Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Normal Eating. Agree or Disagree?
Replies
-
kommodevaran wrote: »
I have been looking into mindful eating and intuitive eating, and I think it's sad that loving and non-profit advice is taken as more pressure to "eat right", or conversely, as encouragement to only eat junk. But I sometimes feel like I get pushback for my own "artificial" limitations - that I think are less comprehensive than yours - weighing myself daily, weighing and counting foods, planning meals, and more general improvements as basing my meals on "real food" - maybe I'm imagining that, maybe it's my own (sneaky) brain that tells me I "should" be able to regulate this "internally" and be able to eat more "snacky" food.janejellyroll wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »I must be finding this really interesting
I think some of the controversy is because we are unsure and/or disagree what "normal" means, and what "need" and "want" means. Because we've become used to expect instant gratification, believe that anyone can be and should do and have anything and everything. And because many of the foods we eat today, aren't meant to satisfy a need, but to produce a want. We can't get enough of something that is not made to fill a need. I'm a proponent of a balanced and varied diet, mainly made up of real whole foods, and some treats thrown in, because we need some things that we don't need physically, but just want because it's delicious.
For me personally, I don't know if "normal eating" (in the way expressed in the OP) is possible for me in an environment where very tasty food is available abundantly (AKA, my daily life).
I can think of some situations where I could eat "normally," but none of them resemble my present situation. Some examples: I live upstairs from a donut shop, candy is in most work meetings, and I can get french fries by walking 5 minutes or less from my apartment. Given my situation, what I have available to me, and my preferences, some additional limitation is required. There is virtually no external limitation on what I can eat and when and I lack the inherent internal limitation that I know some other people possess. For me, that means an "artificial" internal limitation -- for me, that takes the form of logging my food and adhering to a specific calorie limit.
Desperate times call for desperate measures... and you are describing a toxic food environment. Sadly, that is becoming the norm. I am lucky to not be completely surrounded by and submerged in temptation, but it's way to easy to just eat and eat and eat...
I think of it this way: my ancestors probably survived because they made decisions like following their preferences for sweet and fatty foods when they could get them and eating more than their body needed when food was available so they had energy stored for when times when food was less available. I'm the product of the evolutionary forces that favored those who behaved that way, yet my environment is very different than theirs. If I did the same thing, I would be making my life shorter. So I can't eat "naturally" because my environment is not a "natural" one.
I can manipulate my environment to make things easier -- limiting the number of tempting foods in my home, focusing on choosing foods that meet my nutritional needs and satisfy me so I'm less vulnerable to cravings, etc. But I can't change the general trend in society.
(This isn't a dig at anyone who is following the philosophy in the OP, it's just my particular conclusion).4 -
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »@Lounmoun I think she poses so many different situations illustrating the same idea to show people that normal eating looks differently at different times and in different circumstances. I agree with some of what you’re saying, but what I hear throughout your definition are instructions for how to eat to maintain a certain weight or to lose weight, which seems to require pretty constant awareness of how many calories you’re eating. I think the idea Satter puts out is that it is possible for most people to eat without this awareness and be ok. Just like you say people can trust their bodies and that they don’t need to detox, Satter seems to believe we can trust our bodies to tell us how much food to eat, as long as we have some self-awareness.
@aeloine Really good points. I do think most people can learn though, even if they struggled or didn’t have options as a child. I think it involves trial and error and allowing yourself to eat without parameters, even accepting you might gain weight as you practice and try to learn to trust your body or accepting you might waste food in the pursuit of figuring it all out. It’s not easy, and it’s not comfortable, especially after a lifetime of doing things one way. I think it can be learned though. I wasn’t raised to pay attention to how I feel about food. I started exhibiting disordered eating behaviors and thoughts at a very young age, but now, 20+ years later, I’m learning a different way. I never thought food and weight would stop consuming my thoughts as much as they used to, but it’s happening now. It’s a beautiful thing.
@kimny72 I think if eating is a go-to, constant coping mechanism for boredom or sadness, it could be an issue, but Satter is basically saying it’s normal to eat sometimes for reasons other than hunger. I don’t think emotional eating in and of itself is a bad thing. If it’s something a person is unhappy with, maybe there needs to be some work around either the underlying issue or the coping mechanism. More and more, though, I’m learning restriction, actual and mental, is often what leads to bingeing, so removing any restrictions is a good place to start to address chronic bingeing. It’s scary and may result in weight gain at first, but it allows your body to learn the food will always be available, which reduces the intense need to eat everything because you won’t be able to eat it later.
