Don't get excited -- it's nothing shocking -- it's just that i don't enjoy 90% chocolate! :-) Anything over 72% tastes like bitter fat to me -- not chocolate. To be honest, my favorite is the sugar-free Valor bar with cocoa nibs. But 90% was the only thing in the house, so i stuck it in my bag and am having it for "afters" with a cup of decaf.
I'm on the road again -- stopped for the night in Muskogee, OK on my way to Texas (got a late start). After having a higher-carb day yesterday, i'm happy to be showing a "small" reading on the ketone strips. ...Or maybe the carb-counts from MyFitnessPal were unreasonably high? When I tallied up all the vegetables in the veal scaloppine (served over spaghetti squash) it came out shockingly high.
One of the interesting points of view that came out on the Low Carb Cruise last year was from Eric Westman --- he doesn't believe in subtracting fiber to get "net carbs." He thinks we should count them all, and i tend to agree. When you hear authorities claim that "non-starchy vegetable carbs don't count" you open the door to people eating TONS of squash or turnips or other such things, not losing weight, and then saying LC doesn't work. LC DOES work -- but it's possible to do it wrong.
LC can be done wrong. ;-)
LC with LOTS of ground almond baked goods is highly questionable.
LC with lots of non-starchy vegetables is not zero-carb, no matter what the Jaminets think.
LC with too much alcohol means you're using another fuel, not the fat and ketones you want to be using.
People can eat so much vegetation, it's no longer LC. Yesterday i did just that. Today I had a little coconut, a little onion, a little capers and pickles, and a little lettuce (with my chicken, ground beef, mayo and cheese). This morning the keto-strip was no-trace, and this evening i'm back where i should be.
It's been a good day, despite finishing it with the "wrong" chocolate. ;-)
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Monday, January 26, 2015
eat WHEN?
A blogger whom i actually LIKE has recently been twittering incessantly about how breakfast-skippers are more likely to weigh more. ...He's getting dangerously near the intolerable quality that keeps me from enjoying Authority Nutrition*!
Some people with weight problems actually have to rein themselves in dramatically to NOT eat, when they feel real hunger at inappropriate times. At the end of a good long sleep, when their bodies have effortlessly slipped into fat-burning mode and they're gliding happily along on their own stored energy SOME YOYOS WANT THEM TO BRING IT TO A SCREECHING HALT BY EATING BREAKFAST.
THIS! This is a perfect example of why i get so flaming mad at pseudo-scientific epidemiologically-based dietary recommendations.
People who have a difficult time NOT constantly eating are being told to eat when they're not hungry, because a bunch of skinny people from the 1970s always ate breakfast. Oh yeah -- makes perfect sense.
Epidemiological studies mean absolutely bupkis unless the subjects share significant similarities with you and your lifestyle. The college boys who most eagerly sign up for studies (to earn extra beer money their parents won't spring for) have NOTHING in common with any of the overweight people i know. ...Oh, except for the beer-habits of some of them -- but then those people aren't really trying to lose their paunches.
It would be far more constructive for the breakfast-pushers to observe that eating FREQUENCY is far more significant than eating QUANTITY -- check out this little nugget: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24668862. Meal number is a purely cultural phenomenon. Grazing is a stupid technique for health maintenance. Snacking is moronic -- especially in a carb-based plan, because of the ceaseless hyper-insulinism and -glycemia.
Individuals differ, but it is in NOBODY'S best interest to constantly add to the stomach's contents. Its design clearly shows that it works best when a "deposit" of food is delivered, and it is allowed to do a complete job of predigestion before releasing its contents to the rest of the system, giving it a rest, and then repeating the process.
Scarfing breakfast is an artifact of a purely artifical post-neolithic work schedule. Fuel yourself before you go to the office, school, factory or field, because you won't have an opportunity to actually eat when you become hungry -- you'll have to wait till the bell rings, like Pavlov's dogs. "People who skip breakfast eat more later" -- well OF COURSE. The problem is not THAT they eat, it's what and when. When the nutritionally-ignorant get hungry at 10 AM, they'll grab a pastry or candy bar instead of real food, and then eat again too soon when the lunch-whistle sounds. When the savvy breakfast-abstainer does, s/he will get a handful of nuts, cheese, or a boiled egg if anything, skip lunch, and repeat the mini-meal later. Big difference.
