Psychology of Food

mojohowitz

So, I was discussing food with a psychologist and a nutritionist a few years ago and there were some interesting ideas that I'd like to get your feedback on...

First is the idea that the act of eating is a way to self medicate our abandonment issues we developed as kids. Our parents showed us (or were supposed to) their love by nurturing us and feeding us. Some of us didn't get the emotional development, only the food. Is our overeating an attempt to recreate or provide a surrogate love that we feel we didn't get as children? Does food or being full make us feel safer or more nurtured? Busted or plausible?

Second is the more primal idea that we eat during stressful periods because we revert back to our Freudian oral fixation (think suckling at the teet!). When life gets stressful we regress back to safer days in our mothers arms. Except instead of breast milk (high fat, high sugars) we suck on cheeseburgers and milkshakes. Busted or plausible?

Third is the idea that our hugely narcissistic American ego's actually think we deserve the sweeter and fattier foods without repercussion because the world revolves around us. All delusions we hold about the universe are the absolute truth and all evidence to the contrary is moot. "I dont need to count calories because I don't eat that much. If I'm gaining weight its because of some mysterious external force working against me!!"

The fourth idea is the simplest idea. We eat to escape our low self esteem. We are far too willing to mistake feeling pleasure with feeling good. Cheesecake makes me FEEL PLEASURE. Eating sensible and moderately makes me FEEL HEALTHY. Cheesecake treats the symptoms of low self esteem and healthy food choices begin to treat part of the cause of low self esteem. Do I choose cheesecake because I don't think I deserve to have good things happen to me?

Fifth is the idea that our modern lives have us constantly looking for the boogeyman around every corner and that we genuinely feel less safe than we used to. Food staves of death. Eating makes us safe. So, do we eat more to keep death further away and to feel safer?

Last, is the idea that we forgot that food is simply fuel. If we assign so much significance to food we are treading in dangerous territory. Can we simply think of food as fuel? Do we have to assign it such social and psychological significance around family, parents, nurturing, children, holidays, weddings, funerals, dating, picnics, potluck dinners, religion, etc?

Let me know what you think. Do you have other ideas that along similar lines?

dragonbug300

Everything except the third one seem plausible. The human brain is complex. The very fact that we can have emotional connections to food is a testament to that. I do believe that much of our attachment to food is biologically driven, but beyond that is mind over matter. Seeing as Americans aren't the only ones who struggle with weight, idea number 3 just seems out of place. Plus, from experience, I can't recall ever thinking "I want something sweet and I deserve it because I'M AMERICAN, GOSH DARN-IT!" The last part of that... "I dont need to count calories because I don't eat that much. If I'm gaining weight its because of some mysterious external force working against me!!" is connected to a different mindset that has less to do with one's ego and more to do with one's upbringing. If you're not brought up to be mindful of food, you're likely to think that whatever amount you're eating is the 'right' amount for you.

spackham

Busted. I under-ate because I didn't want to be anything like my mother who cooked every dinner.

Busted. We eat fatty foods because they taste good and our body was made to want high-caloric and fat foods to prepare for times of famine. But, for us, it has been "feast" our whole lives.

Ego? IDK. Plausible but would be more ego in general than because we are Americans.

Fourth idea. I totally agree. We eat it because we like it, it tastes good, makes us feel good (temporarily) not because we expected our mothers to be God's in nurturing our every need or to snuggle up in safety.

fiercegoddess

I think the third one is dead on as harsh as it may sound. As I look around me, everyone seems to think they can eat what they want in huge quantities, sit on their butts all day and have the body of an athlete or a celebrity. I see a lot of people who are overweight say they don't eat that much (I've been included in this group at times:blushing: ). Many people who are overweight don't understand why they are overweight. It's like someone waved an evil magic wand over them. It took several attempts at weight loss for me to realize that you can't abuse your body (by eating unhealthy phone and remaining sedentary) and then expect to thin and able to run a marathon. Eating right is challenging at first but it works wonder.

As for the last one, i think of food as fuel and as a way to honor myself. People often say "your body is your temple." By eating the right foods I honor my temple and myself. Eating in excess or eating things highly processed is dishonor, as it can lead to harm. A lot of emphasis is put on food and eating. It's always someones birthday, anniversary, retirement, wedding, superbowl, graduation, thanksgiving party, christmas party, fourth of july, etc. It's like every day of the year is an excuse to eat.

cmriverside

Idea one: Plausible. But it's more than abandoment issues. It's all the issues in our past we feel we need to be comforted for.


Idea two: Sounds kinda weird, but again, it's comfort.

Idea three: Humans eat the food that gives the most bang energy-wise. Biologically that would be fats and sugars. The U.S. certainly has more of that on the shelves. It's cheaper and easier, so.....okay.....they kinda go together, but I don't think we're any more arrogant as people than any other developed nation.

Idea four: Paradoxically, we actually FEEL BETTER when we eat more nutritiously dense foods. If you can figure out how to convince people of that, you've solved the obesity problem. So the Eat Bad to Feel Good is a flawed arguement, but only because we are ignorant of the reality of nutrition and well-being if we haven't actually tested the theory.

mojohowitz

Thanks for your responses. I really think the psychological angle of weight loss if undervalued and I am learning a lot from your posts already. Keep them coming!

brittanynwillis

Thanks for sharing, very interesting point view! Seems very possible, our evolutionary history does determine our brain chemistry and how we think about food.

cmriverside

Hey, no fair adding on ideas after the fact :laugh:

Idea Five: I thought this was the reason why men cheat, to ward off death. "You're still gonna die." Again, that is comfort.

