Re: Obesity and Personal Reflections

[Guest guest]

At 19:15 +0000 10/7/03, Andy wrote:

[Deletia]

>I KNEW, for 25 years, that " supplementing " my healthy diet with all

>that junk was not good for me. I *knew* it. However, regardless of

>that knowing, I still continued to eat unhealthful foods. Why? Why

>does one do something that one *knows* - intellectually - is not in

>one's best interest?

It also often has to do with other aspects of one's lifestyle.

I often work long hours away from home, and away from places where

its even possible to get healthful foods. Sometimes, 10 hours have

gone by and the only food I can get, without wasting up to two hours

in the face of tight deadlines, or projects that need constant

attention, is from a vending machine containing, at the healthiest,

perhaps some roasted-salted peanut, (or if I'm very lucky, raisins),

or, from a catering truck offering various fried delicacies on served

white bread. (That run-on sentence was intentional, to convey the

non-stop nature of many work days.)

Planning ahead to bring snacks and other healthy food is possible,

but it takes a big bite out of any remaining leisure time (read:

sleep). Trying to eat wisely in a demanding job is probably the

greatest barrier to maintaining crON diets for many of us.

[Guest guest]

At the heart of all this lies the complex mechanism of human

motivation and desire. The most reasonable approach, as far as I see

it, for the average person (which many CR people are not--I believe

they have extraordinary will power) to make their eating healthier

(and therefore less) is to maximize gustatory experience. Let me

elaborate:

I eat very clean now (I occasionally indulge in sweetened cranberries,

bananas or dark chocolate, no sugar icecream, but am trying to

eliminate that from my diet) but I do so mainly from a TASTE

perspective. I starting realizing that there is nothing special about

junk foods out there. I've made delicious and healthy (semi-CRONish if

you allow grains and olive oil) pastries like banana bread and ginger

cookies better than any fried junk out there. So I've sworn that if

ever I'm tempted by something unhealthy I'll make the nearest healthy

alternative (which'll probably taste better anyway...and is FAR

healthier).

I think this is an approach that would work for most

people...especially those who can't fathom renouncing 'all good food'

forever.

-

>

> > IMHO wild animals aren't fat because they eat til they're not

> > hungry and then stop. When they aren't hungry they don't hunt (or

> > eat). Overimbibing just isn't done. Also their food is not

> > loaded with salt, sugar, corn sweetners etc. and all the garbage

> > that processed food has.

>

>

> From what I know of wild animals, e.g., lions, when they are able to

> bring down a kill, they will - if there is sufficient food on the

> carcass - gorge themsevles on it. This is similar to what

> paleolithic hominids did: usually it was feast or famine.

>

> As well, life " in the wild " required significant amounts of energy

> just to stay warm, dry, and fed. Achieving those ends burned mucho

> calories. Even a mere 150 years ago, life in America, especially on

> the plains, required a great expenditure of energy just to survive

> (see the PBS special " Frontier House " for an up-close and personal

> look at just how demanding life was in the mid-eighteen hundreds on

> the US plains - even when living in a log cabin!).

>

> Sure, some people are obese due to biochemcial imbalances. But I

> suspect they are the exception, rather than the rule.

>

> Most of the obesity and overfat problems in America today are due to

> a constellation of causes; primary among them are a lifestyle which

> encourages sloth and a dietary consumption which encourages over-

> eating (primarily because of the TYPES of foods that are consumed).

> Both of these " causes " are strongly encouraged by " Madison Aveue "

> which " sells " both " escapist " activities (which do not require much

> energy output) and dietary inclinations (foods which are highly

> sugared or salted or loaded with fat, encouraging one to overeat).

>

> How does one " wean " oneself off such a diet to a more healthful

> one? There are many methods and some work with some of the people

> some of the time. But none work with all the people all of the

> time. It seems to be something of a crap shoot! It all boils down

> to the primary question: How Does Change Happen? And we don't know

> (if we did, we could " can " it, sell it, and be zillionaires!

> Hahaha!!).

>

> I know, personally, that my eating habits changed from a very

> unhealthy diet to an optimal one in a period of exactly three days.

> I literally trashed all my junk foods in a single evening: out went

> all the cookies, candy, chips, ice cream, cakes -- virtually all

> refined foods except for hard, dense, chewy bread, whole wheat

> pasta, brown rice, etc......And I had been consuming the crappy food

> for nearly 25 years (I have a notorious sweet tooth).

>

> So " change " did happen here. But how? A decision was reached (in

> the brain) and it contained a strong enough impulse to be carried

> through into action. And that action (dispensing with the junk food

> entirely) persists, up to today. Tomorrow? I have no idea! I may

> revert back. I say that because there is no understanding of the

> mechanism by which the decision (to change my diet) occurred.