Me, i've only rarely been hungry upon awakening -- nausea attends any thought of eating! And why should i eat? I have ten pounds i could EASILY live on if i were thrust into a situation in which eating became problematic, like illness or emergency. If things got really bad, i could spare thirty before my health would significant be impacted. WHY should i worry about having a meal, when my body is happily running on storage? The more stored energy i burn, the more metabolic flexibility i promote.
Bill should know better.
___
* truth be told, the VERY NAME puts me off, let alone his writing style. ...and the ADVERTISEMENTS on both these guys' blogs. :-P
Some people with weight problems actually have to rein themselves in dramatically to NOT eat, when they feel real hunger at inappropriate times. At the end of a good long sleep, when their bodies have effortlessly slipped into fat-burning mode and they're gliding happily along on their own stored energy SOME YOYOS WANT THEM TO BRING IT TO A SCREECHING HALT BY EATING BREAKFAST.
THIS! This is a perfect example of why i get so flaming mad at pseudo-scientific epidemiologically-based dietary recommendations.
People who have a difficult time NOT constantly eating are being told to eat when they're not hungry, because a bunch of skinny people from the 1970s always ate breakfast. Oh yeah -- makes perfect sense.
Epidemiological studies mean absolutely bupkis unless the subjects share significant similarities with you and your lifestyle. The college boys who most eagerly sign up for studies (to earn extra beer money their parents won't spring for) have NOTHING in common with any of the overweight people i know. ...Oh, except for the beer-habits of some of them -- but then those people aren't really trying to lose their paunches.
It would be far more constructive for the breakfast-pushers to observe that eating FREQUENCY is far more significant than eating QUANTITY -- check out this little nugget: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24668862. Meal number is a purely cultural phenomenon. Grazing is a stupid technique for health maintenance. Snacking is moronic -- especially in a carb-based plan, because of the ceaseless hyper-insulinism and -glycemia.
Individuals differ, but it is in NOBODY'S best interest to constantly add to the stomach's contents. Its design clearly shows that it works best when a "deposit" of food is delivered, and it is allowed to do a complete job of predigestion before releasing its contents to the rest of the system, giving it a rest, and then repeating the process.
Scarfing breakfast is an artifact of a purely artifical post-neolithic work schedule. Fuel yourself before you go to the office, school, factory or field, because you won't have an opportunity to actually eat when you become hungry -- you'll have to wait till the bell rings, like Pavlov's dogs. "People who skip breakfast eat more later" -- well OF COURSE. The problem is not THAT they eat, it's what and when. When the nutritionally-ignorant get hungry at 10 AM, they'll grab a pastry or candy bar instead of real food, and then eat again too soon when the lunch-whistle sounds. When the savvy breakfast-abstainer does, s/he will get a handful of nuts, cheese, or a boiled egg if anything, skip lunch, and repeat the mini-meal later. Big difference.
Me, i've only rarely been hungry upon awakening -- nausea attends any thought of eating! And why should i eat? I have ten pounds i could EASILY live on if i were thrust into a situation in which eating became problematic, like illness or emergency. If things got really bad, i could spare thirty before my health would significant be impacted. WHY should i worry about having a meal, when my body is happily running on storage? The more stored energy i burn, the more metabolic flexibility i promote.
Bill should know better.
___
* truth be told, the VERY NAME puts me off, let alone his writing style. ...and the ADVERTISEMENTS on both these guys' blogs. :-P
Saturday, January 24, 2015
worst thing about restaurant food
We tried a new place last night before going to the theatre, and enjoyed it immensely. We started with a shared appetizer, "pork three ways" which included some Italian-style smoked jowl, a rillette, and a terrine. Both of us tried a different cocktail, which were beautifully crafted; i then went on to a nice pinot noir while J tried a different drink -- also delicious (we shamelessly sample each other's choices...). As entree, he got steak au poivre and i opted for the rack-of-lamb special. They were both very tasty -- good-sized servings of quality meat -- and as usual i didn't relinquish my plate till the bones were gnawed clean. Then we had dessert, a banana pudding for him, and chocolate cake for me; for some impossible-to-understand reason, this restaurant did NOT OFFER COFFEE! How weird.
Yes, i was "bad." It was an allowed indulgence, planned-for in every respect (including pre- and post-fasting), but i was surprised at myself for inhaling it the way i did. True, it WAS probably the best chocolate cake i've ever tasted, but why was it that compelling?