@shaumom To the first point, your phrasing takes responsibility away from people. Often people make choices about what to “put in front of them,” so there is agency involved. Yes, we’re affected by our environment, but we still make choices. Also, it seems Satter doesn’t necessarily believe in portion control in the sense that there’s a correct portion everyone should be eating. The idea is to come to a place where you are in tune with and accept what satisfies you. Regarding the third point, I think there are definitely ways we developed that no longer benefit us in the current environment but that we’re able to overcome without constant thought and effort. I’ve said it already, but I believe the idea behind Satter’s definition is that this normal eating happen once a person is in tune with his/her body and can take cues from it, which is something that takes practice. Once it happens though, it’s not something that requires a ton of energy.
@lemurcat I think you make really good points here. It’s not all about eating whatever you want as much as you want all the time because that’s not life. Circumstances shape everything we do. @aeloine Satter says “In short, normal eating is flexible. It varies in response to your hunger, your schedule, your proximity to food and your feelings.” That means it’s not all about physical cues all the time. I think it become abnormal if you’re still hungry or feeling unsatisfied but are unwilling to eat more because you’ve set a hard limit.
@rheddmobile Of course there are circumstances in which one must consider more carefully what one eats. Everyone doesn’t have the luxury of eating without giving it a lot of thought whether it’s due to diabetes or allergies or whatever it might be that requires diligence around food choices. Neither, however, does everyone’s health deteriorate because they follow the normal eating principles set out by Satter.
@Kimblesnbits13 I agree. I think it’s nearly impossible to live in a culture that values being thin and now being fit-looking as much as ours does and not be affected by it.
@Gisel2015 I think the final statement is a summary of all the other statements, such that agreeing to that implies agreement with the others. People aren’t always going to be able to eat until they’re satisfied, hence her later point about how it’s sometimes undereating, and people aren’t always going to stop when they’re satisfied, hence her later point about it being overeating. Enjoyable food? Food you enjoy. I’m curious. Do you think people should stop eating before they’ve had enough?
@janejellyroll What I hear, though, is you do have an internal limitation in the sense that you have a desire to not gain weight. Fear of or desire to avoid weight gain can often translate into fear of or restriction around food, which are both possible precursors of eating large quantities of the foods we’ve deemed inappropriate or unhealthy.
@HoneyBadger155 I guess I feel it’s implied because how will one know if s/he is satisfied if s/he’s not paying attention? She also mentions how food varies in response to hunger.
I don't have a fear of gaining weight (because I understand how to avoid it), but I do have a desire to avoid weight gain. I've got multiple reasons to not want to gain weight -- I think my current weight range is associated with better health outcomes, I prefer the way I look in this weight range, and it's a good fit for my particular hobby (long distance running). Do I practice restrictions in order to maintain this weight? Yes, I practice calorie restriction (I also have some food restrictions that are related to ethical concerns, but those predate my calorie restriction).
It's an artificial implementation of the calorie restriction that humans have frequently encountered throughout history. Since my environment and circumstance doesn't limit my calories at all, I do it myself.
It's true that calorie restriction can sometimes lead to people eating large quantities of food that has been deemed inappropriate or unhealthy. I have managed this by not deeming any food inappropriate or unhealthy (except, as mentioned above, the foods I have eliminated for ethical reasons and wanting to eat these is not an issue for me). I eat whatever I want, I just eat it in quantities that fit into my calorie goal.4 -
I was shocked to find out what one medium sized of my home made butter bisquits added up to in calories when I did the math. I marvel at how we ate when I was a child and we weren't even close to overweight. I still can't figure it out. I don't have a memory of us being very out of the ordinarily active. We did walk to school and for groceries, but I still do errands on foot and I can't fit in those bisquits very often, at least not like it used to be, or the cookies and deserts! I do sometimes wonder if food itself has changed, I know it sounds wierd, but still.
Yes, I quoted myself! Someone mentioned portions have increased and I think besides tea cups, that plates, bowls and serving sizesof most things are really larger. That could mean a few hundred extra calories a day.
@kimny72 I agree, possibly memories of those more blissful times have decreased the amount of active time I spent in those days compared to these current days.
2 -
Written in 1983, before we had such a large amount of sugar and sodium added to our foods, before so many things on our table were processed the way they are now. Food itself isn't the same as it was in 1983.
I don't know how old you were in 1983, but I was 21 and remember it well. Food hasn't changed anywhere near as much as you seem to think it has since then. If anything, the trend nowadays is toward much greater availability of foods with lower sodium and sugar options than we had then, and much more marketing of low-calorie options.
