Is breakfast the most important meal of the day? Pfft.
Only if you want it to be: there's not much evidence beyond some observational studies. But we've been conditioned into believing it by a breakfast food maker who asked a physician to agree it was true, who in turn asked a group of other doctors to countersign his statement.
That was sent to the newspapers and so later it's what our mums told us when they wanted us to eat our porridge. Ultimately, though, it was a marketing campaign, a message that Big Bacon concocted when it wanted to boost sales. Eat a heavy breakfast! It's the most important meal of the day!
Look, have a croissant or don't: it probably won't make any difference.
I wonder if Big Underwear, meanwhile, is behind the latest recommendation I've read, which is that one should change one's underpants every six months (as in throw out and replace, not just get dressed). An alternative suggestion I see is after 50 washes.
Either the entities pushing these theories haven't coordinated their strategies or I own a lot of underpants, because – TMI? – I don't have so few that I'm washing the same pair twice weekly. (Maybe I should cut down on stock levels. Reduce storage bills and energy costs. A just-in-time strategy for domestic laundry. I already only wear black socks to save time pairing them. It's the next logical step.)
Anyway, call me cynical, but I wonder what motivates these various theory merchants. Could it be that in the way cereal makers would prefer us not to wait for a lunchtime meal deal, underwear makers and retailers want to give pant-wearers - most of us - a nudge to replace ahead of time?
The pants thing hasn't entered public consciousness like the breakfast messaging. At least not yet. The difference being that bacon producers said it loud, with authority, and found a slogan: their version of 'Guinness is good for you' but less easily disproven.
Big Underwear - forgive me; Big Pants? - needs to pull its socks up if it wants to compete.
So perhaps we, as car drivers, need to start marketing our preferences better too. Because the active travel lobby is definitely selling itself well.
They say that it's good for you and the planet if you get out of your car and onto your bike or your feet, and that by doing so you will live a healthier, longer life.
It's a message that has cut through, certainly to politicians, who think this sounds easier and cheaper than filling potholes and can be used as an excuse to tax drivers ever more highly.
But it's not really right, is it? When we all walked or took horses everywhere, technological progress was glacial. We lived short, painful and difficult lives, mostly very close to home.
If you wanted a doctor before the car existed, he would take a day to come, and he would have only ever read one book, and it recommended leeching. The car changed all that. It revolutionised education, culture, health and love.
Join the debate
Add your comment
Increasing speed results in diminishing time savings, so trying to go everywhere as fast as possible is of questionable benefit relative to effort and energy expended - it's a balance. Also, not travelling saves even more time than travelling, even if you go as fast as possible. Not suitable for all situations of course, but again, there is a balance to be struck.
And as for active travel, this isn't about drivers vs non-drivers as you're trying to portray it. Part of active travel is about choosing the most suitable method for the journey you're doing rather than defaulting to a car every time. Our towns and cities, not to mention our bodies, are not suited to a car centric lifestyle - we need to be pragmatic and again find a balance. Indeed, everytime someone choses to walk or cycle rather than drive, it reduces congestion, reduces wear and tear on the road and reduces emissions.
Spot on.
HS2 was billed as a time-saving benefit, whisking business people between London and the North far faster than before.
They've dropped this now, alongside every other promise made for the madly expensive new line, but the point stands - public transport boasts about speed and gets billions in subsidy, whereas roads can only tout 'smooth journeys', whatever they are.
This means we're continuing to live a weird alternate reality, where officially the speed limit on motorways is 70, even though everyone knows it's probably somewhere around 85.
Why can't we admit that cars have got faster and safer, but bad driving causes congestion and hold ups? Why do we need 'smart' motorways - at huge expense - to make everyone stick to a fictictious lower limit, when in reality more cops and better driver training is the answer?