

I'm not sure just how accurate or how true the results are, considering we've all been struggling to find out the secret behind being slim and successful dieting for as long as I can remember, but I have to admit that there is some truth behind this study.In a recent documentary for BBC2’s Horizon, 10 “naturally slim” volunteers ate almost double their usual kilojoules (14,651 for women, 20,930 for men) for four weeks.
Eight gained weight but two were physically unable to eat that amount of kilojoules, and one of them even lost weight over the month.
Most interestingly, they all reverted to their previous weight within weeks of the trial ending, without dieting.
Dr Susan Roberts, author of The Instinct Diet (Workman), has found similar results.
“I have conducted food trials where we have enlisted ‘naturally skinny’ volunteers to increase their kilojoule intake and they really struggled to overeat at every meal.
Left to their own devices, their instincts were to skip a meal or go light on supper to balance out their intake.”
So your annoyingly “naturally skinny” friend will in fact be unconsciously eating less and regulating her meals.

And another thing! Why are the vegetarian desserts on planes always so goody-goody? Everybody else gets a chocolate mousse or the like, which would be fine for us too; we get palmed off with fruit salad. Just because you've elected not to make your mouth a graveyard for animals, it doesn't necessarily follow that you're a health freak.
Then there are those ubiquitous people who are determined to catch you out as a hypocrite, or to force you to justify yourself. Nobody's taking them to task, but they insist on launching a pre-emptive strike. ''Hitler was a vegetarian'' is one of their familiar and supposedly damning refrains. So what? He had a moustache, too. So is wearing a moustache wrong? Actually it is, but I digress.
Personally, I'm in no position to be self-righteous. I ate meat until 16 years ago, and anyway it's all relative, and we all compromise and draw a line somewhere. Vegans are my moral superiors, and arguably those Buddhist types who wait for the fruit to drop from the tree have the edge on them.
But if anyone wants to kill animals, can they please at least stop being so damn cute about it? Sentimental ads with kindly grandfathers taking angelic little boys fishing may look pretty, but they can't change the reality of a hook through the gills and a slow suffocating death. And the same, of course, goes for hunting. Not to mention mawkish articles about, say, pork farmers, with photos of them beaming as they cuddle their ''beloved'' piglets.
Almost as stupid and delusive are the selective qualms many people do have about killing. Do they seriously imagine that fish, cows, sheep, pigs, lobsters or chooks feel less pain than, say, whales or baby seals? Or is their pain somehow just less important? Death is death.
But hey, do what you want. It's a free country (unfortunately). I just wish that those who choose to eat meat would consider the small and benighted - but growing - minority who choose differently.
by Mark Demetrius
What's wrong with being asked where you're from? Primarily, for me, it's boring. After 40 years of the same question, I'd rather talk about something else.
So I answer ''I'm from Wollongong'', which is true. I've lived in Wollongong since 1986, longer than I've lived anywhere else and longer than all my years in the United States.
But this seldom satisfies my questioners. ''But I detect a bit of an accent. Are you from Canada?'' Many Australians imagine that Canadians become upset if they are thought to be Americans. At this point I usually admit I'm from the US. But often that is not enough.
''What part of the US?''
I can obfuscate and say from several places (true), or be more precise and say Oklahoma. I lived in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for 11 years but have not visited the state for the past 40, so it hardly seems like home. All my relatives left decades ago.
Finally, after years of being annoyed by such questions - always well meant, of course - I realised that for some reason it is socially acceptable to question someone about their origins based on their accent, even though commenting on other inferences is off limits.
Imagine being introduced to someone and having the nerve to ask ''How old are you?'', then, when the person demurs or deflects, persisting: ''But I noticed wrinkles around your eyes that make me think you're over 40.''
Imagine meeting someone and asking ''How much do you weigh?'', then, when the person tries to avoid answering, persisting: ''But you look like you're over 80 kilos.''
Imagine meeting someone and asking ''How much money do you make?'', then, when the person declines to answer, persisting with comment about the quality of their clothes.
These scenarios are unlikely. It's usually considered impolite to ask strangers their age, weight, income, religion or hair colour, even though you can guess by simple observation.
So why is a stranger's accent fair game? Why is it OK to ask about their origin but not about their weight or age?
I don't know the answer. My main interest is in changing the conversation without being offensive. So far my best response is: ''Where are you from?'' That shifts the focus from me to my conversation partner - far more interesting to me.
by Brian Martin