It's not like fast food and pre-packaged meals didn't exist "way back then". I was a teenager in the '70s and ate plenty of fast food, ramen and TV dinners. And while portion sizes may have increased, that was already going on in the '70s and '80s. I remember one of our favorite restaurants in the '70s that offered a dinner platter boasting a 2-pound slab of prime rib with a baked potato about the size of a small state (with butter and sour cream, of course), and you got a certificate and your name on the wall if you ate the whole thing.
The much more significant change is how automated things have become and how lazy and sedentary we've become as a society. How physical education programs have been cut from schools, and how many kids sit in front of computers/game consoles instead of playing outside. How (and how much) we move has changed a lot more than how (and how much) we eat.5 -
Written in 1983, before we had such a large amount of sugar and sodium added to our foods, before so many things on our table were processed the way they are now. Food itself isn't the same as it was in 1983.
I don't know how old you were in 1983, but I was 21 and remember it well. Food hasn't changed anywhere near as much as you seem to think it has since then. If anything, the trend nowadays is toward much greater availability of foods with lower sodium and sugar options than we had then, and much more marketing of low-calorie options.
It's not like fast food and pre-packaged meals didn't exist "way back then". I was a teenager in the '70s and ate plenty of fast food, ramen and TV dinners.
In 1983, I was 18 and working at A&W. I ate loads of fast food, but was way more active. I didn't start to see my weight creep until I finished University and starting working an office job.
The salty fast food is not a new thing by any stretch.2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Written in 1983, before we had such a large amount of sugar and sodium added to our foods, before so many things on our table were processed the way they are now. Food itself isn't the same as it was in 1983.
I don't know how old you were in 1983, but I was 21 and remember it well. Food hasn't changed anywhere near as much as you seem to think it has since then. If anything, the trend nowadays is toward much greater availability of foods with lower sodium and sugar options than we had then, and much more marketing of low-calorie options.
It's not like fast food and pre-packaged meals didn't exist "way back then". I was a teenager in the '70s and ate plenty of fast food, ramen and TV dinners.
In 1983, I was 18 and working at A&W. I ate loads of fast food, but was way more active. I didn't start to see my weight creep until I finished University and starting working an office job.
The salty fast food is not a new thing by any stretch.
Find Replace 1983 1993
Find Replace A&W Wendy's1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Written in 1983, before we had such a large amount of sugar and sodium added to our foods, before so many things on our table were processed the way they are now. Food itself isn't the same as it was in 1983.
I don't know how old you were in 1983, but I was 21 and remember it well. Food hasn't changed anywhere near as much as you seem to think it has since then. If anything, the trend nowadays is toward much greater availability of foods with lower sodium and sugar options than we had then, and much more marketing of low-calorie options.
It's not like fast food and pre-packaged meals didn't exist "way back then". I was a teenager in the '70s and ate plenty of fast food, ramen and TV dinners.
In 1983, I was 18 and working at A&W. I ate loads of fast food, but was way more active. I didn't start to see my weight creep until I finished University and starting working an office job.
The salty fast food is not a new thing by any stretch.
Same here. I was the classic skinny "hard gainer" as a teenager - I ate like crazy and couldn't gain a pound if I tried (and I did try, because I wanted to play college football and wasn't anywhere near big enough to play defensive end in college). I also played sports year-round and was very active from the time I got up until the time I fell into bed. After I graduated high school and went to college, I was much less active - and all of a sudden the weight gain started. I gained almost 50 pounds in three years after high school, because I was still eating the same as I had always been, but was sitting on my butt instead of moving around all the time.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
I have been looking into mindful eating and intuitive eating, and I think it's sad that loving and non-profit advice is taken as more pressure to "eat right", or conversely, as encouragement to only eat junk. But I sometimes feel like I get pushback for my own "artificial" limitations - that I think are less comprehensive than yours - weighing myself daily, weighing and counting foods, planning meals, and more general improvements as basing my meals on "real food" - maybe I'm imagining that, maybe it's my own (sneaky) brain that tells me I "should" be able to regulate this "internally" and be able to eat more "snacky" food.janejellyroll wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »I must be finding this really interesting I think some of the controversy is because we are unsure and/or disagree what "normal" means, and what "need" and "want" means. Because we've become used to expect instant gratification, believe that anyone can be and should do and have anything and everything. And because many of the foods we eat today, aren't meant to satisfy a need, but to produce a want. We can't get enough of something that is not made to fill a need. I'm a proponent of a balanced and varied diet, mainly made up of real whole foods, and some treats thrown in, because we need some things that we don't need physically, but just want because it's delicious.
