RE: Re: In praise of...common [and uncommon] sense

[Guest guest]

Read carefully what I said... Listen but don't fulfill all, use common and

not so common sense.

To simplify further, don't ignore signals from your body. They all mean

something but we must learn to interpret the proper response for our

specific situation.

Our hunger cues and bias toward overeating was useful in ancient times of

scarcity. However, total dismissal of hunger is not really a good thing for

under weight anorectics. The proper response depends on our personal

situation.

I suspect in the future we will look back and chuckle at the weak

understanding that passes for nutritional common sense today. I don't claim

to have all the answers but I can tell there's a lot of poorly thought

through BS out there. I remember when " all fat was bad for you " , which is in

the process of being replaced with " all carbs are bad for you " . I guess,

next will come " all proteins are bad for you " . Perhaps, only when all of

these avoidance of reality schemes run their course will the focus finally

land on calories, maybe.

JR

PS: As a possible expansion upon or distinction to one of your points. I

believe our attraction to sweet tastes is based on most natural sweetness

being found in vitamin rich fruits. While there are essential fats too, I

agree with you that energy density was probably the stronger attractor.

-----Original Message-----

From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 9:25 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: In praise of...common sense

Hi JR:

It would help me to know what criteria you use to differentiate the

signals from your body you act on from those you don't.

If you are saying you only listen to the signals from your body that

you believe to be healthy, and ignore the unhealthy ones, then you

are really saying: " You should be cautious about which signals from

your body you pay attention to and act only on the healthy ones " .

And that is a LOT different from saying simply: " listen to what your

body is saying " without qualification.

But that is not the only problem. In addition there is still huge

disagreement (even here among those posting on this site) about what

is healthy and what is not. So 'listening only to the healthy ones'

is almost totally subjective. Many people today (low carb dieters)

believe that meat, butter and eggs in nearly unlimited quantities are

the healthy choice. I don't believe that, but the history of

nutrition advice suggests it would be dumb of me to to entertain too

much confidence that they are wrong. So if listening to only the

healthy messages from your body is the solution then different people

will listen to, and act on, entirely different messages. Will we all

be right - listening, each of us, to the different messages we each

believe to be healthy?

As for the reference to 'common sense' in the subject line of this

thread, I submit that " common sense " when it comes to nutrition is

highly dangerous. Until about thirty years ago no one really had a

clue about what was healthy and what wasn't. Governments were

telling people to load up on as much meat and dairy products as

possible on the grounds that they constituted 'complete protein'

whereas plant products were not. Now they are saying cut the fat, in

which meat and dairy are replete. Even now there is a huge degree of

disagreement about it, with many swinging back to high fat diets.

Most of the world think the people in this group are nuts. So I

don't believe humans have any common sense that can be relied on

regarding what is healthy in food.

Our 'common sense' tells us, simply, that sugar and fat are

wonderful, for the simple reason that they have the highest caloric

density. Those of our very far distant ancestors, and their

children, who did not like sugar and fat, and didn't eat it, died of

starvation from lack of a body fat reserve in winter, and

consequently no longer populate the gene pool.

So common sense dictates caloric density, while we here believe the

opposite ........... I think.

We have to try to find the best evidence. In fifty years we will

likely have much of it. (Rant over) : ^ )

Rodney.

> > Hmmm...given that 1/3 of the US adult population is obese, and

> another 1/3

> > are overweight, I doubt our bodies lead most of us to the right

> eating

> > pattern....

> >

> >

> > >From: " bernadettepawlik " <bernadettepawlik@c...>

> > >Reply-

> > >

> > >Subject: [ ] In praise of...bioindividuality

> > >Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 17:23:25 -0000

> > >

> > >This may some very mystic, but I wonder if our bodies lead us to

> the

> > >right eating patterns (assuming we also use that part above our

> necks!)

> > >

> > >I've tried everything from one meal a day to 3 meals a day to 6

> meals

> > >a day. And, 6 meals a day works best for me. Eatings less

> > >frequently, I find that my hunger is almost uncontrollable, and I

> make

> > >the worst choices. I also find that my alertness is dimmed.

> > >

>

>

>

>

>