There's additional news this week that severely restricting one's caloric intake is associated with greater longevity. In lay terms, if you stay really thin--almost unnaturally thin--you may live longer.
Good to know, although in many ways this is a really old issue, and I have really old responses to it.
Somehow we must find our personal balance point between asceticism and hedonism. Yes, life is finite, and yes, we all want to live a long life, but somewhere in there lies a tipping point where longevity ceases to be an inherent "good" in its own right. If I could live another 20 years by only eating tofu and alfalfa sprouts, I suppose I would consider it--but I hope that I would have the good sense to realize that a long life without chocolate would be a life that's long on quantity and short on quality.
During my formative years, we learned that it is indeed unwise to party a bit too hearty. Those who grew up in my era remember Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, and Jim Morrison, all of whom died at the ripe old age of 27. They all lived pretty "large" and paid the price for it. We would be wise to avoid their lifestyles--although chocolate was the least of their worries! Still, the bigger idea is that life entails risk, and some degree of indulgence, and grabbing for the gusto. Life must provide at least some immediate rewards; everything cannot be deferred or avoided out of fear.
We all do what we can. I hope that all of my running (coming up on 19,000 recorded miles) is and will be beneficial. My goal is for people to say, "He sure was in good shape when he died!" But damn: what would life be like without mayonnaise, or fried potatoes, or fudge ripple? To some extent, I have to embrace such sinful and self-destructive behavior, even if research monkeys are living longer without it.
Death by chocolate: I can live with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment