or
"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! ;-)
Wanting to be able to eat anything and everything is part of the popular idea that people can do it all and have it all. In reality, people who have been a success at something tend to have said no to a lot of other enticing possibilities and focused their effort on achieving their goal. That doesn't mean someone has to focus all their effort on diet, but that someone with a difficult metabolism will have to say no to all the junk food and trigger food--food that both experts and layment know is bad--focusing on food that's nutritious and healthy.
ReplyDeleteEven if the problem is strictly emotional, a person who buckles at the idea of avoiding junk food is acting like a baby. Part of growing up is learning to pass up short-term pleasures for long-term rewards, knowing your limits, and to understand that seeing your friends jump off a cliff is no reason for you to do so, too.
Dr. Atkins' approach was for his binge-eating patients to eat all the fat and protein they wanted--he said he didn't want to take away the comfort that food offered them. But they couldn't eat typical binge food like pizza, ice cream, chips or cookies. He said that those patients still lost weight.
AMEN!!!! :-)
DeleteA funny thing happened to me when I went wheat free, then primal, now mostly (95% or so) primary foods only... before, I could control chocolate. To a degree at least. The last several times I had it, after de-toxing for over a year, eating primal over a year...I found I had NO will power against chocolate. None. Nada. The cleaner I was, the more susceptible. So I had to give it up entirely. Kind of weird, huh.
ReplyDeleteGood post, my friend.
thank you! :-) yes, i too believe that the "cleaner" we are, the more our bodies rebel when we give them things they don't want! we were just so USED TO the malaise, maybe, we didn't really notice? but then we're getting older, and estrogen used to protect us from some things....
Delete"It's always something!"--Rosana Rosanadana...I don't have a food addiction but I have plenty of intolerances. Hmmm? A connection? Don't know.
ReplyDeleteone point i forgot to make when i wrote the above -- the author spoke about symptoms of withdrawal that i identify with histamine/tyramine/salicylate intolerance! i think there are a lot of different KINDS of intolerance, though they get lumped together a lot.
Delete"OH, AND HAPPY CHINESE NEW YEAR, EVERYONE! ;-)" Definitely wish all who celebrate - a Happy New Year......... and guess if you usually follow a fairly 'strict' LCHF lifestyle tonight may not be strictly !!
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your celebrations ...... and Tess I've enjoyed your Valentine's and Mardi Gras posts, thanks.
All the best Jan
thank you, Jan! :-) we may not do special things, but it's the kind of holiday to which we can whole-heartedly raise our glasses!
DeleteThanks for more to think about.
ReplyDeleteOvereating is a complex little problem and I doubt that anyone knows the answer yet. I personally think that it contains, in various amounts for various people, addiction, maladaptive-emotion eating, physical appetite stimulation, possible physical issues, food issues, and other items. Vera's three way split really cleaves off two issues, addiction and maladaptive-emotional and does a nice job of addressing only those two issues, but does not provide much of a solution to those two parts. But the remainder of the problem remains. This may help a few percent of the overweight population.
Keep up the struggle.
I thought of you and your appetite problem often while reading that book.... :-) I see you've read it already -- hope it was helpful to you!
DeleteI don't have an experience with an eating disorder, and probably, the people who are so concerned about not thinking about food being bad in somebody's minds, have mainly ED in their mind. Most of us experienced how food influences our emotional and mental health. I even suspect the low-fat advise was conductive to the rise in ED.
ReplyDeletevery true -- but i still believe that psychology is letting ED patients down, by being unaware that the problem with eating sugar and wheat is NOT within the PATIENT him/herself -- the problem is with a toxic foodstuff. It's a PHYSICAL intolerance to a greater extent than being a "mental" one.
DeleteAbsolutely, people are let down.
Delete