>

> I KNEW, for 25 years, that " supplementing " my healthy diet with all

> that junk was not good for me. I *knew* it. However, regardless of

> that knowing, I still continued to eat unhealthful foods. Why? Why

> does one do something that one *knows* - intellectually - is not in

> one's best interest? (Since I was an exercise junky also, I didn't

> gain any weight, always burning off the " bad " calories, but of

> course, they were doing damage internally even before being burned

> up). My behavior pattern of 25 years of unhealthful eating was also

> an apparent decision (made each time I popped something " naughty " in

> my mouth). How did *that* happen? And how did it change? How does

> any change happen?

>

> ~ andy

[Guest guest]

To say most American lifestyles today encourage sloth is probably accurate, but let's not make it a moral judgment. Animals in the wild, and people in more primitive circumstances are motivated by one of the most primitive of motivators - hunger. Animals are as active as they need to be in order to survive, and the same is true of people, although with at least a little more insight into long term rewards, or there would never have been any societal development. There is no evolutionary motivator to be slim, or to live longer.

One hopes that with education, people will figure out that they will be more healthy, and we hope therefore more happy, by paying attention to their health and what they eat, and their physical activity, but the general media send so many mixed signals, along with the fact that what they see in individual variation does not reinforce healthy habits. At the same time the media is reporting on obesity and the dangers of smoking, they will report on someone who is 103 years old, drinks, smokes, eats whatever they like, and still has all their teeth, and the next story will be on how modern medicine is allowing us to live longer. Wishful thinking having the power that it does, most would prefer that these latter scenarios are the prevailing ones.

The scary part is, that the people that believe this stuff have driver's licenses and are out there with your life in their hands.....

Iris

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

From: Andy

Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 3:15 PM

Subject: [ ] Obesity and Personal Reflections

Most of the obesity and overfat problems in America today are due to a constellation of causes; primary among them are a lifestyle which encourages sloth and a dietary consumption which encourages over-eating (primarily because of the TYPES of foods that are consumed). Both of these "causes" are strongly encouraged by "Madison Aveue" which "sells" both "escapist" activities (which do not require much energy output) and dietary inclinations (foods which are highly sugared or salted or loaded with fat, encouraging one to overeat).

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve,

I can't say my situation is identical but my school schedule was

extremely harsh during the first month of this schoo year. I took it

as a good fasting opportunity. After the first week I experienced NO

hunger during the actual fasting and no lapse in energy or

concentration. Of course, when I got home...I went wild with hunger

but that's another story. This approach would probably reduce your

caloric intake...and if it doesn't, there are studies out there which

show that the process of fasting lengthens lifespan.

Cheers,

-

>

> [Deletia]

>

> >I KNEW, for 25 years, that " supplementing " my healthy diet with all

> >that junk was not good for me. I *knew* it. However, regardless of

> >that knowing, I still continued to eat unhealthful foods. Why? Why

> >does one do something that one *knows* - intellectually - is not in

> >one's best interest?

>

> It also often has to do with other aspects of one's lifestyle.

>

> I often work long hours away from home, and away from places where

> its even possible to get healthful foods. Sometimes, 10 hours have

> gone by and the only food I can get, without wasting up to two hours

> in the face of tight deadlines, or projects that need constant

> attention, is from a vending machine containing, at the healthiest,

> perhaps some roasted-salted peanut, (or if I'm very lucky, raisins),

> or, from a catering truck offering various fried delicacies on served

> white bread. (That run-on sentence was intentional, to convey the

> non-stop nature of many work days.)

>

> Planning ahead to bring snacks and other healthy food is possible,

> but it takes a big bite out of any remaining leisure time (read:

> sleep). Trying to eat wisely in a demanding job is probably the

> greatest barrier to maintaining crON diets for many of us.

[Guest guest]

Because it tastes delicious. And it feels " comforting " to stuff yourself

silly. And the present moment is all important to many people without

thinking about the long term consequences.

Look at the savings rate in the U.S for example. The majority of the

population lives for the moment and doesn't consider the future, retirement

and what they'll need to live on. Same for food.

Many people in this group have had an illness or a " scare " of some kind

which reoriented their thought process with regard to eating poorly and its'

long-term consequences. OTOH some people never change. Just go to the lung

cancer ward and watch the smokers smoke (of course by the time one has lung

cancer, it's too late anyway).

on 10/7/2003 3:15 PM, Andy at endofthedream@... wrote:

> I KNEW, for 25 years, that " supplementing " my healthy diet with all

> that junk was not good for me. I *knew* it. However, regardless of

> that knowing, I still continued to eat unhealthful foods. Why?