FAT. The only significantly fatty food in our meal was in the smallish appetizer. The lamb was too well trimmed for my taste, and J's ribeye seemed to have very little of the signature fat-pocket.
If we don't get enough fat in our meals, we have a biological drive to satisfy our needs with SOMETHING (also, in the wake of my head-cold-induced anorexia, my appetite has come back). For those who haven't got the memo about fat vs. carb, ... a huge proportion of people in the food business are going to try to fill you up with the latter.
This is not the first time i've noticed the phenomenon. Even fine restaurants frequently go too low-fat, because that's what they think their patrons expect. "Scrappy" meat with too much fat left on??? Some customers will think they're being cheated.
We'll know what to do next time -- because the food was so good it deserves more visits. We'll go there when we'll be returning home right after, so we can have our beloved after-dinner coffee! :-) We'll ask for the fattiest cut the kitchen has, when we place our order. We'll probably also order the appetizer cheese-plate in lieu of dessert. Once one knows the characteristics of eating-places, it's easier to maneuver in the territory.
Yes, i was "bad." It was an allowed indulgence, planned-for in every respect (including pre- and post-fasting), but i was surprised at myself for inhaling it the way i did. True, it WAS probably the best chocolate cake i've ever tasted, but why was it that compelling?
FAT. The only significantly fatty food in our meal was in the smallish appetizer. The lamb was too well trimmed for my taste, and J's ribeye seemed to have very little of the signature fat-pocket.
If we don't get enough fat in our meals, we have a biological drive to satisfy our needs with SOMETHING (also, in the wake of my head-cold-induced anorexia, my appetite has come back). For those who haven't got the memo about fat vs. carb, ... a huge proportion of people in the food business are going to try to fill you up with the latter.
This is not the first time i've noticed the phenomenon. Even fine restaurants frequently go too low-fat, because that's what they think their patrons expect. "Scrappy" meat with too much fat left on??? Some customers will think they're being cheated.
We'll know what to do next time -- because the food was so good it deserves more visits. We'll go there when we'll be returning home right after, so we can have our beloved after-dinner coffee! :-) We'll ask for the fattiest cut the kitchen has, when we place our order. We'll probably also order the appetizer cheese-plate in lieu of dessert. Once one knows the characteristics of eating-places, it's easier to maneuver in the territory.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
the "why" dictates details
Exactly WHY each of us discovers the need to limit carbohydrates in our diets dictates the WHAT, WHEN, WHERE and HOW....
Treating all low-carbers as a single demographic oversimplifies diet, and it's oversimplification which is the "enemy" in diet as in so many other things.
Most low-carbers are probably in it for the weight-control, but there are VERY many other kinds. Diabetics reduce their blood-sugar and glycation issues through smoothing out the glucose roller-coaster and minimizing side-effect-laden pharmaceuticals. People with neurological issues, from Alzheimers to migraines to excitotoxicity to epilepsy, find amelioration with ketogenic-level carb restriction. Even high-level endurance athletes court a ketone- or FFA-based metabolism to improve their games.
I, a thyroid-borderline case with histamine issues, find LC very helpful to keep my system running smoothly, as well as using the paleo/ancestral version of LCHF to avoid problematic plant-based foods, and promote healthy aging. I'll be a [GASP] sexagenarian in less than half a year!!! ;-)
So what we should optimally EAT depends precisely on why we're "here." Do you primarily need to lose weight? Do you need to lower fasting blood-sugar or insulin? Do you have an autoimmune problem? Do you need your brain to run on ketones more than on glucose? Do you need to eliminate gluten and simultaneously pursue a controlled-carb weight-control diet? Do you have children whom you'd like to get off to the best possible nutritional start in life? WHAT?
Define your problem, if you haven't determined your perfect diet already. Find a similar person who writes online, with a similar problem. Start with what works for them, and refine it to meet your own specific requirements.
Once you define what makes you feel GREAT and conversely, what makes you feel like hell, it's significantly easier to ADHERE to your ideal diet. I tell ya, if my knee didn't give me problems when i eat whole grains, or if my gut didn't bloat with the wrong vegetation in it, or if my energy didn't tank when i indulge in certain foods, it would be MUCH harder to avoid an obesigenic diet!
Treating all low-carbers as a single demographic oversimplifies diet, and it's oversimplification which is the "enemy" in diet as in so many other things.