For me personally, I don't know if "normal eating" (in the way expressed in the OP) is possible for me in an environment where very tasty food is available abundantly (AKA, my daily life).
I can think of some situations where I could eat "normally," but none of them resemble my present situation. Some examples: I live upstairs from a donut shop, candy is in most work meetings, and I can get french fries by walking 5 minutes or less from my apartment. Given my situation, what I have available to me, and my preferences, some additional limitation is required. There is virtually no external limitation on what I can eat and when and I lack the inherent internal limitation that I know some other people possess. For me, that means an "artificial" internal limitation -- for me, that takes the form of logging my food and adhering to a specific calorie limit.
Desperate times call for desperate measures... and you are describing a toxic food environment. Sadly, that is becoming the norm. I am lucky to not be completely surrounded by and submerged in temptation, but it's way to easy to just eat and eat and eat...
I think of it this way: my ancestors probably survived because they made decisions like following their preferences for sweet and fatty foods when they could get them and eating more than their body needed when food was available so they had energy stored for when times when food was less available. I'm the product of the evolutionary forces that favored those who behaved that way, yet my environment is very different than theirs. If I did the same thing, I would be making my life shorter. So I can't eat "naturally" because my environment is not a "natural" one.
I can manipulate my environment to make things easier -- limiting the number of tempting foods in my home, focusing on choosing foods that meet my nutritional needs and satisfy me so I'm less vulnerable to cravings, etc. But I can't change the general trend in society.
(This isn't a dig at anyone who is following the philosophy in the OP, it's just my particular conclusion).
ITA with this! I think that for many of us, our "natural" instincts lead us into trouble because food is so easily and all-encompassingly available. When I get on a stretch of stress eating, I can eat 300 calories extra of my feelings every day for weeks. It doesn't even out anywhere. That is literally how I gained 15 lbs or so over 10 years. Despite everything I've learned about myself and food and nutrition and activity and my psyche in my 40's, if I didn't set up artificial stop signs around my diet, I would overeat. When I take those restrictions away and just let life happen, I eat too much. Not gluttonously, not in a crazy out of control way, just enough that over the next 10 years, I'd probably gain back that 15 lbs.
I suspect the issue may be different personality types here. I have never "binged", either in the technical ED definition of the term or even in the "I said screw it and ate 8 cookies because I'm sad" sense. Even when I end up skipping a meal and I'm starving, I don't binge. But I do tend to graze when I'm stressed or depressed. Nothing that would jump out at an observer as overeating, and nothing that would make me not as hungry tomorrow. Logging my food, tracking my calories, and making maintaining my weight a priority in my life has been going on for 4 years now, and it has not caused me to binge or really feel stress about food in any way. At 44 yrs old, with a logging streak here of over 1200 days, I am more comfortable and less stressed about my diet and my weight than I was throughout my 20's and 30's. If some day this success morphs into not even having to think bout it, that would be awesome. But I don't think in the world we currently live in, it is necessarily "unnatural" to have to set up some artificial restrictions around your diet.
Great conversation OP :drinker:2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
I have been looking into mindful eating and intuitive eating, and I think it's sad that loving and non-profit advice is taken as more pressure to "eat right", or conversely, as encouragement to only eat junk. But I sometimes feel like I get pushback for my own "artificial" limitations - that I think are less comprehensive than yours - weighing myself daily, weighing and counting foods, planning meals, and more general improvements as basing my meals on "real food" - maybe I'm imagining that, maybe it's my own (sneaky) brain that tells me I "should" be able to regulate this "internally" and be able to eat more "snacky" food.janejellyroll wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »I must be finding this really interesting I think some of the controversy is because we are unsure and/or disagree what "normal" means, and what "need" and "want" means. Because we've become used to expect instant gratification, believe that anyone can be and should do and have anything and everything. And because many of the foods we eat today, aren't meant to satisfy a need, but to produce a want. We can't get enough of something that is not made to fill a need. I'm a proponent of a balanced and varied diet, mainly made up of real whole foods, and some treats thrown in, because we need some things that we don't need physically, but just want because it's delicious.
For me personally, I don't know if "normal eating" (in the way expressed in the OP) is possible for me in an environment where very tasty food is available abundantly (AKA, my daily life).
