※ 引述《prc (小波很可憐)》之銘言：
: 劉聖芬／綜合外電報導
: http://news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/Moment/newfocus-index/
: 0,3687,930304013+0+0+111301,00.html
: 肥胖的問題在美國已引起愈來愈多人關切，速食連鎖巨人麥當勞表示正在調整菜單
: ，將於今年底前取消「大份」薯條及飲料。
: 這個以金色拱門為標誌的速食巨人週二指出，新菜單將提供消費者「一系列擁護均
: 衡生活方式的選擇」。
: 消費者及醫療團體為此決定喝采，並力促其他速食連鎖店跟進。
這篇文章乍看之下沒什麼好笑的
不過我寒假時收到一個學長的信...
(以下為節錄，並且請勿轉錄)
Ｍ 來自肥油之國的問候 Ｍ
Dear All,
很抱歉消失好一陣子
之前回台灣待了三週
很抱歉
都在懶散度日
拼命吃
在這個食物地獄待了超過半年
連維力炸醬麵都是人間美味
新學期也沒有什麼新希望
我對這裡很厭倦了
對美國也很反感
說實話:我覺得我被騙了
之前一直以為如果能到美國好的城市
起碼能和歐洲的好地方比美
雖然應該不如巴黎
但至少也該有慕尼黑等城市的水準
怎知
大錯特錯 而且錯得離譜
我現在很後悔
大學時代暑假都往歐洲跑
如果當時能花一個暑假到美國
我現在說什麼也不會想到這裡唸書
不過人生往往在意外中才得到驚喜
在美國還是遇到許多好人和好事
這個國家雖然文化水準差
但總是有些人能出淤泥而不染
就是因為這個國家淺薄
更能顯出這些人的可貴
畢竟,人的精神能克服一切.....
也很抱歉
回美國快兩週多了才和大家報告
因為我生病了
為什麼會生病呢?
說來好笑
我和我的室友上學期末定了一個約定;
我教他聽古典音樂,他教我如何在健身房運動
(這個人家住紐約林肯中心後面,卻不懂得利用,真是浪費;
在被我疲勞轟炸半年,天天聽我說美國人多沒水準,毫無文化之後,
終於決定要"利用"我了)
我還買了一本書,什麼"古典音樂白痴手冊"給他當新年禮物
(還好我有買,因為他送了我一件毛衣...)
要他每周研讀一章
結果
從上週一開始
我跟他去做運動,一週五次....天呀,真是活受罪....
我的手臂大概痛了四天,
別說彈鋼琴了,連穿衣服都有困難
現在看到那些健身器材就像看到刑具一樣
結果呢,我室友連第一章都沒讀完
還在唸"什麼是管絃樂團",
真是氣死我了 > <
不過這不是重點
重點是我的策略錯誤:
我本來想,
同樣的肌肉比同樣的肥肉能消耗更多的熱量
既然在這肥油國家
如果能多鍛鍊些肌肉
那我就能在保持同等飲食的情況下自然瘦下來
這是沒錯
錯在我以為運動完之後要多吃才能長肉--
錯錯錯,事實上要多睡,一天要睡至少七小時才會長肉...
問題是我沒時間睡!我還在趕我的書稿
(已經拖很久了;我很慚愧...)
所以上週還是每天只睡四小時
結果
到週末人就垮掉了...$%^&*@#!...
所以
殷鑒不遠
在此勸告大家切勿重蹈覆轍......
今天的紐約時報有篇好笑的讀者投書(見下文)
說一個紀錄片導演
親身試驗天天吃麥當勞超級餐一個月後的情形--
結果當然慘不忍睹(well.在美國是常態)
所以今天我和我室友還討論一下麥當勞
結果--我們的結論居然相同
就是,法國的麥當勞是最好吃的,美國的麥當勞則最難吃.
(我的比較可遠達匈牙利,捷克,波蘭,俄羅斯,台灣和日本...)
這再度證明
美國真是一個沒有飲食文化的地方
同樣是Big Mac,
法國的麥當勞就是真正的肉
烹調和醬料也都比較好
美國的麥當勞?
用我的標準
那是不能吃的
連薯條都沒有水準...
不過
反正現在美國連牛肉都不能吃了
所以我也不會再去吃麥當勞了--
其實就算牛肉沒問題
我也不會再吃
我們會花錢買垃圾桶,花錢買垃圾袋
但誰會花錢買垃圾?
花錢買垃圾再把垃圾吃下去--
這就是美國人花錢吃麥當勞的行為
(我是希望這篇讀者投書沒人去看...
我巴不得這些美國人肥死.......
不過這篇真的值得我們思考:
許多家長不願孩子抽煙,WHY?因為抽煙是慢性自殺.
同理,吃麥當勞也是慢性自殺,家長更該禁止)
好啦
我得趕工了
祝福大家
新春如意
心想事成
財源廣進
身體健康
在肥油之國的XXX敬上
The Fat of the Land
Published: February 2, 2004
ne of the hit films at Sundance this year was a documentary called
"Super Size Me," about a healthy man — the film's director — who decided
to see what would happen if he ate nothing but super-sized McDonald's
food for 30 days. His weight ballooned, his cholesterol rose, and his
liver functions began to erode — warning signs of a number of chronic
diseases that, like obesity itself, have reached epidemic proportions in
this country.
According to the World Health Organization, those diseases, including
cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and certain cancers, are now
part of a major shift in the cause of death around the world.
Old-fashioned communicable diseases, like malaria, are being eclipsed by
noncommunicable diseases caused by a dramatic change in diet. Even poor
countries plagued by malnutrition are at risk for what the W.H.O. calls
a malnutrition "of excess." There are 300 million obese adults in the
world, some 750 million more who are overweight and 22 million
overweight or obese children under the age of 5.
In hopes of getting ahead of the problem, the W.H.O. has drafted a
"global strategy on diet, physical activity and health." Meant to be
culturally and regionally responsive, the strategy calls for more
physical activity, a reduction in sugars, fats and salt and an increase
in fresh fruit, whole grains, legumes and nuts. In other words, exactly
what your doctor would recommend if you asked how to lose weight and
improve your health. The plan has provoked an outcry from the American
food industry — especially the Sugar Association — and that,
predictably, has led the Bush administration to request changes. William
Steiger, a special assistant in the Department of Health and Human
Services, sent a 30-page critique to W.H.O. last month, and his boss,
Secretary Tommy Thompson, and members of the Grocery Manufacturers
Association flew to Geneva to ask for more time to comment.
The administration and the sugar industry, which has a long history of
generous giving to both political parties, seem particularly disturbed
at W.H.O.'s proposals that countries be urged to limit advertising,
especially ads directed at children, encouraging unhealthy diets and
that schools should limit "availability of products high in salt, sugar
and fats." Their counterarguments — that no one has proved that
advertising causes obesity, and that W.H.O. does not place enough
emphasis on personal responsibility — seem particularly unrealistic for
a program targeted in part at children.
The administration should be throwing its weight behind the anti-obesity
strategy instead of fighting it. Its current stance has nothing to do
with health and everything to do with the political power of Big Food —
and especially Big Sugar.
--
要像貝多芬的音樂一樣 簡單而深刻
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 218.174.159.63
※ 編輯: prc 來自: 218.174.159.63 (03/04 11:41)