Most low-carbers are probably in it for the weight-control, but there are VERY many other kinds. Diabetics reduce their blood-sugar and glycation issues through smoothing out the glucose roller-coaster and minimizing side-effect-laden pharmaceuticals. People with neurological issues, from Alzheimers to migraines to excitotoxicity to epilepsy, find amelioration with ketogenic-level carb restriction. Even high-level endurance athletes court a ketone- or FFA-based metabolism to improve their games.
I, a thyroid-borderline case with histamine issues, find LC very helpful to keep my system running smoothly, as well as using the paleo/ancestral version of LCHF to avoid problematic plant-based foods, and promote healthy aging. I'll be a [GASP] sexagenarian in less than half a year!!! ;-)
So what we should optimally EAT depends precisely on why we're "here." Do you primarily need to lose weight? Do you need to lower fasting blood-sugar or insulin? Do you have an autoimmune problem? Do you need your brain to run on ketones more than on glucose? Do you need to eliminate gluten and simultaneously pursue a controlled-carb weight-control diet? Do you have children whom you'd like to get off to the best possible nutritional start in life? WHAT?
Define your problem, if you haven't determined your perfect diet already. Find a similar person who writes online, with a similar problem. Start with what works for them, and refine it to meet your own specific requirements.
Once you define what makes you feel GREAT and conversely, what makes you feel like hell, it's significantly easier to ADHERE to your ideal diet. I tell ya, if my knee didn't give me problems when i eat whole grains, or if my gut didn't bloat with the wrong vegetation in it, or if my energy didn't tank when i indulge in certain foods, it would be MUCH harder to avoid an obesigenic diet!
Sunday, January 18, 2015
there's also such a thing as too little food
A certain well-known book advocates about 1200 calories per day as an appropriate amount for a woman, and about 1500 for men. I consider this advice INSANE. No wonder people get eating disorders, trying to follow advice like this, INEVITABLY failing (because it's grossly inadequate) and then blaming themselves for the failure.
In the infamous "starvation experiment" Keys fed his conscientious-objectors more calories than suggested above, comprised of "real food" which was available to the poor and to famine-victims in wartime Europe. He made them hike, too -- not heavy workouts, but far from sedentary. After a little time passed, his victims became neurotic, then psychotic.
Starvation kills ... long before one dies of starvation. AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT MAINSTREAM DIETARY ADVICE REPLICATES.
Bodies do not function WELL on reduced-calorie diets. Their little reptilian-brain control systems think there's something wrong, and they make a host of little adjustments for the sake of survival, which effectively reduce our quality of life.
We can accustom ourselves to functioning like that, but it totally sucks. We get fatigued and stressed, our organs don't work optimally, and to combat the misery we compromise on techniques which help us to cope -- sugar, alcohol, tobacco, hedonic drugs, other kinds of "thrills." We end up with "first world problems" which our distant ancestors would have laughed at.
This is one of the benefits of being on a low-carb, real-food regimen -- eating enough minimally-fattening foods to satisfy our appetites, we tend to be able to ingest enough energy so that our bodies DON'T think we're in danger of starving. They DON'T perceive they're being operated on low-quality fodder which fill the belly without FULfilling nutritional requirements.
If we ARE running on a low-fuel light for a long time, we have to train ourselves to be able to ingest more -- if we jump right in, we'll only gain weight! I'll always remember reading about those studies which had people on ultra-low-calorie diets for extended periods of time, and when the subjects added just a couple of hundred more calories per day they actually stored it as fat. :-( Because they trained their bodies to get along with less, nine hundred calories became a weight-gain diet.
That sort of thing is why i rant against MERE calorie-restriction as a weight-loss tool. It IS possible to screw up your metabolism so badly that long rehabilitation is the only way back to health. It's also why i get so angry and disgusted with naturally-thin people who accuse the overweight of lying about their diet-and-exercise reports -- OF COURSE it's easy to underestimate in food-records, but it's also easy to "do everything right" and still show no progress ... when the advice was wrong to begin with.
I have a sneaking suspicion that all the low-meat dietary advice a strong driver of constant hunger. Wooo-like people excepted (who have physical issues with a too-high meat consumption), following advice for bare-minimum protein intake can leave some feeling ravenous. If i, as the example i know best, don't get enough meat it doesn't matter how much of other macronutrients i ingest. I. NEED. NATURAL. ANIMAL. PROTEIN. No compromise possible.