Idea Six: I can't scroll down to reread it.....something about everything is tied to food and we can't just see it as fuel. This is the basis for all your other arguments. It is complicated and psychological in its basis. All of your arguments have merit. You should read my journal, I have a hundred pages about my "issues" around stoopid things I do....no, the journal stays private

mojohowitz

Sorry. I edit alot. Thanks for the info. I appreciate your feedback!

Serafimangel

Idea two, Freud has been so largely discredited I tend to disbelieve anything stemming from his hypothesis, and isn't it a bit too cliche to debase all out needs into a freudian sexual or parental category?

Idea three: i doubt, USA is overweight as a whole but so are other much poorer countries, some getting cheap sugary foods high in fat from bigger countries.
One of my friends professors had this hypothsesis that we are all so overweight now because of convenience.
There is less manual labour and such convenience in travel, we still eat like we require the food we did decades (or centuries ago).
Another facet (he claimed) was that we are so healthy (not in the same way), we are healthy now as in less people get so terribly sick from realatively common things, the flu wiped perfectly healthy people out 100 years ago, and there were many viruses and things that led to people feeling sick or vomiting quite commonly. When you look at it, the upper classes did have a problem with weight, look at henry VIII and in edwardian times they even had diets then (such as the chew 100 times per mouthful diet), so this poblem isnt so new and is just so obvious in america because that is where the main convenience foods and corporations emerged.

just a thought

Serafimangel

Idea two, Freud has been so largely discredited I tend to disbelieve anything stemming from his hypothesis, and isn't it a bit too cliche to debase all out needs into a freudian sexual or parental category?

Idea three: i doubt, USA is overweight as a whole but so are other much poorer countries, some getting cheap sugary foods high in fat from bigger countries.
One of my friends professors had this hypothsesis that we are all so overweight now because of convenience.
There is less manual labour and such convenience in travel, we still eat like we require the food we did decades (or centuries ago).
Another facet (he claimed) was that we are so healthy (not in the same way), we are healthy now as in less people get so terribly sick from realatively common things, the flu wiped perfectly healthy people out 100 years ago, and there were many viruses and things that led to people feeling sick or vomiting quite commonly. When you look at it, the upper classes did have a problem with weight, look at henry VIII and in edwardian times they even had diets then (such as the chew 100 times per mouthful diet), so this poblem isnt so new and is just so obvious in america because that is where the main convenience foods and corporations emerged.

just a thought

mojohowitz

Recently, I've heard lots of discussion about the economics of healthy foods. Cheap food is pretty unhealthy. Cheap in terms of money and cheap in terms of effort to prepare. Hot dogs, mac and cheese, white rice, lunch meat, canned vegetables, white bread, etc are relatively inexpensive but pretty salty, high carb or fatty. Healthier choices such as chicken breasts, whole grain rice, fresh or frozen vegetables, fruits, vegetables are typically more expensive.

Am I mistaken or is it pretty standard to find the more convenient a food is, the unhealthier it is? Excluding raw vegetables and fruits.

SelkieDiver

Recently, I've heard lots of discussion about the economics of healthy foods. Cheap food is pretty unhealthy. Cheap in terms of money and cheap in terms of effort to prepare. Hot dogs, mac and cheese, white rice, lunch meat, canned vegetables, white bread, etc are relatively inexpensive but pretty salty, high carb or fatty. Healthier choices such as chicken breasts, whole grain rice, fresh or frozen vegetables, fruits, vegetables are typically more expensive.

Am I mistaken or is it pretty standard to find the more convenient a food is, the unhealthier it is? Excluding raw vegetables and fruits.

I think in the US we've been trained to believe this. I has been dis-proven in some studies - its actually cheaper for a family of 4 to eat a diet of fresh food consisting of veg/fruits that are in season, beans, whole grains and smaller servings of meat, than it is for them to eat fast food. However, with the invent of the dollar menu, people BELIEVE it's cheaper to eat off that. That fast food is devoid of nutrients, however, made up mostly of fat and salt and sugar (which stimulate the pleasure centers of the brain). As a consequence you tend to way over eat in calories because your body is trying to nourish itself. I'll see if I can find that study to share.

SelkieDiver

Here's a link to a graphic that explains it: http://www.dailyspark.com/blog.asp?post=what_20_will_buy_at_the_drivethru_and_at_the_supermarket

cmriverside

Wow, this thread is a year and a half old, it popped up in my Recents. I was just as chatty then. Good to know.

amonroe1343

Recently, I've heard lots of discussion about the economics of healthy foods. Cheap food is pretty unhealthy. Cheap in terms of money and cheap in terms of effort to prepare. Hot dogs, mac and cheese, white rice, lunch meat, canned vegetables, white bread, etc are relatively inexpensive but pretty salty, high carb or fatty. Healthier choices such as chicken breasts, whole grain rice, fresh or frozen vegetables, fruits, vegetables are typically more expensive.

Am I mistaken or is it pretty standard to find the more convenient a food is, the unhealthier it is? Excluding raw vegetables and fruits.

I have actually saved money by eating whole fruits and veggies, whole grain rice, chicken, ground turkey, etc. I also don't eat out as often as I did before and when I do eat out, I eat a lot less because I'm eating things that keep me fuller longer throughout the day, not the crap I was used to eating.

danielg810

I think theres a lot of truth to all of them. Mainly 1st, 2nd, & 4th but I wouldn't discredit the others because i might not fully grasp the idea.

As far as self-esteem in the 4th, I wouldn't call it that, but I know a balance between pleasure and feeling good about your choices is absolutely necessary for long-term success in any diet!!

(Or else we would be very Guilty & Fat -OR- very Sad & Fit- neither of which are win-win)

Thinking deeper about why we do the things we do brings us that much closer to true awareness of who we really are and what were really doing from a more realistic perspective.

Thank you Very informative post!!