I can think of some situations where I could eat "normally," but none of them resemble my present situation. Some examples: I live upstairs from a donut shop, candy is in most work meetings, and I can get french fries by walking 5 minutes or less from my apartment. Given my situation, what I have available to me, and my preferences, some additional limitation is required. There is virtually no external limitation on what I can eat and when and I lack the inherent internal limitation that I know some other people possess. For me, that means an "artificial" internal limitation -- for me, that takes the form of logging my food and adhering to a specific calorie limit.
Desperate times call for desperate measures... and you are describing a toxic food environment. Sadly, that is becoming the norm. I am lucky to not be completely surrounded by and submerged in temptation, but it's way to easy to just eat and eat and eat...
I think of it this way: my ancestors probably survived because they made decisions like following their preferences for sweet and fatty foods when they could get them and eating more than their body needed when food was available so they had energy stored for when times when food was less available. I'm the product of the evolutionary forces that favored those who behaved that way, yet my environment is very different than theirs. If I did the same thing, I would be making my life shorter. So I can't eat "naturally" because my environment is not a "natural" one.
I can manipulate my environment to make things easier -- limiting the number of tempting foods in my home, focusing on choosing foods that meet my nutritional needs and satisfy me so I'm less vulnerable to cravings, etc. But I can't change the general trend in society.
(This isn't a dig at anyone who is following the philosophy in the OP, it's just my particular conclusion).
ITA with this! I think that for many of us, our "natural" instincts lead us into trouble because food is so easily and all-encompassingly available. When I get on a stretch of stress eating, I can eat 300 calories extra of my feelings every day for weeks. It doesn't even out anywhere. That is literally how I gained 15 lbs or so over 10 years. Despite everything I've learned about myself and food and nutrition and activity and my psyche in my 40's, if I didn't set up artificial stop signs around my diet, I would overeat. When I take those restrictions away and just let life happen, I eat too much. Not gluttonously, not in a crazy out of control way, just enough that over the next 10 years, I'd probably gain back that 15 lbs.
I suspect the issue may be different personality types here. I have never "binged", either in the technical ED definition of the term or even in the "I said screw it and ate 8 cookies because I'm sad" sense. Even when I end up skipping a meal and I'm starving, I don't binge. But I do tend to graze when I'm stressed or depressed. Nothing that would jump out at an observer as overeating, and nothing that would make me not as hungry tomorrow. Logging my food, tracking my calories, and making maintaining my weight a priority in my life has been going on for 4 years now, and it has not caused me to binge or really feel stress about food in any way. At 44 yrs old, with a logging streak here of over 1200 days, I am more comfortable and less stressed about my diet and my weight than I was throughout my 20's and 30's. If some day this success morphs into not even having to think bout it, that would be awesome. But I don't think in the world we currently live in, it is necessarily "unnatural" to have to set up some artificial restrictions around your diet.
Great conversation OP :drinker:
Yes, our "feasts" are never followed by "fasts" (unless we impose them) the way they were for our predecessors. If I eat 500 extra calories in the summer when delicious food is abundant, it's not going to be followed by a lean winter. It's followed by a winter when avocados and pineapple are being flown to the produce section of my grocery store and I can run to Chipotle for a huge burrito whenever I am ready for lunch.3 -
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »@shaumom To the first point, your phrasing takes responsibility away from people. Often people make choices about what to “put in front of them,” so there is agency involved. Yes, we’re affected by our environment, but we still make choices. Also, it seems Satter doesn’t necessarily believe in portion control in the sense that there’s a correct portion everyone should be eating. The idea is to come to a place where you are in tune with and accept what satisfies you. Regarding the third point, I think there are definitely ways we developed that no longer benefit us in the current environment but that we’re able to overcome without constant thought and effort. I’ve said it already, but I believe the idea behind Satter’s definition is that this normal eating happen once a person is in tune with his/her body and can take cues from it, which is something that takes practice. Once it happens though, it’s not something that requires a ton of energy.
I'd agree - we have agency. But we are also biological entities, and our biology has an undeniable, and measurable, impact on our actions. I mean, just look at gut bacteria. Research has shown that gut bacteria can influence obesity, can send out signals that trigger an animal to stop eating, and also that it changes depending on what we eat and may even cause cravings for foods that better feed the bacterial strain in question.
http://theconversation.com/fat-or-thin-can-the-bacteria-in-our-gut-affect-our-eating-habits-and-weight-65103
Or another thing that impacts food and eating - taste is associated with memory. Every time we eat, it triggers certain memory related portions of the brain, so your experience while eating food will influence how you feel about that food, your likelihood of eating that food again, and more.
