How to be ok with it all?
Options
Replies
-
In case anyone's interested in reading more about habits and how we change them, here're some links:
http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/02/how-long-it-takes-to-form-a-new-habit/
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/09/25/william-james-on-habit/
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/11/27/the-psychology-of-self-control/
0 -
You're not being patient enough. I absolutely believe that you can live in that reality. Hundreds of thousands of people all over the world live in that reality. The difference is that they have made it their life and you (and me) are still "on a diet." We screwed up somewhere along the way and now we have to change the way we do things and change the way we think about things. But that can happen for us. It will take time. It's not going to happen immediately just because we want it to We will have to put in the effort and the time at reframing the way we think about food and resetting our body and our taste buds so it likes healthy foods. And we have create new habits for ourselves with exercise. But I absolutely believe you can live in that reality. It's why it's called a lifestyle change. We use that term as a way of saying we intend on keeping the weight off… but a true lifestyle change isn't that you keep doing the same things for the rest of your life… it happens when you just naturally choose to take a walk when you get stressed instead of watching TV with a tub of ice cream. When you naturally look for fruits or veggies to satisfy your midnight munchies. When you naturally stop eating at an appropriate calorie level because your body is satisfied.
That's how I make peace with it. I know that it's possible. I just have to get there. And it happens a little piece at a time.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I get that this all gets tedious; I’ve been on this site logging for over 600 days, and sometimes there are things I’d rather be doing with those 10-15 minutes a day it takes to log my food and exercise. But look at it from this big picture perspective – our bodies seek fattening food and store fat because our prehistoric selves went most of their lives without knowing where and when their next meal would come from. Imagine scratching out your existence day in and day out, scavenging for food, just a bad luck incident or two away from starving to death or being weakened by hunger to the point where you would get killed by predators, either animals or humans. Now fast forward thousands of years, and appreciate the nature of your burden – you are surrounded by such an overabundance of food resources that you actually have to force yourself to limit how much you eat!
Appreciate where we are in terms of human development, eat one of those delicious cakes (but not the entire box), log it, and enjoy the rest of your day as a contemporary, civilized human being
Do you really think that it would make any difference if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food? There is no evidence to support such a notion.
I’m a little taken aback that you don’t know the basic evolutionary principles behind these types of biological characteristics.
We don't know much about our "prehistoric selves" other than finding a few old bones. Everything else is pretty much speculation, and we certainly don't know what would have happened if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food. Perhaps they all would've gotten fat and died of heart failure.
We don't have to go back in time to learn about our prehistoric selves. I've worked in international development for 20 years. Look at some of the global indicators for malnutrition in the poorest communities worldwide -- there's all the evidence you need.
So we're fat because children in Africa are starving?
*sigh* No. I don't understand why you say we don't have evidence about how humans lived in prehistory when there are many living examples today of people living exactly the way we lived during the Stone Age.
I don't have a problem with that, but the original claim was that prehistoric man was somehow different from what we are today, but because they couldn't find enough food, they evolved into a being that stores more fat than is required. There is not evidence to support the claim that they didn't already have the ability to store fact and certainly no evidence to claim that if they were overfed that they would lose the ability to store fat.
I don't think that's the argument. The idea is more like: prehistoric man lived under conditions where food was scarce, so being able to store fat efficiently aided in survival, and those with that ability were more likely to live and pass on their genes than those who did not tend to store fat well/deal well with conditions of scarcity.
In theory, if we spent a lot of time under conditions of surplus where tending to become obese led you to be less able to survive and pass on your genes, natural selection would select against those who seemed inclined to become obese IF the effect was to kill them off before they reproduced or made it less likely that their children would survive until adulthood (the latter being more likely in a primitive world with a problem with a surplus of calories plus inactivity).
What you stated sounds like Lamarckianism.
My point is that we don't know what Stone Age man was like. He could've been just like us, for all we know. Actually, considering that the animals in store fat also, it is most likely that they were like us. The problem with thinking that natural selection would lead to less obesity is that obesity tends to get worse as people age, so the children of the obese are likely to survive anyway.
