ah, the mortal enemy of diets: travel. having recently returned from a few days in my favourite city ever to be cast in jello (san francisco, if you're wondering), i am having to readjust my eating regimen after gleefully stuffing my face with more food than my body has been accustomed to for the last month or so. it is really, really difficult to find restaurants with small portions anywhere in the united states of america.
on the other hand, i did compensate for this indulgence by kicking myself a few rungs up the metabolic ladder. san francisco is one of north america's great walking cities. compact in geography, it compensates for its small area in vertical scale. strolling the city is the urban equivalent of mountain climbing, complete with breathtaking scenery of both the natural and constructed varieties. so after six or seven hours of hitting the pavement, i figure i can afford to consume a few more calories.
being in this environment made me realise that i would be a much happier person if i lived in a city that was more friendly to pedestrian life. toronto is vast and sprawling and, unless you're very fortunate, your life is always going to involve moving between far-flung quadrants. i'm not under the illusion that six hour walks would be the norm for me any place i lived, but it seems that i would be happier if i had more time to work on raising my metabolism, rather than just trying to restrict food intake. walking happens to be my favourite method of getting exercise, because it is practical (moves you from a to b), because it is interseting (the scenery changes), because it can be either solitary or social and because it is conducive to thought. the gym just doesn't inspire me in the same way.
the chief effect of this at the moment is that i'm having to reign in my appetite once again, since my body has not yet realised that i'm not doing famous walks (yes, in some circles, i really have been famous for really long walks) every day anymore.