.
There is a saying "The show ain't over till the fat lady sings"
Maybe it should be "The show is no good until the pin lady pops" or else... the Woman who has to be on the show every time, gives up to let everybody share the roll. The show is not other until the fat lady is thin? or the People who are in excess of popularity "Give in".
But really as they are as addicted to being popular as certain people are addicted to FOOD.. Certain people have a "PRE-Disposition" to put excess weight on and really have to watch their diets.
So Should people who are quite selfish in terms of hogging the spotlight, be pre-disposed to getting too popular, and in fact being Overweight with their popularity?? which is made 100 times worse by the power of television, because then instead of just the village feat or crowd pleaser.. we all have to endure the torture of these people, being broadcast from every television set & channel and on the front of every billboard, magazine cover and advert.. until many of us are sick of the sight of them.
Which causes unbalance in society, especially when most people are happy to "just have a regular number of friends and normal healthy everyday social interactions.
Do we need these people who are in excess (INXS) to constantly pitch social media and "Selfie" culture and words to us?
As the owner-directors of "Facebook" and "youtube" are now serious contributors to facilitate too much fame and popularity...
And instead of just too much focus on one or 2 people that causes imbalance in society..
These internet facilities are really not just "Leveling" the playing field from the celebs.. and making it "Even"..
They are in fact intending to make everyone really NEED and be addicted to literallly constantly update their lives in the internet and youtube and share their lives and promote it as if they are already plugged into some sort of matrix style computer?
Something to consider anyway...
Not saying i have the answer or what is the right balance to find...