Of course they were like us. They were humans too. Evolution doesn't change that fast. Humans 200,000 years ago and humans today have the same ability to store fat if we consume too many calories. The fact is, there are many people today who live much like humans lived 200,000 years ago and biologically they're no different than you and me. I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this point. It's ridiculous.0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I get that this all gets tedious; I’ve been on this site logging for over 600 days, and sometimes there are things I’d rather be doing with those 10-15 minutes a day it takes to log my food and exercise. But look at it from this big picture perspective – our bodies seek fattening food and store fat because our prehistoric selves went most of their lives without knowing where and when their next meal would come from. Imagine scratching out your existence day in and day out, scavenging for food, just a bad luck incident or two away from starving to death or being weakened by hunger to the point where you would get killed by predators, either animals or humans. Now fast forward thousands of years, and appreciate the nature of your burden – you are surrounded by such an overabundance of food resources that you actually have to force yourself to limit how much you eat!
Appreciate where we are in terms of human development, eat one of those delicious cakes (but not the entire box), log it, and enjoy the rest of your day as a contemporary, civilized human being
Do you really think that it would make any difference if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food? There is no evidence to support such a notion.
I’m a little taken aback that you don’t know the basic evolutionary principles behind these types of biological characteristics.
We don't know much about our "prehistoric selves" other than finding a few old bones. Everything else is pretty much speculation, and we certainly don't know what would have happened if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food. Perhaps they all would've gotten fat and died of heart failure.
We don't have to go back in time to learn about our prehistoric selves. I've worked in international development for 20 years. Look at some of the global indicators for malnutrition in the poorest communities worldwide -- there's all the evidence you need.
So we're fat because children in Africa are starving?
*sigh* No. I don't understand why you say we don't have evidence about how humans lived in prehistory when there are many living examples today of people living exactly the way we lived during the Stone Age.
I don't have a problem with that, but the original claim was that prehistoric man was somehow different from what we are today, but because they couldn't find enough food, they evolved into a being that stores more fat than is required. There is not evidence to support the claim that they didn't already have the ability to store fact and certainly no evidence to claim that if they were overfed that they would lose the ability to store fat.
I don't think that's the argument. The idea is more like: prehistoric man lived under conditions where food was scarce, so being able to store fat efficiently aided in survival, and those with that ability were more likely to live and pass on their genes than those who did not tend to store fat well/deal well with conditions of scarcity.
In theory, if we spent a lot of time under conditions of surplus where tending to become obese led you to be less able to survive and pass on your genes, natural selection would select against those who seemed inclined to become obese IF the effect was to kill them off before they reproduced or made it less likely that their children would survive until adulthood (the latter being more likely in a primitive world with a problem with a surplus of calories plus inactivity).
What you stated sounds like Lamarckianism.
My point is that we don't know what Stone Age man was like. He could've been just like us, for all we know. Actually, considering that the animals in store fat also, it is most likely that they were like us. The problem with thinking that natural selection would lead to less obesity is that obesity tends to get worse as people age, so the children of the obese are likely to survive anyway.
Of course they were like us. They were humans too. Evolution doesn't change that fast. Humans 200,000 years ago and humans today have the same ability to store fat if we consume too many calories. The fact is, there are many people today who live much like humans lived 200,000 years ago and biologically they're no different than you and me. I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this point. It's ridiculous.
Because someone else made the claim that we're fat because Stone Age man had to look for food. I wanted to point out that it doesn't make any sense.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I get that this all gets tedious; I’ve been on this site logging for over 600 days, and sometimes there are things I’d rather be doing with those 10-15 minutes a day it takes to log my food and exercise. But look at it from this big picture perspective – our bodies seek fattening food and store fat because our prehistoric selves went most of their lives without knowing where and when their next meal would come from. Imagine scratching out your existence day in and day out, scavenging for food, just a bad luck incident or two away from starving to death or being weakened by hunger to the point where you would get killed by predators, either animals or humans. Now fast forward thousands of years, and appreciate the nature of your burden – you are surrounded by such an overabundance of food resources that you actually have to force yourself to limit how much you eat!
Appreciate where we are in terms of human development, eat one of those delicious cakes (but not the entire box), log it, and enjoy the rest of your day as a contemporary, civilized human being
Do you really think that it would make any difference if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food? There is no evidence to support such a notion.
I’m a little taken aback that you don’t know the basic evolutionary principles behind these types of biological characteristics.