There are many other biological factors that influence what we eat, what we want to eat, when we eat, and how much. And while I would agree that paying attention to our bodies, or getting more in tune with them, can be a good thing in many respects - like paying attention to when we feel full rather than not paying attention and eating everything on the plate - that's not enough to do the job for a lot of folks.
And if it was easy to stay healthy, as long as one gets in tune with their bodies and accepts what satisfies them? Well, how exactly does one proves that?
I mean, how would you test this hypothesis? Because it seems like one of those unprovable concepts that leads to simply blaming any lack of success on the people rather than the philosophy. As though the people who DO struggle, who are overweight and can't lose it by getting in touch with themselves, they just didn't 'really' get in touch with their bodies or didn't 'really' accept what satisfied them.
And that starts to feel more like a philosophy based on faith and hope rather than one based on how the body works, you know what I mean?
I would like to add - I don't think that the idea of getting in touch with one's body is a bad thing. I have seen ideas like that which seem reasonable to me. It's more that this 'normal' way of eating seems to have little in the way of supporting evidence, or any way of actually getting supporting evidence.
For contrast, I'd compare that to something that I do actually believe that has to do with getting in touch with one's body. Based on some deer studies, I've seen it postulated that some mammals' bodies will trigger a craving for foods that contain nutrients they are lacking. Although the animal has to have ingested the ingredient first, for the body to associate the taste (or whatever else) with that nutrient.
If true, paying attention to cravings could be very beneficial, and it would also make sense as a survival mechanism. Also if true, I've heard it debated if modern foods, where foods with vastly different nutrient makeups can taste, smell, and feel the same, would confound this.
A small study was done to look at the latter issue, where toddlers were all fed the same nutrients for a week. One set of toddlers was given foods already pre-made into meals, like oat breads, casserole, etc... and the other was given single ingredients - oatmeal, chopped fruit and veggies, etc..
After a few weeks, according to the study, the children getting the single ingredients were actually choosing foods that would give them enough nutrients for the entire week (not the day, interestingly, but averaged out for a week, yes). The kiddoes eating pre-made foods tended to eat what tasted best, and did not have nutritionally complete meals.
Sadly, the study wasn't really well run, so reliability is iffy. There would need to be one done MUCH better, with more details recorded, to see if it's repeatable.
But if it was...it would be a good data point supporting the idea that the body will initiate cravings to satisfy nutritional needs AND that some things can interfere with that.
I could also see other possibilities for research, like having someone on a single ingredient diet and then seeing what they crave, and checking their nutrient levels and that of the food they crave, see if they DO crave foods high what they are low in, etc...
So in this case, the idea that 'listening to certain cravings can be beneficial' would be testable. It could be shown what value it could have with the modern diet, if any. It is a provable theory, in other words.
But with the idea that getting in touch with your body will lead to eating normal eating, which will somehow be both easier and healthier for you? How does one prove that you are in touch with your body? Is there a certain level to achieve before this works? I can't see any way to prove it, off hand, not even to test for it, if that makes sense?
And without that, again, it comes down to faith. It sounds like you have faith this will work, which hey, if it works for you, awesome. I don't have faith it would work, myself, which is likely why I wouldn't do it myself, even if I do actually think that getting in touch with our bodies is, in and of itself, a good idea.
3 -
Written in 1983, before we had such a large amount of sugar and sodium added to our foods, before so many things on our table were processed the way they are now. Food itself isn't the same as it was in 1983.
I don't know how old you were in 1983, but I was 21 and remember it well. Food hasn't changed anywhere near as much as you seem to think it has since then. If anything, the trend nowadays is toward much greater availability of foods with lower sodium and sugar options than we had then, and much more marketing of low-calorie options.
It's not like fast food and pre-packaged meals didn't exist "way back then". I was a teenager in the '70s and ate plenty of fast food, ramen and TV dinners. And while portion sizes may have increased, that was already going on in the '70s and '80s. I remember one of our favorite restaurants in the '70s that offered a dinner platter boasting a 2-pound slab of prime rib with a baked potato about the size of a small state (with butter and sour cream, of course), and you got a certificate and your name on the wall if you ate the whole thing.
The much more significant change is how automated things have become and how lazy and sedentary we've become as a society. How physical education programs have been cut from schools, and how many kids sit in front of computers/game consoles instead of playing outside. How (and how much) we move has changed a lot more than how (and how much) we eat.
Seeing as we're the same age, that's pretty much how I remember things as well.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Seeing as we're the same age, that's pretty much how I remember things as well.
