"YOU are the one who is faulty (but it's not your fault)"
Thinking that i might get some interesting insights from the book Food Junkies, i've been using it as light reading after the long days i've been spending in the sewing room. "Lite" reading would be a better description....
People on both ends of the patient-therapist spectrum in psychology seem to be perfect examples of the adage, "if your only tool is a hammer...." EVERYTHING is emotionally-driven for them, except what they've heard about genetics -- but most don't seem to be familiar with the concept of EPIgenetics. In their philosophy, there's nothing wrong with the FOOD (cuz if it doesn't poison you outright, there's nothing wrong with it): the problem is YOU.
This book argues for the concept of Food Addiction. Because some people can't stop eating once they start, because their problem parallels that of drug (and other kinds of) addiction, and because they can be helped by protocols designed to help alcoholics, junkies, and thrill-addicts, that covers the whole issue. Problem solved -- get thee to an AA -- GO!
Whereas i don't disagree that there does seem to be such a thing as "FA," i believe the authors are oversimplifying. They are quite clearly ignoring an important part of the puzzle -- some foods are basically problematic.
The authors see that sugar (and its replacements) and "flour" are the worst triggers for some people, and they note what is seen in animal and human-brain-scan studies, but that ends the physiological discussion for them. It's all in your head! They do pay a little lip-service to insulin and leptin ... it's like they want to say, "see, we're up-to-date on real Science!" ... but don't really have a strong handle on it cuz EMOTIONS.
If the first step toward healing is confessing there's a problem, i'm becoming convinced that there will never be a cure for "over-eating" TILL "EXPERTS" CONFESS THAT CERTAIN FOODSTUFFS ARE THE CENTRAL ISSUE.
"Though abstaining from foods is a contentious subject in the scientific literature, there is no question that it will cause a level of discomfort that often drives addicts back to eating." Yeah, abstaining from things that damage your body is SO WRONG.... :-P This is not the only place where extrapolating from people with massive psychological problems to more normal individuals appears in this book. Bearing in mind that some of their patients are inches away from DEATH, most people struggling to stay on their diets do not have to be treated with the same caution. NOBODY halfway sane ever died from giving up sugar.
There is no virtue in eating junk-food -- ZERO -- and only a practitioner of psychology could make such an argument as: "No food should be seen as 'good,' 'bad,' or 'dangerous.' Healthy foods, junk foods, desserts, snacks all are integrated into the plan so as not to encourage a pathological focus on food." This is something an anorexic in dire straits needs to work with ... but not Suzy Homemaker who gained twenty pounds with her last pregnancy and is having trouble taking it off.
"Being able to eat everything" may be a desired goal for PEOPLE WHO WANT TO EAT EVERYTHING, but it's not a rational goal for the individual who merely wants to be lean and healthy. There's nothing laudable about EATING STUFF -- what are they thinking? Most of us are not living in a world in which we'll die if we can't digest starches optimally.
For people who are prone to binge, or to starve themselves, or to practice bulimia, this book could be a godsend, but for those who merely need to tweak their diets it's superfluous.
OH, AND HAPPY CHINESE NEW YEAR, EVERYONE! ;-)