We don't know much about our "prehistoric selves" other than finding a few old bones. Everything else is pretty much speculation, and we certainly don't know what would have happened if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food. Perhaps they all would've gotten fat and died of heart failure.
We don't have to go back in time to learn about our prehistoric selves. I've worked in international development for 20 years. Look at some of the global indicators for malnutrition in the poorest communities worldwide -- there's all the evidence you need.
So we're fat because children in Africa are starving?
*sigh* No. I don't understand why you say we don't have evidence about how humans lived in prehistory when there are many living examples today of people living exactly the way we lived during the Stone Age.
I don't have a problem with that, but the original claim was that prehistoric man was somehow different from what we are today, but because they couldn't find enough food, they evolved into a being that stores more fat than is required. There is not evidence to support the claim that they didn't already have the ability to store fact and certainly no evidence to claim that if they were overfed that they would lose the ability to store fat.
I don't think that's the argument. The idea is more like: prehistoric man lived under conditions where food was scarce, so being able to store fat efficiently aided in survival, and those with that ability were more likely to live and pass on their genes than those who did not tend to store fat well/deal well with conditions of scarcity.
In theory, if we spent a lot of time under conditions of surplus where tending to become obese led you to be less able to survive and pass on your genes, natural selection would select against those who seemed inclined to become obese IF the effect was to kill them off before they reproduced or made it less likely that their children would survive until adulthood (the latter being more likely in a primitive world with a problem with a surplus of calories plus inactivity).
What you stated sounds like Lamarckianism.
My point is that we don't know what Stone Age man was like. He could've been just like us, for all we know. Actually, considering that the animals in store fat also, it is most likely that they were like us. The problem with thinking that natural selection would lead to less obesity is that obesity tends to get worse as people age, so the children of the obese are likely to survive anyway.
Of course they were like us. They were humans too. Evolution doesn't change that fast. Humans 200,000 years ago and humans today have the same ability to store fat if we consume too many calories. The fact is, there are many people today who live much like humans lived 200,000 years ago and biologically they're no different than you and me. I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this point. It's ridiculous.
Because someone else made the claim that we're fat because Stone Age man had to look for food. I wanted to point out that it doesn't make any sense.
No one said that.
0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Of course they were like us. They were humans too. Evolution doesn't change that fast. Humans 200,000 years ago and humans today have the same ability to store fat if we consume too many calories. The fact is, there are many people today who live much like humans lived 200,000 years ago and biologically they're no different than you and me. I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this point. It's ridiculous.
No they were'nt humans. They were Neanderthals. Their DNA is 99.7% like our human DNA. By way of comparison, Chimpanzee DNA is 99.8% like our DNA. Neanderthal man of 200,000 was significantly different from us. Hugely different? Probably not, but significantly different in enough ways that they went extinct and we did not. We adapted, they did not. Evolution most certainly does change that fast. Their bodies were adapted differently and the shape of their face and pelvic areas was significantly different from ours.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis
http://www.livescience.com/28036-neanderthals-facts-about-our-extinct-human-relatives.html
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergensis0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I get that this all gets tedious; I’ve been on this site logging for over 600 days, and sometimes there are things I’d rather be doing with those 10-15 minutes a day it takes to log my food and exercise. But look at it from this big picture perspective – our bodies seek fattening food and store fat because our prehistoric selves went most of their lives without knowing where and when their next meal would come from. Imagine scratching out your existence day in and day out, scavenging for food, just a bad luck incident or two away from starving to death or being weakened by hunger to the point where you would get killed by predators, either animals or humans. Now fast forward thousands of years, and appreciate the nature of your burden – you are surrounded by such an overabundance of food resources that you actually have to force yourself to limit how much you eat!
Appreciate where we are in terms of human development, eat one of those delicious cakes (but not the entire box), log it, and enjoy the rest of your day as a contemporary, civilized human being
Do you really think that it would make any difference if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food? There is no evidence to support such a notion.
I’m a little taken aback that you don’t know the basic evolutionary principles behind these types of biological characteristics.
We don't know much about our "prehistoric selves" other than finding a few old bones. Everything else is pretty much speculation, and we certainly don't know what would have happened if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food. Perhaps they all would've gotten fat and died of heart failure.
We don't have to go back in time to learn about our prehistoric selves. I've worked in international development for 20 years. Look at some of the global indicators for malnutrition in the poorest communities worldwide -- there's all the evidence you need.