That is actually not the experience I had in the 70's at all. In the 80's, had more junk food, yeah, but the 70's, not so much. Restaurants in my area had pretty small portion sizes compared to today, every one I can remember, too.
I wonder if some of that may be more regional, perhaps? I lived in a town of about 18,000, isolated in a lot of ways from other towns around it due to mountains and canyons. We had maybe 2 fast food places in the entire town, like a McDonalds and one other. Maybe we had a bit more of a rural vibe, and that impacts it some.1 -
I lived in a town of about 25K in the 70s (Ponca City, OK), although I was 13 in '83, and I recall there being fast food and restaurants with the giant steak and so on. I'm sure the number of places depends on the population, but it's not like it was hard to find fast food or TV dinners or koolaid or mac and cheese or Dolly Madison.
Servings sizes were smaller in many cases, especially soda, but it's not like anyone now needs to get the big sizes. It's hard for me to compare restaurants in general, since the type of restaurants I go to now aren't like the ones I went to as a kid, and the vast majority of Chicago restaurants I attend are quite different from anything that would have been in that town, but if we are talking nicer restaurants there is a huge variation of serving size (some of the higher end restaurants have smaller portions, steak houses still have large portions, it's common to take food home). I also recall my grandparents taking me to buffets in the '70s (they lived in a small-ish town in WA state), and we didn't like them (thought they were an old person thing, would have rather had a Happy Meal or whatever existed before), but they were all you can eat, of course.
Don't Happy Meals come with fruit now? We didn't go to fast food that often (although that wasn't because the restaurants weren't there), but when we did we got coke, fries, and a hamburger.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Seeing as we're the same age, that's pretty much how I remember things as well.
That is actually not the experience I had in the 70's at all. In the 80's, had more junk food, yeah, but the 70's, not so much. Restaurants in my area had pretty small portion sizes compared to today, every one I can remember, too.
I wonder if some of that may be more regional, perhaps? I lived in a town of about 18,000, isolated in a lot of ways from other towns around it due to mountains and canyons. We had maybe 2 fast food places in the entire town, like a McDonalds and one other. Maybe we had a bit more of a rural vibe, and that impacts it some.
I grew up in Philadelphia, so yes, probably very different regionally.
While I agree that the serving sizes were smaller in the 70's, it's not like you couldn't order more. I remember my aunt and mother doing that very thing when we did get fast food. I also remember some steak places having the large steak, and certainly remember plenty of snack foods, though maybe not the overwhelming variety there is today. Saying that, who eats every flavor of everything anyway? We still had chips and pretzels and cookies and crackers, you know?
We did a convenience meal once a week. Either fast food or pizza. I remember getting either a hamburger, fries, and a drink or having a couple of pieces of pizza when we ordered in. Sometimes I'd get an order of ravioli.
The other thing I personally had access to in the '70's was a corner candy store. A neighbor ran one out of his basement.0 -
There was a ton of junk food available in the 80s in Memphis, but portion sizes were smaller. A Big Mac used to be considered a huge sandwich and now is a pretty small one, and the giant size fries didn't even exist as an option. Also, people didn't eat out more often than once or twice a week, and ate home cooked food every night. What was a big meal of junk food back then was equivalent to the kid's size meal today.
My lunch as a kid was not particularly nutritious - a ding dong, bag of chips, orange, and sandwich - but the bag of chips was tiny by modern standards, and the sandwich was too.2 -
Agree (as noted above) about portion sizes and how often the average person eats out, but neither of those have a thing to do with different food being available, but about personal choices (or portion distortion). I also remember some options (not at fast food) being pretty darn big at restaurants, but since they were rarer, didn't matter.
For individually packed lunch, that serving size is always going to be up to the person packing it.
I don't think standard sized chips are differently sized, although there are larger chips. We have chips at my office (luckily for me I don't care about chips), and they are net weight 1 oz (28 g), and about 150 cal, depending on the type. Were they smaller than that back in the day? (My usual lunch was a thermos of soup, a baggie of crackers or maybe pringles (my mom did not get individual serving size chips), some kind of fruit or carrots and celery, and maybe a cookie if we had them around (either one my mom made or a couple of girl scout cookies or oreos). I could be conflating different years here.)0 -
I graduated high school in 1984. There was one overweight kid in my class. One.
As others have said, there was plenty of junk food available in the 80s, but we were more active. I used to ride my bike several miles to get to and from tennis lessons. Etc.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Agree (as noted above) about portion sizes and how often the average person eats out, but neither of those have a thing to do with different food being available, but about personal choices (or portion distortion). I also remember some options (not at fast food) being pretty darn big at restaurants, but since they were rarer, didn't matter.