We should all stop following other people's rules of what we should eat (and how much), and do a careful experiment on ourselves. Only this provides a reliable set of instructions for our personal body-owner's manual.
In the infamous "starvation experiment" Keys fed his conscientious-objectors more calories than suggested above, comprised of "real food" which was available to the poor and to famine-victims in wartime Europe. He made them hike, too -- not heavy workouts, but far from sedentary. After a little time passed, his victims became neurotic, then psychotic.
Starvation kills ... long before one dies of starvation. AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT MAINSTREAM DIETARY ADVICE REPLICATES.
Bodies do not function WELL on reduced-calorie diets. Their little reptilian-brain control systems think there's something wrong, and they make a host of little adjustments for the sake of survival, which effectively reduce our quality of life.
We can accustom ourselves to functioning like that, but it totally sucks. We get fatigued and stressed, our organs don't work optimally, and to combat the misery we compromise on techniques which help us to cope -- sugar, alcohol, tobacco, hedonic drugs, other kinds of "thrills." We end up with "first world problems" which our distant ancestors would have laughed at.
This is one of the benefits of being on a low-carb, real-food regimen -- eating enough minimally-fattening foods to satisfy our appetites, we tend to be able to ingest enough energy so that our bodies DON'T think we're in danger of starving. They DON'T perceive they're being operated on low-quality fodder which fill the belly without FULfilling nutritional requirements.
If we ARE running on a low-fuel light for a long time, we have to train ourselves to be able to ingest more -- if we jump right in, we'll only gain weight! I'll always remember reading about those studies which had people on ultra-low-calorie diets for extended periods of time, and when the subjects added just a couple of hundred more calories per day they actually stored it as fat. :-( Because they trained their bodies to get along with less, nine hundred calories became a weight-gain diet.
That sort of thing is why i rant against MERE calorie-restriction as a weight-loss tool. It IS possible to screw up your metabolism so badly that long rehabilitation is the only way back to health. It's also why i get so angry and disgusted with naturally-thin people who accuse the overweight of lying about their diet-and-exercise reports -- OF COURSE it's easy to underestimate in food-records, but it's also easy to "do everything right" and still show no progress ... when the advice was wrong to begin with.
I have a sneaking suspicion that all the low-meat dietary advice a strong driver of constant hunger. Wooo-like people excepted (who have physical issues with a too-high meat consumption), following advice for bare-minimum protein intake can leave some feeling ravenous. If i, as the example i know best, don't get enough meat it doesn't matter how much of other macronutrients i ingest. I. NEED. NATURAL. ANIMAL. PROTEIN. No compromise possible.
We should all stop following other people's rules of what we should eat (and how much), and do a careful experiment on ourselves. Only this provides a reliable set of instructions for our personal body-owner's manual.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
and apropos being nutrient-replete....
Here's a potential tweak for those who would like the damp their appetites -- take your "evening" vitamins an hour before dinner.
I've begun experimenting with this lately (when I remember). You see, our usual dinner hour is 7:00, and sometimes my digestion hasn't progressed as far as i'd like when I starting thinking about bedtime. Drinking my vitamin when my stomach is still processing dinner is, I think, less optimal than doing it on an empty stomach. Ergo, i'm trying to do it earlier.
Last night, I really noticed that I wasn't interested in putting as much food on my plate as I frequently am. Dinner was corned beef and cabbage, something I really enjoy. I just felt i'd be satisfied with less than usual ... and I was.
I really do think that it's the nutrient pre-load that caused me to want less food for my evening meal. All my life I really haven't been inclined to jump out of bed in the morning and eat something, so having my morning vitamin with nothing but coffee on my stomach has seemed appropriate, and doesn't seem to cause me to delay fast-breaking any more than usual. Now, having my PM shot of vitamins and minerals before dinner, I perceive a reduced desire for alimentary intake.
Just like having a shot of gelatin or collagen hydrolysate with my first cup of coffee in the morning makes me feel like I need less protein in my diet for the rest of the day, taking my vitamins when they have their best chance of being absorbed seems to reduce my other nutrient needs.
This agrees with my long-held opinion that an insatiable appetite is based, at least in part, on inadequate nutrition. I'm going to keep taking my Nutreince BEFORE my morning and evening meals -- it just seems right.