So we're fat because children in Africa are starving?
*sigh* No. I don't understand why you say we don't have evidence about how humans lived in prehistory when there are many living examples today of people living exactly the way we lived during the Stone Age.
I don't have a problem with that, but the original claim was that prehistoric man was somehow different from what we are today, but because they couldn't find enough food, they evolved into a being that stores more fat than is required. There is not evidence to support the claim that they didn't already have the ability to store fact and certainly no evidence to claim that if they were overfed that they would lose the ability to store fat.
I don't think that's the argument. The idea is more like: prehistoric man lived under conditions where food was scarce, so being able to store fat efficiently aided in survival, and those with that ability were more likely to live and pass on their genes than those who did not tend to store fat well/deal well with conditions of scarcity.
In theory, if we spent a lot of time under conditions of surplus where tending to become obese led you to be less able to survive and pass on your genes, natural selection would select against those who seemed inclined to become obese IF the effect was to kill them off before they reproduced or made it less likely that their children would survive until adulthood (the latter being more likely in a primitive world with a problem with a surplus of calories plus inactivity).
What you stated sounds like Lamarckianism.
My point is that we don't know what Stone Age man was like. He could've been just like us, for all we know. Actually, considering that the animals in store fat also, it is most likely that they were like us. The problem with thinking that natural selection would lead to less obesity is that obesity tends to get worse as people age, so the children of the obese are likely to survive anyway.
Of course they were like us. They were humans too. Evolution doesn't change that fast. Humans 200,000 years ago and humans today have the same ability to store fat if we consume too many calories. The fact is, there are many people today who live much like humans lived 200,000 years ago and biologically they're no different than you and me. I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this point. It's ridiculous.
Because someone else made the claim that we're fat because Stone Age man had to look for food. I wanted to point out that it doesn't make any sense.
No one said that.
Do you not think that is what was said with the following statement? "But look at it from this big picture perspective – our bodies seek fattening food and store fat because our prehistoric selves went most of their lives without knowing where and when their next meal would come from."
That sure looks like it to me.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I get that this all gets tedious; I’ve been on this site logging for over 600 days, and sometimes there are things I’d rather be doing with those 10-15 minutes a day it takes to log my food and exercise. But look at it from this big picture perspective – our bodies seek fattening food and store fat because our prehistoric selves went most of their lives without knowing where and when their next meal would come from. Imagine scratching out your existence day in and day out, scavenging for food, just a bad luck incident or two away from starving to death or being weakened by hunger to the point where you would get killed by predators, either animals or humans. Now fast forward thousands of years, and appreciate the nature of your burden – you are surrounded by such an overabundance of food resources that you actually have to force yourself to limit how much you eat!
Appreciate where we are in terms of human development, eat one of those delicious cakes (but not the entire box), log it, and enjoy the rest of your day as a contemporary, civilized human being
Do you really think that it would make any difference if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food? There is no evidence to support such a notion.
I’m a little taken aback that you don’t know the basic evolutionary principles behind these types of biological characteristics.
We don't know much about our "prehistoric selves" other than finding a few old bones. Everything else is pretty much speculation, and we certainly don't know what would have happened if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food. Perhaps they all would've gotten fat and died of heart failure.
We don't have to go back in time to learn about our prehistoric selves. I've worked in international development for 20 years. Look at some of the global indicators for malnutrition in the poorest communities worldwide -- there's all the evidence you need.
So we're fat because children in Africa are starving?
*sigh* No. I don't understand why you say we don't have evidence about how humans lived in prehistory when there are many living examples today of people living exactly the way we lived during the Stone Age.
I don't have a problem with that, but the original claim was that prehistoric man was somehow different from what we are today, but because they couldn't find enough food, they evolved into a being that stores more fat than is required. There is not evidence to support the claim that they didn't already have the ability to store fact and certainly no evidence to claim that if they were overfed that they would lose the ability to store fat.
I don't think that's the argument. The idea is more like: prehistoric man lived under conditions where food was scarce, so being able to store fat efficiently aided in survival, and those with that ability were more likely to live and pass on their genes than those who did not tend to store fat well/deal well with conditions of scarcity.