[Guest guest]

That seems like a pretty harsh judgment. While I think people should

eat healthier I certainly don't think any less of the people I know

who eat badly. It's a choice of life, afterall. I think there are

worse things to do to your life.

-

----

The scary part is, that the people that believe this stuff have

driver's licenses and are out there with your life in their hands.....

[Guest guest]

> To say most American lifestyles today encourage sloth is probably

accurate, but let's not make it a moral judgment.

*****Sorry. I didn't mean to convey any judgment at all. I was

using the term " sloth " as defined by Merriam-Webster as

a " disinclination to action or labor. " Simply a description of a

behavior pattern that is becoming more and more evident (partly

because we have so many " labor-saving " conveniences today).

> Animals in the wild, and people in more primitive circumstances are

motivated by one of the most primitive of motivators - hunger.

*****I agree that they are motivated by " the most primitive of

motivators, " but I would suggest that it is a more generic " drive to

survive " rather than hunger per se. And, behind *that* drive is an

even deeper one. As Walford writes in B120YD:

" Given free choice, an animal will instinctively choose a diet that

leads to quick growth and development and to reaching sexual maturity

as soon as possible. This tendency promotes survival of the species

in the wild, but it is at the same time highly counter-productive for

individual long life. In terms of innate self-selection hungers, the

welfare of the species and of the individual are in murderous

conflict. Animals are instinctively programmed to choose what will

make them grow fast and have lots of offspring, even if that choice

brings them frequent disease later on. This direct conflict between

species and individual survival may be unprecedented in biology. "

I wonder: in terms of innate and species-survival drives, are humans

any different than the rest of nature? Might not that explain some

of the behavior we witness every day, both from our selves and from

others?

>Animals are as active as they need to be in order to survive, and

the same is true of people, although with at least a little more

insight into long term rewards, or there would never have been any

societal development. There is no evolutionary motivator to be slim,

or to live longer.

*****Right. This seems to be what Walford is saying in the above

quote.

> One hopes that with education, people will figure out that they

will be more healthy, and we hope therefore more happy, by paying

attention to their health and what they eat, and their physical

activity, but the general media send so many mixed signals, along

with the fact that what they see in individual variation does not

reinforce healthy habits. At the same time the media is reporting on

obesity and the dangers of smoking, they will report on someone who

is 103 years old, drinks, smokes, eats whatever they like, and still

has all their teeth, and the next story will be on how modern

medicine is allowing us to live longer. Wishful thinking having the

power that it does, most would prefer that these latter scenarios are

the prevailing ones.

*****Yes, I think you are pointing to the POWER of conditioning.

Walford has something to say about this in his book:

" [in order to adopt the CRON diet] if you are currently on the

typical Western-style American diet, you do have to change your

attitude towards, and your built-in social programming about, food.

but you didn't write your own attitudes or programs anyway. They

have been written into you by the experiences of childhood and a

lifelong daily barrage of slick advertising, which tries to make you

believe you are somehow deprived if you are not eating junk food, or

that it's deliciously decadent and chic to be dining on the

precursors of arteriosclerotic plaques...Of course, this notion of

dire deprivation is simply a prejudice. People who don't smoke do

not feel deprived; they just don't smoke. "

Now...I take issue with Walford to a certain extent. First, I know

of people (ex-smokers) who DO, in fact, feel deprived. They are

reacting to memory and they genuinely *miss* their cancer sticks.

Secondly, a page after the quote above Walford goes on to say " It's

not that hard to reprogram yourself, and its worth it. " I don't

disagree with the " worth it " part, but I strenuously argue that we

don't have the slightest idea about how to " reprogram " people - other

people - let alone, our own " selves. " Sure, we know that

clinical " brain-washing " can produce a Manchurian Candidate syndrome -

but there, one is talking about a zombie, not a " normal " functioning

individual. Change -- mental, emotional, psychological -- does

happen, but if we actually *knew* a mechanism that could " reprogram "

our selves, most of us would have done it (in a variety of life's

arenas) a long, long time ago. Just consider all the " resolutions "

(New Year's and other) which you " failed " to keep. As if " you " had

free will! Hahaha!!! And yet, our internal programs DO change, from

time to time. But " how " ...ahhhh....that is the question!

> The scary part is, that the people that believe this stuff have

driver's licenses and are out there with your life in their hands.....

*****That sounds suspiciously like a moral judgment to me. :-)))

~ andy

[Guest guest]

>

> > I KNEW, for 25 years, that " supplementing " my healthy diet with

> > all that junk was not good for me. I *knew* it. However,

> > regardless of that knowing, I still continued to eat unhealthful

> > foods. Why? Because it tastes delicious. And it

> > feels " comforting " to stuff yourself silly.