I've begun experimenting with this lately (when I remember). You see, our usual dinner hour is 7:00, and sometimes my digestion hasn't progressed as far as i'd like when I starting thinking about bedtime. Drinking my vitamin when my stomach is still processing dinner is, I think, less optimal than doing it on an empty stomach. Ergo, i'm trying to do it earlier.
Last night, I really noticed that I wasn't interested in putting as much food on my plate as I frequently am. Dinner was corned beef and cabbage, something I really enjoy. I just felt i'd be satisfied with less than usual ... and I was.
I really do think that it's the nutrient pre-load that caused me to want less food for my evening meal. All my life I really haven't been inclined to jump out of bed in the morning and eat something, so having my morning vitamin with nothing but coffee on my stomach has seemed appropriate, and doesn't seem to cause me to delay fast-breaking any more than usual. Now, having my PM shot of vitamins and minerals before dinner, I perceive a reduced desire for alimentary intake.
Just like having a shot of gelatin or collagen hydrolysate with my first cup of coffee in the morning makes me feel like I need less protein in my diet for the rest of the day, taking my vitamins when they have their best chance of being absorbed seems to reduce my other nutrient needs.
This agrees with my long-held opinion that an insatiable appetite is based, at least in part, on inadequate nutrition. I'm going to keep taking my Nutreince BEFORE my morning and evening meals -- it just seems right.
Friday, January 16, 2015
books!!!
Didn't i tell you i'd find KindleUnlimited dangerous? ;-) I expect i'll continue my membership past the free trial.
Learning that Gwen's fave, "The End of Overeating" was on the free list, i checked it out after i finished Dr. Feinman's book, "The World Turned Upside Down" (which i gave four stars -- some of his chapters just seemed like casual blog-posts, of lesser quality than others).
One thing i have to say -- i think we'll only "get out of this mess" if people can be educated to understand that TREATS ARE NOT FOOD.
Treats are food-like substances (FLSs) which can be eaten, but which are not truly nourishing. Oh, you can live on them -- for awhile -- but they do not fulfill the function of true food in the body. They do not provide all essential fats, amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and whatever else is in food which science has not properly studied (and thus we don't really know about yet), in forms which are readily absorbed and assimilated.
The author seemed to be trying to describe FLSs in such a way that he'd cause his readers to crave the junk. He dwelt on the qualities of his subjects like a right-wing-nutjob Pharisee describing pornography! The longing and cultivated horror were absolutely palpable.
I was unmoved -- and why? Because i know that my body does not consider them FOOD. When i crave a comestible, it's usually a rare (even raw) piece of red meat, or it's liver, or raw oysters. I occasionally have irresistible urges for hot drinks, which can be "innocently" satisfied by coffee or tea.
I believe that we can only break the spell of FLSs if we are nutrient-replete, and have convinced our subconscious minds that although we can consume them, they are not true foods. They are treats, and their hyperpalatability DEFINES them as things that should not be considered "part of this nutritious breakfast" ... or any other meal.
Learning that Gwen's fave, "The End of Overeating" was on the free list, i checked it out after i finished Dr. Feinman's book, "The World Turned Upside Down" (which i gave four stars -- some of his chapters just seemed like casual blog-posts, of lesser quality than others).
One thing i have to say -- i think we'll only "get out of this mess" if people can be educated to understand that TREATS ARE NOT FOOD.
Treats are food-like substances (FLSs) which can be eaten, but which are not truly nourishing. Oh, you can live on them -- for awhile -- but they do not fulfill the function of true food in the body. They do not provide all essential fats, amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and whatever else is in food which science has not properly studied (and thus we don't really know about yet), in forms which are readily absorbed and assimilated.
The author seemed to be trying to describe FLSs in such a way that he'd cause his readers to crave the junk. He dwelt on the qualities of his subjects like a right-wing-nutjob Pharisee describing pornography! The longing and cultivated horror were absolutely palpable.
I was unmoved -- and why? Because i know that my body does not consider them FOOD. When i crave a comestible, it's usually a rare (even raw) piece of red meat, or it's liver, or raw oysters. I occasionally have irresistible urges for hot drinks, which can be "innocently" satisfied by coffee or tea.
I believe that we can only break the spell of FLSs if we are nutrient-replete, and have convinced our subconscious minds that although we can consume them, they are not true foods. They are treats, and their hyperpalatability DEFINES them as things that should not be considered "part of this nutritious breakfast" ... or any other meal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)