In theory, if we spent a lot of time under conditions of surplus where tending to become obese led you to be less able to survive and pass on your genes, natural selection would select against those who seemed inclined to become obese IF the effect was to kill them off before they reproduced or made it less likely that their children would survive until adulthood (the latter being more likely in a primitive world with a problem with a surplus of calories plus inactivity).
What you stated sounds like Lamarckianism.
My point is that we don't know what Stone Age man was like. He could've been just like us, for all we know. Actually, considering that the animals in store fat also, it is most likely that they were like us. The problem with thinking that natural selection would lead to less obesity is that obesity tends to get worse as people age, so the children of the obese are likely to survive anyway.
Of course they were like us. They were humans too. Evolution doesn't change that fast. Humans 200,000 years ago and humans today have the same ability to store fat if we consume too many calories. The fact is, there are many people today who live much like humans lived 200,000 years ago and biologically they're no different than you and me. I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this point. It's ridiculous.
Because someone else made the claim that we're fat because Stone Age man had to look for food. I wanted to point out that it doesn't make any sense.
No one said that.
Do you not think that is what was said with the following statement? "But look at it from this big picture perspective – our bodies seek fattening food and store fat because our prehistoric selves went most of their lives without knowing where and when their next meal would come from."
That sure looks like it to me.
You do realize that "prehistoric selves" goes back a long, long way, beyond man to whatever little creatures we evolved from, right?
Man evolved over the course of millions of years from simpler life forms through evolution. Part of that evolutionary path entailed the survival of creatures that were able to store fat to survive the inevitable periods of famine experienced by animals and later, hunter / gatherer neanderthals and humans. As mankind evolved, it became less susceptible to environmental threats like droughts, due to the emergence of agriculture and animal domestication, but this is only a recent development, it began maybe 12,000 years ago. Even then (and now in some parts of the world), droughts and war made for scarce resources, and the fat storing capability was still integral to survival.
Now fast forward to today, where billions of 1st world humans have an abundance of food, and no one need go any significant period of time without food if they choose not to. Many of us eat a tremendous quantity of food above what is required to survive, and this excess is stored as fat. Our digestive systems don’t have a calendar and don’t understand that it is 2015, but rather still thinks that it is 12,015 BC or 120,150 BC.
0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Of course they were like us. They were humans too. Evolution doesn't change that fast. Humans 200,000 years ago and humans today have the same ability to store fat if we consume too many calories. The fact is, there are many people today who live much like humans lived 200,000 years ago and biologically they're no different than you and me. I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this point. It's ridiculous.
No they were'nt humans. They were Neanderthals. Their DNA is 99.7% like our human DNA. By way of comparison, Chimpanzee DNA is 99.8% like our DNA. Neanderthal man of 200,000 was significantly different from us. Hugely different? Probably not, but significantly different in enough ways that they went extinct and we did not. We adapted, they did not. Evolution most certainly does change that fast. Their bodies were adapted differently and the shape of their face and pelvic areas was significantly different from ours.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis
http://www.livescience.com/28036-neanderthals-facts-about-our-extinct-human-relatives.html
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergensis
200,000 years ago homo sapiens lived at the same time as neanderthals.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I get that this all gets tedious; I’ve been on this site logging for over 600 days, and sometimes there are things I’d rather be doing with those 10-15 minutes a day it takes to log my food and exercise. But look at it from this big picture perspective – our bodies seek fattening food and store fat because our prehistoric selves went most of their lives without knowing where and when their next meal would come from. Imagine scratching out your existence day in and day out, scavenging for food, just a bad luck incident or two away from starving to death or being weakened by hunger to the point where you would get killed by predators, either animals or humans. Now fast forward thousands of years, and appreciate the nature of your burden – you are surrounded by such an overabundance of food resources that you actually have to force yourself to limit how much you eat!
Appreciate where we are in terms of human development, eat one of those delicious cakes (but not the entire box), log it, and enjoy the rest of your day as a contemporary, civilized human being
Do you really think that it would make any difference if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food? There is no evidence to support such a notion.
I’m a little taken aback that you don’t know the basic evolutionary principles behind these types of biological characteristics.
We don't know much about our "prehistoric selves" other than finding a few old bones. Everything else is pretty much speculation, and we certainly don't know what would have happened if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food. Perhaps they all would've gotten fat and died of heart failure.
