Many back in the United States, and perhaps every where for that matter, have heard of the French Paradox. The French eat tons of saturated fats, smoke about as often as they breathe, drink good wine, rarely exercise, and yet seem to be in better overall shape than my countrymen. Not only that, on average they live 2 and a half years longer than Americans. Why does this diet seem to work so well?
Here are couple of theories which I have heard before:
1. All natural ingredients- The French rarely use preservatives in their food. But make sure if you ask someone in French if the food contains preservatives, use the word additif rather than préservatif, as the latter translates to condom.
2. The French walk a lot more- compared to more spread out countries such as the U.S., Canada, and Australia, the French can get away with walking to the grocery store, the bank, or the pharmacy. For example, I have at least 6 grocery stores within a 10 minute walk of my apartment, not to mention several boulangeries, boucheries, and épiceries. Many people in France, when faced with the choice of elevator or stairs, will take the stairs.
3. Red Wine- Red wine, when drank in moderation, is seriously good for you. For example, red meat apparently contains molecules that can lead to several different types of cancer. One study I read states that drinking red wine while eating red meat actually eliminates the harmful effects of those molecules. Among other benefits, it apparently lessens the risk of cardiovascular disease, may decrease the risk of lung cancer in men, and keeps Superman from kidnapping your children.
While I was back in the United States this past week, I was really enjoying getting to eat a lot things that I haven't had in a long time, such as good Mexican and Barbecue. Even after paying the tip, it was amazing how cheap everything seemed compared to France and in particular Paris, where people are going out to eat less and less since restaurant prices continue to rise.
I did a lot of grocery shopping for my parents as well. It was while buying vegetables for my Mom that this part of the French paradox dawned on me.
By comparison to Paris, groceries are ridiculously expensive in the United States. One bell pepper cost $2 US each in my hometown of St Louis. I went to several grocery stores in different parts of the city and this seemed to be fairly average. On the contrary, in Paris, among the most expensive cities in the world, one kilo (2.2 pounds) of bell peppers generally costs 2.95 euro, which at today's exchange rate would be $3.80 US. With this data, one in Paris could buy 8 bell peppers for the price of 2 in the U.S. This doesn't even include markets in France, which are occasionally cheaper than the supermarkets. There are some markets in Paris where one can buy a kilo of bell peppers for 1.20 euro. The few things that seemed cheap in the grocery stores in St. Louis seemed to be loaded with preservatives.
When it comes to fast food, this seems to be a little different. Personally, I have been to McDonald's 3 times since I have moved to France. The last time I went was last year, the day Julie and I moved into our apartment. We got two meals, and Julie got an extra burger. Our meal cost around 18 euros. We could have gone out to eat at a cheap restaurant for that price (without wine). To spend just over $23 at McDonald's in the U.S., one would have to order pretty much everything on the menu.
Though I haven't studied economics in a few years, the economics involved in this article are straightforward. An average consumer, when given a choice, usually goes for what is cheaper. Therefore, I present my new addition to the theory of the French Paradox.
France- an average consumer cannot afford to eat at restaurants regularly. Groceries are cheap by comparison, forcing French people to cook more. Fast food is becoming more popular here, but still has a long way to go to catch up to the United States.
U.S.- restaurants, mainly fast food chains, are very cheap. Groceries, noticeably fruits and vegetables, are very expensive, perhaps due to transportation costs, scarcity, etc. Thus people with little money want to get as much food as possible for their money, which leads to people eating fast food. Fast food is not known for being very nutritious in comparison to fresh fruit and vegetables.
My main point here is this: Given what I've seen and written, it seems that France and the United States encourage different tendencies with food. It seems that it is cheaper to eat healthy in France, which could also contribute to why French people, as a whole, seem to be healthy than Americans.
If you agree or disagree, or don't know if you agree or disagree, I'd love to hear what you think.
If you are traveling to Paris and looking to see (and eat) what French people really eat and take a walk around some cool neighborhoods of Paris, look into my tours at culinarytoursofparis.com
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Sunday, December 26, 2010
De Gaulle and Wikileaks
It's been a while since I've written. I'm enjoying my time back home in St Louis, USA, and at the same time, prepping my business for the year to come. However, in the midst of all this, I came across something that I felt would be worthy of an article.