*****Actually, being stuffed silly does not feel comforting to this

body any longer; it feels " off " in a big way. And, as I pointed out

in the earlier post in a quote from Walford, our appreciation of what

is " delicious " is primarily a " learned " response/taste.

Certainly the human animal has an inclination for sweet and fatty

foods (as a survival mechanism). But that can be satisfied by

relatively unrefined foods that deliver both the sweetness and fat.

It is unnecessary to consume massive quantities of highly

concentrated fat and sugar (an apple pie, e.g.) to get a happy sweet

feeling. If those concentrated calories are studiously avoided (or

never adopted into a diet at all), then fresh fruits taste remarkably

sweet. And nuts are decadently fatty!

It all points to a learned desire for highly refined sweets and

overly-fat ladened foods. This appears to occur early in life when

infants are exposed to refined and highly processed " infant formulas "

and solid foods which train their palates to expect such fare in the

future.

> And the present moment is all important to many people without

> thinking about the long term consequences.

*****Which raises the question, " Why don't people think about the

long-term consequences? " Especially when it comes to their health

and survival? It may be that deeper, more powerful drives are

operating (as Walford suggests in a quote I posted earlier today).

It may be that we are not directing our lives, via our intellect

and " wise " choices, as we have been taught all along. It may be that

genetic drives, implanted in us via nature, millions of years ago,

control the " machinery " of our decisions.

> Look at the savings rate in the U.S for example. The majority of the

> population lives for the moment and doesn't consider the future,

> retirement and what they'll need to live on. Same for food.

*****It's as if many - perhaps most - people are " programmed, " either

by genetics, innate nature, or society (parents, peer group, Madison

Avenue, etc.) to think and behave in automatic ways.

> Many people in this group have had an illness or a " scare " of some

> kind which reoriented their thought process with regard to eating

> poorly and its'long-term consequences. OTOH some people never

> change. Just go to the lung cancer ward and watch the smokers

> smoke (of course by the time one has lung cancer, it's too late

> anyway).

*****I'm more interested in the cases where one has had a life-

threatening heart attack (either as a result of weight or smoking)

and the individual still does not make significant and clearly

necessary life changes. Often they say " it's too hard " or " it's not

worth it. " Some folks DO change, as you point out. Dramatically.

But if that were all that was necessary, the non-changers would be

rare indeed. And they're not. So something else, something less

well understood, is at the nature of change/no-change. And we

(humanity) do not understand it nor do we have a handle on it.

~ andy

[Guest guest]

According to an article posted to this group, there is real evidence that

eating a lot truly does reduce stress hormones. I hope that those who do

not react similarly to chronic stress will truly be grateful, ( & gracious

to those that do). IMHO, a lot of physical movement could offset some of

these stress hormones too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14217-2003Sep28.html

Now, scientists have developed a model for a biological link between stress and the drive to eat: Food with lots of sugar, fat and calories appears literally to calm down the body's response to chronic stress.

Francesca Skelton wrote:

Because it tastes delicious. And it feels "comforting" to stuff yourself

silly. And the present moment is all important to many people without

thinking about the long term consequences.

[Guest guest]

--- In , apricot85 <apricot85@a...>

wrote:

> According to an article posted to this group, there is real

> evidence that eating a lot truly does reduce stress hormones. I

> hope that those who do not react similarly to chronic stress will

> truly be grateful, ( & gracious to those that do). IMHO, a lot of

> physical movement could offset some of these stress hormones too.

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14217-

> 2003Sep28.html

>

>

> Now, scientists have developed a model for a biological link

> between stress and the drive to eat: Food with lots of sugar, fat

> and calories appears literally to calm down the body's response to

> chronic stress.

*****Perhaps. It certainly makes " logical " sense that the human body

was " made " to be physically active on a daily basis. Jobs which keep

us sedentary for most of our waking hours go against our " prime

[physical] directive " in that sense. And that " directive " was laid

down millions of years ago.

Also, since the stress we are talking about here is psychological,

one might examine ways to diminish it at its root. If stress doesn't

arise, then...no problem! If we have a new and different response to

stress, the moment it appears, then that too might mitigate the

negative effects. To do this one must examine one's thought process

(the place from which stress arises). This type of examination is

not easy: it requires a level of personal honesty we are not normally

trained to practice. But it can produce results (i.e., a diminuition

of stress in ALL areas of one's life and a more placid, peaceful

existence throughout the day).

~ andy

[Guest guest]

Studies on yeast, though. I wouldn't feel overly confident drawing

conclusions from that.

-

> Also, CR is not for folks whose emotional stability is in any

question. You

> have to have both confidence and serenity along with discipline for

it to

> work. If this is not the case, you should spare yourself this

difficult course

> for now. Studies are showing it can be started at any time and

still be of

> benefit. Peg