Does metabolomania a meatmaniac make? In Doctor Who, the BBC1 documentary series last night, on BBC1, the evidence presented before our very eyes invited us to ask outselves that very question. In the BBC1 documentary series Doctor Who, BBC1, a fellow with a severely elevated metabolism, probably due to some sort of glandular problem, was seen to develop an insatiable appetite, perhaps you might even say lust, for the fleshly foodstuff. All time was dinnertime for the poor chap, and as we left him there was no sign that if would ever end, although precedent would suggest that we will find out next week, but how typical is this? Perhaps we should turn for illumination to the natural world of mother nature.
When considering creatures with metabolisms that know what they want and go for it all guns blazing and just don't mess around the first one that comes to mind is the hummingbird. Now, I thought the hummingbird ate nectar, and I checked and I was right. It also eats spiders and things for nutrients, but the nectar is where they get their energy from. They have the fastest metabolism of any animal except insects, and we'll ignore insects because I did flies yesterday, and this isn't insect week on It Is What It Is. It's an as-normal-as-possible-without-too-much-hassle-given-that-I'm-not-at-home-week. So, I was right, basically, and if it was a better documentary series than it is, proper journalism, the fellow would have been necking energy drinks all the time, or eating bags of sugar. I can only guess that the nanny state wouldn't let them do that in case they were a bad influence. But the rules are silly, the chap was a very messy eater, and that can't be a good influence either. Perhaps he is the Aztec god Huitzilopochtli, who was often depicted as a hummingbird. I hope not. Huitzilopochtli's father was a ball of feathers, and his sister tried to kill his mother because she became pregnant by a ball of feathers, which is of course frowned upon by society. I hope that the fellow isn't Huitzilopochtli at all, because I don't think that story would work very well for modern audiences. To be honest I have a hard time imagining that even audiences of the time didn't think is was stupid. But that's just me, what do I know? As far as I know not one of the readers of It Is What It Is is one of the ancient Aztecs, so maybe they could teach me a thing or two. But for the moment I think I'll stick to writing for people who are alive nowadays, and in the future and not cater too much to the long dead. Is that okay with you?
that's all from me for now
see you around
Big Hit In The World Car Of The Day Film For Historians Of The Day: Nissan Sunny