A few days ago, I finished an excellent book called Parisians: An Adventure History of Paris written by Graham Robb. It covers various stories on famous historical figures and events from the late 1700's through the past decade. I'll return to the book in a moment.
When I worked as a World War II guide in Paris, I often finished my tours by discussing Charles De Gaulle and his march into Paris on August 26, 1944. He marched down the Champs-Elysees, through the Place de la Concorde, had a brief ride in a car, and arrived for a service at Notre Dame. As he led an entire parade, shots rang out, first in the Place de la Concorde, and then in front of, and even inside of Notre Dame. Throughout the whole event, the only one that seemed to show poise was De Gaulle himself, as he essentially ignored the shots around him, even though he was the likely target. This moment raised him to the status of a near-deity in France, and helped his cause for many years to come in establishing himself as the leader of the French.
Though De Gaulle himself claimed that it was the Communist opposition which was trying to assassinate him and cause disorder, this case to this day remains unsolved.
I feel that a lot of groups could be to blame here (one of many communist factions, the remaining Nazis as the city had been liberated from them the day before and some die hard soldiers were still fighting to the death), an interesting point of view that I have tried to argue is that he could orchestrated the attempt himself. Here's why:
1. De Gaulle seemed to ignore the whole thing. Even as shots were fired at him, he did not speed up, nor slow down. He just kept his leisurely pace.
2. People were injured from gunshots, but there is a good chance that they came from soldiers that were marching in the parade (De Gaulle invited an entire division to march with him), who started firing wildly in the midst of the confusion following the shots at De Gaulle.
3. Perhaps the most intriguing piece of evidence is that no one ever saw a bullet come near De Gaulle. Several dozen shots were fired, one would figure that if he was the target that a shot at least come within a few feet of him. It's not like he was trying to move out of the way either. At a height of 6'5", he should have been an easy target.
4. He eliminates his political opposition by blaming the whole thing on them. This won't help the communists come in to power, and basically ruined years of work to get to where they were in the political arena. The communist movement has never recovered in France.
5. No one was ever caught. Well, a couple of guys were, but nobody was ever really sure who they were and they beaten to death before anyone could figure it out. Some thought they were French, others German. Even as the shots continued at Notre Dame for close to an hour, the gunmen somehow got away. A French police officer was found standing around in the bell towers, from where the shots originated, after some people finally decided to track down the shooters, and everyone just assumed he was up there trying to catch the perpetrators.
De Gaulle seemed to have an unbelievable amount of luck. He survived a ridiculous amount of assassination attempts, in particular during the 1960's, where they seemed to be a regular occurrence. No matter how intricate and well planned the attempt, something always seemed to go wrong for the bad guys, and De Gaulle would escape unscathed.
To reference Parisians, Robb writes a chapter on De Gaulle and François Mitterand and the attempts on their lives, and though he doesn't outright say De Gaulle organized the his own assassination attempts, he does seem to hint at it:
In all of the emergencies he had faced in the last twenty years, he had never made a secret of the fact that it was sometimes necessary to deceive the electorate in the interests of the nation. Most of the electorate admired him for saying so. It was commonly believed that without a leader who knew how to fool his enemies, France would never survive in a world of treachery and violence (Robb, 343).
In the midst of the Wikileaks scandal in which many have jumped on the side that misleading the public is wrong, this gives a voice to the side that these papers should not have been released, as misleading the public may be for the greater good. Though there have been quite a few slip ups brought to the forefront with the release of thousands of diplomatic cables, the cables have also shown that many of the secret activities were done for the greater good.
Was De Gaulle right in misleading the people? He may or may not have been referring to one or many of these assassination attempts, we may never know. Though De Gaulle was generally respected in France for admitting to misleading the people, would something like that fly today in France, the United States, or anywhere else?
If you have something to add, I would love to hear it. Bonne Année!