For individually packed lunch, that serving size is always going to be up to the person packing it.
I don't think standard sized chips are differently sized, although there are larger chips. We have chips at my office (luckily for me I don't care about chips), and they are net weight 1 oz (28 g), and about 150 cal, depending on the type. Were they smaller than that back in the day? (My usual lunch was a thermos of soup, a baggie of crackers or maybe pringles (my mom did not get individual serving size chips), some kind of fruit or carrots and celery, and maybe a cookie if we had them around (either one my mom made or a couple of girl scout cookies or oreos). I could be conflating different years here.)
Single bags of chips were definitely smaller. Nowadays one has to really watch it with the "single size" bags of chips, because they are NOT one serving but usually 2-3 servings. I can't control myself around chips! If I buy any I will get the pop chips which are one serving, 100 calories. The Lays bag of chips is definitely bigger than it used to be, with 3 servings in the "individual" bag I think. The french fries from McD's grew over the years. When I was a kid there was just one size, the small one in the little bag.
1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I graduated high school in 1984. There was one overweight kid in my class. One.
As others have said, there was plenty of junk food available in the 80s, but we were more active. I used to ride my bike several miles to get to and from tennis lessons. Etc.
I graduated in '80 and there were plenty of overweight kids in my class. Sitting right here going strictly from memory without even digging my yearbook out and cracking it open, I'm sure I could easily list at least 50 by name who were very significantly overweight. Plenty enough who were morbidly obese too. I'll certainly agree that we were (generally speaking) a lot more active than today's kids, though.
As to restaurants and portion sizes, I remember plenty of restaurants in Southern California in the '70s and '80s which boasted huge portion sizes. In addition to the steakhouse I mentioned above, Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor had the "Pig Trough" sundae, which was big enough for 3 or 4 people and you got a certificate if you were able to eat one yourself. One of our favorite breakfast cafés offered a six-egg omelette with everything imaginable in it, along with a pound of home fried potatoes. Shakey's Pizza had an all-you-can-eat lunch buffet and there were a number of smorgasbord (buffet/all-you-can-eat style) restaurants in our city. There were a bunch of burger joints that offered half-pound (and in a few cases, one-pound) hamburgers. All the major fast-food chains were available and usually never more than a short/medium drive away - McDonalds, Jack In The Box, Carls Jr., Wendy's, Arby's, Roberto's, A&W, KFC, Burger King, Taco Bell, Naugles, Der Weinerschnitzel, numerous pizza joints, etc.
What I don't remember from the '70s is the plethora of low-carb, low-fat, gluten-free, vegan/vegetarian, low-sodium, etc. restaurant menu options that you see today. IMO it's far easier nowadays to order a good, reasonably balanced meal in a restaurant than it was back then.
Sometimes I think memories can be a lot more fond and idealistic than what the actual reality was.5 -
lucerorojo wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Agree (as noted above) about portion sizes and how often the average person eats out, but neither of those have a thing to do with different food being available, but about personal choices (or portion distortion). I also remember some options (not at fast food) being pretty darn big at restaurants, but since they were rarer, didn't matter.
For individually packed lunch, that serving size is always going to be up to the person packing it.
I don't think standard sized chips are differently sized, although there are larger chips. We have chips at my office (luckily for me I don't care about chips), and they are net weight 1 oz (28 g), and about 150 cal, depending on the type. Were they smaller than that back in the day? (My usual lunch was a thermos of soup, a baggie of crackers or maybe pringles (my mom did not get individual serving size chips), some kind of fruit or carrots and celery, and maybe a cookie if we had them around (either one my mom made or a couple of girl scout cookies or oreos). I could be conflating different years here.)
Single bags of chips were definitely smaller. Nowadays one has to really watch it with the "single size" bags of chips, because they are NOT one serving but usually 2-3 servings.
You can buy single serving. Like I said, I don't like chips, but they are at my office, and they are 1 oz, one serving, around 150 cal (some more, some less). I've seen bigger chips that could be perceived as single serving but which are really 2-3, sure, but those are not the smallest size available (and strike me as quite large, yes).
I am curious if the standard was less than these 1 oz bags before -- I don't remember since my mom didn't get single serving and I was smaller too.
I think they had small and large fries when I was a kid, but small was pretty standard even for adults and large was medium now (or even smaller -- and they may have discontinued the medium? Anyway, no supersizing).2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 908 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions