Shall we come to an arrangement?

So, I'm thinking of taking up flower arranging.

I feel my list of "accomplishments" are insufficient to qualify for a proper Regency/Victorian Lady.

While I did learn to play the piano, I haven't practised for decades and will never be able to provide suitable entertainment for guests in the family parlour.  And my needle point is currently restricted to cross-stitching small birds (exactly two, to be honest).

I can recite poetry, but that is a little further down the rankings of "accomplishments", I believe.

So, flower arranging seems appropriate - nay, necessary.  How else can I prove my street cred as a proper lady?

Last weekend the priest at my church was handing out a list of jobs people could stick their hands up to do, and he lamented that no one ever picks "flower arranger".

Apparently we've had the same plastic flowers at the front of the church for almost three years because the last lot of flower arrangers gave it up for lent (or perhaps old age or a lack of appreciation).  I hadn't noticed.  I'm not sure if many people had (apart from the priest.  And the old flower arrangers, I guess).

So, anyway, I suddenly thought to myself:  "Flower arranging, eh?  That actually sounds kind of like fun."

Flower arrangement is an interesting art form, when you stop to think about it rather than just saying "oh, look, pretty flowers" and moving on.  It's not trying to make or replicate something, like painting or stitching.  You have a number of items, and you must arrange them into something dynamic and visually stimulating.

It's so very simple, but it has the potential to be really deep and meaningful.  The old "language of flowers" used to allow elaborate messages to be displayed in an arrangement (although, these days it seems to be more about symmetry, colour and fulsomeness of display - at least in the Western tradition).  The Eastern tradition of flower arrangement involves more of a juxtaposition and balance of different elements - far beyond "just flowers" - to tell a different kind of story.

I've seen really striking arrangements involving only one "flower" - the rest was all bark, twigs and rocks.  That sort of thing may not be to some people's taste, and that's okay.  When it comes to flower arrangements, it is reasonable to think that there might be a few flowers involved...

I was just thinking that it's strange we don't make a point of decoratively arranging other things, but then I remembered:  Christmas  trees.

I haven't stuck my hand up for it just yet.  Partly because I've never arranged a flower in earnest before, and partly because I'm not sure I'm ready for that sort of responsibility.  But I'm thinking about it.

And while I'm thinking about that, you can think about this:

Floral arrangements in church - purely decorative, or an act of worship?  You are, technically, bringing an offering to the altar...  Discuss.

The Bear Diet

So, I'm thinking of going on the Bear Diet.

"What's the Bear Diet?" I hear you ask.

Well, it's complete and utter tosh that I've just made up myself based on the fact that the Paleo Diet is 3 parts "well duh" to 4 parts "stupid", but seems to be a huge commercial success.  Of course, if it does look like there might be some money in it, I'm totally changing this blog post to get rid of this paragraph.

Following roughly the same quota of 3 parts "anyone with a vague knowledge of nutrition could have figured out that would work" and 4 parts "this idea is ludicrous and full of logical flaws", the Bear Diet involves taking on a diet plan similar to a wild bear.

Why?  Because bears, like humans, are naturally omnivorous predators.  They occupy the same place in the food chain we do.  But that's not the only reason I'm picking on them.

In the wild, they forage for food and eat a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, augmented by protein that largely comes from small sources (like fish, snails and insects) and a bit of red meat every now and then.  They also eat seasonally, and in small portions scattered throughout the day.

Call me unspeakably naive and ill-informed (go ahead - it's entirely justified)... but doesn't this sound kind of like a) the diet our hunter-gatherer foremothers used to eat,* and b) the health advice we often get from dieticians writing for magazines?

It's gold!  It'll make a fortune!

Okay, so that's the 3 parts "well duh" - now for the 4 parts "stupid".

Bears only eat one thing at a time.  They don't eat big elaborate meals consisting of several ingredients, they have small "meals" consisting solely of berries, or honey, or ants, or salmon...  So, for the Bear Diet, we'll focus on simplicity.

There can be one multi-ingredient meal per day (because cooking is the high point of human achievement, after all),** but the rest of one's food consumption during the day will consist of "foraging" portions of of whole foods (preferably unprocessed, but not necessarily uncooked - food poisoning is taking the "stupid" bit too far).

Eat a piece of fruit.  Then a little later eat a handful of almonds.  Theoretically, this would also apply to sources of protein - you'd just eat a serve of meat or fish.  That sounds a bit unpalatable to me, but it would certainly make it easier to recognise when you've had enough of that thing, and you should stop eating.

When eating at a restaurant, or in non-ursine company, you can make a point of ordering the dishes with the least number of ingredients, and try to eat your meal one food-group at a time.  When you have had enough of eating any one thing, stop eating it and don't go back to finish it.  Yes,  on several levels this is daft - and I suspect this would lead to eating a meal like my dog used to (eating all her favourite bits first, and then leaving the least favourite bits in the bowl if she's had enough).

Additionally, bears do that whole "eat significantly less over winter" thing, otherwise known as hibernating.  Now, humans can't actually hibernate, and malnutrition (like food poisoning) is a little bit too stupid, so to minimise the risk of potential hibernation-attempting death we'll spread the period of reduced caloric intake throughout the year.  For two days out of every week, go a bit hungry.

That sounds kind of like the 5-2 fasting diet, but we'll recommend putting those two days consecutively, rather than spreading them between days of normal eating.  And, just to liven things up a bit, as well as having two days of sparse food, we'll throw in one day of abundance.  It will be just like the wild, where some days you get a boon while other days you don't find much to eat.

So, in summary, the Bear Diet involves

• Having a diet consisting of 60-65% fresh fruit and vegetables, 30% protein from fish and small critters, and 5-10% red meat.
• Eating whole, mostly unprocessed foods, and eating one item at a time over the course of the day, with only one (or maybe two) multi-ingredient meal(s) a day.
• Altering the amount of food you eat over the course of the week to include two low-consumption days and one high-consumption day.

And all of this can go with an exercise plan that involves hiking in the woods (or at least walking on uneven ground).

The only trouble with inventing a cockamamie diet that could make millions is that I'd have to actually follow it myself.  You can't just say "Eat like a bear!  It will do wonders for your health!" while you're still eating like a 21st Century human.  It would be frowned upon, I think.

I'm not 100% sure how I'm going to get the "small critters" part working, as I suspect I should by rights be upping my consumption of snails and insects (my consumption of both of these being currently zero).  I may have to get a bit seafood dependant.

But it will all be worth it once I sell the diet plan, cook book and T-shirts.


*Our forefathers wished they ate the Paleo Diet, but our foremothers probably actually did eat like a bear.  
** Especially cake.  Any and all cockamamie diets endorsed by me shall allow cake.

Adventures in buying new crap

So, I've been on a bit of a spending spree at present.

I do this thing where I look at things but don't buy them for quite a considerable amount of time, and then suddenly realise I've been thinking about buying something for years, and go "You know what?  Let's just have this thing".  And then it's kind of like breaking the seal, only with less drinking.

It started with a bicycle.  I stumbled across a sale and decided to go ahead and buy that Strida I've been staring at for years.  Sadly, it's a bit disappointing.  On almost every measure possible, it's not as good as the Brompton.  It doesn't fold as well as the Brompton, it doesn't handle as well as the Brompton, it's not as easy to tuck away in the corner of a room as the Brompton, it's not as easy to adjust the seat height like you can with the Brompton, it doesn't have a built-in kickstand function like the Brompton...

That's not to say it's completely sub-par.  It does do at least two things better than the Brompton:  It provides a more upright angle for riding, so it's easier on the back than the Brompton is, and it fits into a guitar stand.  The Brompton does go in the guitar stand, but it's not something I'd do again in a hurry.  No, seriously, I keep the Strida in a guitar stand.  My banjo is feeling decidedly unloved.

 

 I have to say that, if I had an ongoing back injury or complaint, I'd probably think the Strida was one of the best bikes on the planet.  Instead, what I have is a slight problem with getting the stupid magnetic clamp to work.  Either it's so strong I can't separate the wheels, or it's so week it comes apart at a moment's provocation.

Just work you stupid bicycle.  The Brompton can keep its act together.

Oh, well.  At least it's giving me the opportunity to use the Carradice seat bag I bought to go touring with the Brompton and never used.

Other recent purchases include a Buck Lancer knife, which I bought for the purpose of teaching myself to whittle.  I bought this knife because one of the whittling books I borrowed from the library had it listed as a decent whittling knife.  My research was a bit poor, though, because nothing I saw gave me a really good sense if just how small it is.  It's a tiny, slender little thing.  Folded up, it's roughly the same size as my pinky finger.

I haven't tried whittling with it yet.  Partly because that requires me to actually get my act together, and partly because I'm slightly wary of it's size, now that I've held it in my hands.  I would have preferred something a bit more substantial in the grip.

Last, but not least, my Alto/Tenor horn arrived today.  A second hand jobby that's probably twice my age, I've bought this instrument because it was cheap.  After months of wondering whether to get a French Horn, a Baritone Horn, a Euphonium or a Sousaphone, I've finally settled on an Eb horn simply because I liked the price better than everything else I was looking at.

I've had a bit of a play, and I don't mind the sound of the thing at all.  The case is a complete wreck, though.  I knew it was going to be a bit spartan, but I didn't realise it was going to be so beat up.  And it smells a bit.  I'd say the last owner was a smoker.

Smokers shouldn't play wind instruments.  If you are a smoker, and you play an instrument that produces wind in any way shape or form, you need to stop being a smoker.  It spreads your bad breath to all future owners of that instrument for generations to come.

I once had a second-hand accordion that had been owned by a smoker, and that thing just pumped the smell of stale tobacco into the air every time you used it.  Highly unpleasant.

Besides, smoking is bad for your everything.

Can we just skip to the bit where I've done that?

The biggest problem with taking up new hobbies is all that guff at the beginning when you don't know anything and can't do anything.

I want to be able to sew/whittle/paint/play the horn, but I want to just *do* it, if you know what I mean.  The bit where you're learning to do it is just so much... crap.

I understand that you have to be in that stage where you are learning how to do the thing you want to do before you can get to the stage where you can actually do the thing you want to do, but it takes foooorrrrrreeeeeevvvvvveeeeerrrrrrrrrrrr.  And you are crappy at doing the thing you want to do during this time.  Your efforts are clumsy and stupid, and it can take so long before you see improvement.

The longer it takes me to get vaguely competent at something, the more time I have to get distracted by something else.  It's a dangerous period of time.