Hello Guys! I haven't posted for two weeks. As you probably guessed, I finished my 80 hour famine on Friday at 8:30 pm. I couldn't eat the supper the kids had at youth group because it contained West African Cocoa, so I went to Mac Donalds afterwood and bought a grand angus burger. I couldn't finish it all.
For my famine, I was originally going to go eighty hours eating nothing but root vegetables, but, before the famine began I changed this to 'vegetables'. A few of you came to me and discretely suggested that in doing this I had made it too easy, or that it was more like a healthy diet choice. Now I'm going to talk about why I changed my mind, what it is that makes these challenges hard.
Believe it or not, even before partaking in the famine I had a pretty good idea what it would be like. Last year I did Live Below the Line. In Live Below the Line, you spend 5 days buying food for the same amount of money people in extreme poverty have to live on. But anyway, you see it is hard enough So last year when I did it I expected I would just be feeling hungry for five days. On the first day I realised this wasn't so. I had put together my diet well enough that I actually didn't feel THAT hungry. The hardest thing was actually something that doesn't happen when your sucking on barley sugars; sugar withdrawal. We've all heard of lab studies showing that rats prefer sugar to cocaine and are more likely to become addicted to it. Sugar is a highly processed substance. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm guessing almost everyone who ends up reading this is certainly addicted to it. If you don't believe me, then I invite you to try giving up processed foods and sugar for just a day and a half. If you don't have any cravings, I'll apologise.
When I did the 80 hour famine, It took about four hours for me to begin going through withdrawal symptoms. That was pretty much what I'd expected. One thing I didn't expect, however, was that I felt hungry. I had digested the high fibre vegetables of my potato salad quickly and afterwards felt hungry. Every meal in the next day was like a war. I had to battle to shove enough vegetables down my throat to stop me from feeling hungry. Most of the time I failed, but I had the most success with root vegetables, so that was what I ended up eating a lot of. I ate root vegetables to fill me up, and green vegetables to eat something different. At one point I tried to make a soup. I ate one bowl out of respect for the chef. Then I realised I was the chef and tipped it down the drain. It just didn't taste right without salt or meat. Or perhaps I'm just terrible at making soup, I guess we'll never know. One thing I found was that variety is good. I would cut up two potatoes, three yams, half a turnup, a carrot, half a red kumara and half a purple, then mix them all up together and it would be the best thing I ate in a day. I started to feel particularly sorry for all the people in the world who don't get a variety of vegetables. The people with less than $1.25 US per day, which is literally nothing. I wondered, as I was eating my salad, if any of them say thanks to God before they eat.
Did I lose weight? NO WAY! Have you never heard anybody tell you not to suddenly change your diet? Eating this few calories set my body into survival mode ready to store on all the fat of the first few days back on a normal diet. Eating only vegetables isn't a balanced diet. Please don't think that just because everyone seems to think they are healthy you can replicate this diet for health.
Did I eat better than people in extreme poverty? Yes.
Would the diet have been harder if I did go only root veggies? I'm going to say probably, It might not have been of course, since the hardest thing was sugar withdrawal, which is the same with a variety of vegetables as it is without. Possibly it would have even been easier since eating only root vegetables I would have eaten more kumara and gotten more sugar from that, but for the most part, variety was the reason I didn't give up on the whole thing.
Was hardness and replecating exact conditions of extreme poverty the point? How about I leave this one to common sense? Do you guys want me to carry water from the river to my house in plastic containers and then drink it? Would you sponsor more money in that case to help put an end to this kind of thing?
*Or, that is, the amount of money people living ON the extreme poverty line have. 'Extreme poverty' is a title used by governments to specify a social class. Basically, if anyone is constantly living (Food, Water, Shelter, Clothing, Transport, and Entertainment) for less than $1.25 US per day, they are in extreme poverty. It is estimated that two point four million, (that's a two, then a four, and five zeros) people live in extreme poverty today. It's important to note that most of these people live on LESS THAN $1.25 per day, they don't sit on the line, they live below the line. I must also point out, that these are not the only two million people in poverty, they are the bottom of the heap, but there are many who have a little more than them and still live in atrocious conditions. When you do Live Below the Line, you can continue to spend as much money as you want on water, shelter, clothing, transport, and entertainment. It's just the food you change. Which is the easy bit. So your really living slightly above the line.
If you haven't yet, and would like to sponsor me, use the link below to do so online or talk to me in person.
https://www.worldvision.org.nz/portal/famine/member.aspx?mid=52653037&cid=c0a0f311-06cb-e211-86aa-00155dc96f61&id=7ed8db03-0f0d-449e-8fab-314b23ffe7ef
This is so cool Kirsteen! It's good your into this
ReplyDelete