If you are traveling to Paris and looking to see (and eat) what French people really eat and take a walk around some cool neighborhoods of Paris, look into my tours at culinarytoursofparis.com
A few days ago, I finished an excellent book called Parisians: An Adventure History of Paris written by Graham Robb. It covers various stories on famous historical figures and events from the late 1700's through the past decade. I'll return to the book in a moment.
When I worked as a World War II guide in Paris, I often finished my tours by discussing Charles De Gaulle and his march into Paris on August 26, 1944. He marched down the Champs-Elysees, through the Place de la Concorde, had a brief ride in a car, and arrived for a service at Notre Dame. As he led an entire parade, shots rang out, first in the Place de la Concorde, and then in front of, and even inside of Notre Dame. Throughout the whole event, the only one that seemed to show poise was De Gaulle himself, as he essentially ignored the shots around him, even though he was the likely target. This moment raised him to the status of a near-deity in France, and helped his cause for many years to come in establishing himself as the leader of the French.
Though De Gaulle himself claimed that it was the Communist opposition which was trying to assassinate him and cause disorder, this case to this day remains unsolved.
I feel that a lot of groups could be to blame here (one of many communist factions, the remaining Nazis as the city had been liberated from them the day before and some die hard soldiers were still fighting to the death), an interesting point of view that I have tried to argue is that he could orchestrated the attempt himself. Here's why:
1. De Gaulle seemed to ignore the whole thing. Even as shots were fired at him, he did not speed up, nor slow down. He just kept his leisurely pace.
2. People were injured from gunshots, but there is a good chance that they came from soldiers that were marching in the parade (De Gaulle invited an entire division to march with him), who started firing wildly in the midst of the confusion following the shots at De Gaulle.
3. Perhaps the most intriguing piece of evidence is that no one ever saw a bullet come near De Gaulle. Several dozen shots were fired, one would figure that if he was the target that a shot at least come within a few feet of him. It's not like he was trying to move out of the way either. At a height of 6'5", he should have been an easy target.
4. He eliminates his political opposition by blaming the whole thing on them. This won't help the communists come in to power, and basically ruined years of work to get to where they were in the political arena. The communist movement has never recovered in France.
5. No one was ever caught. Well, a couple of guys were, but nobody was ever really sure who they were and they beaten to death before anyone could figure it out. Some thought they were French, others German. Even as the shots continued at Notre Dame for close to an hour, the gunmen somehow got away. A French police officer was found standing around in the bell towers, from where the shots originated, after some people finally decided to track down the shooters, and everyone just assumed he was up there trying to catch the perpetrators.
De Gaulle seemed to have an unbelievable amount of luck. He survived a ridiculous amount of assassination attempts, in particular during the 1960's, where they seemed to be a regular occurrence. No matter how intricate and well planned the attempt, something always seemed to go wrong for the bad guys, and De Gaulle would escape unscathed.
To reference Parisians, Robb writes a chapter on De Gaulle and François Mitterand and the attempts on their lives, and though he doesn't outright say De Gaulle organized the his own assassination attempts, he does seem to hint at it:
In all of the emergencies he had faced in the last twenty years, he had never made a secret of the fact that it was sometimes necessary to deceive the electorate in the interests of the nation. Most of the electorate admired him for saying so. It was commonly believed that without a leader who knew how to fool his enemies, France would never survive in a world of treachery and violence (Robb, 343).
In the midst of the Wikileaks scandal in which many have jumped on the side that misleading the public is wrong, this gives a voice to the side that these papers should not have been released, as misleading the public may be for the greater good. Though there have been quite a few slip ups brought to the forefront with the release of thousands of diplomatic cables, the cables have also shown that many of the secret activities were done for the greater good.
Was De Gaulle right in misleading the people? He may or may not have been referring to one or many of these assassination attempts, we may never know. Though De Gaulle was generally respected in France for admitting to misleading the people, would something like that fly today in France, the United States, or anywhere else?
If you have something to add, I would love to hear it. Bonne Année!
If you are traveling to Paris and looking to see (and eat) what French people really eat and take a walk around some cool neighborhoods of Paris, look into my tours at culinarytoursofparis.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