We don't have to go back in time to learn about our prehistoric selves. I've worked in international development for 20 years. Look at some of the global indicators for malnutrition in the poorest communities worldwide -- there's all the evidence you need.
So we're fat because children in Africa are starving?
*sigh* No. I don't understand why you say we don't have evidence about how humans lived in prehistory when there are many living examples today of people living exactly the way we lived during the Stone Age.
I don't have a problem with that, but the original claim was that prehistoric man was somehow different from what we are today, but because they couldn't find enough food, they evolved into a being that stores more fat than is required. There is not evidence to support the claim that they didn't already have the ability to store fact and certainly no evidence to claim that if they were overfed that they would lose the ability to store fat.
I don't think that's the argument. The idea is more like: prehistoric man lived under conditions where food was scarce, so being able to store fat efficiently aided in survival, and those with that ability were more likely to live and pass on their genes than those who did not tend to store fat well/deal well with conditions of scarcity.
In theory, if we spent a lot of time under conditions of surplus where tending to become obese led you to be less able to survive and pass on your genes, natural selection would select against those who seemed inclined to become obese IF the effect was to kill them off before they reproduced or made it less likely that their children would survive until adulthood (the latter being more likely in a primitive world with a problem with a surplus of calories plus inactivity).
What you stated sounds like Lamarckianism.
My point is that we don't know what Stone Age man was like. He could've been just like us, for all we know. Actually, considering that the animals in store fat also, it is most likely that they were like us. The problem with thinking that natural selection would lead to less obesity is that obesity tends to get worse as people age, so the children of the obese are likely to survive anyway.
Of course they were like us. They were humans too. Evolution doesn't change that fast. Humans 200,000 years ago and humans today have the same ability to store fat if we consume too many calories. The fact is, there are many people today who live much like humans lived 200,000 years ago and biologically they're no different than you and me. I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this point. It's ridiculous.
Because someone else made the claim that we're fat because Stone Age man had to look for food. I wanted to point out that it doesn't make any sense.
No one said that.
Do you not think that is what was said with the following statement? "But look at it from this big picture perspective – our bodies seek fattening food and store fat because our prehistoric selves went most of their lives without knowing where and when their next meal would come from."
That sure looks like it to me.
Not in the least.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I get that this all gets tedious; I’ve been on this site logging for over 600 days, and sometimes there are things I’d rather be doing with those 10-15 minutes a day it takes to log my food and exercise. But look at it from this big picture perspective – our bodies seek fattening food and store fat because our prehistoric selves went most of their lives without knowing where and when their next meal would come from. Imagine scratching out your existence day in and day out, scavenging for food, just a bad luck incident or two away from starving to death or being weakened by hunger to the point where you would get killed by predators, either animals or humans. Now fast forward thousands of years, and appreciate the nature of your burden – you are surrounded by such an overabundance of food resources that you actually have to force yourself to limit how much you eat!
Appreciate where we are in terms of human development, eat one of those delicious cakes (but not the entire box), log it, and enjoy the rest of your day as a contemporary, civilized human being
Do you really think that it would make any difference if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food? There is no evidence to support such a notion.
I’m a little taken aback that you don’t know the basic evolutionary principles behind these types of biological characteristics.
We don't know much about our "prehistoric selves" other than finding a few old bones. Everything else is pretty much speculation, and we certainly don't know what would have happened if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food. Perhaps they all would've gotten fat and died of heart failure.
We don't have to go back in time to learn about our prehistoric selves. I've worked in international development for 20 years. Look at some of the global indicators for malnutrition in the poorest communities worldwide -- there's all the evidence you need.
So we're fat because children in Africa are starving?
*sigh* No. I don't understand why you say we don't have evidence about how humans lived in prehistory when there are many living examples today of people living exactly the way we lived during the Stone Age.
I don't have a problem with that, but the original claim was that prehistoric man was somehow different from what we are today, but because they couldn't find enough food, they evolved into a being that stores more fat than is required. There is not evidence to support the claim that they didn't already have the ability to store fact and certainly no evidence to claim that if they were overfed that they would lose the ability to store fat.
I don't think that's the argument. The idea is more like: prehistoric man lived under conditions where food was scarce, so being able to store fat efficiently aided in survival, and those with that ability were more likely to live and pass on their genes than those who did not tend to store fat well/deal well with conditions of scarcity.
In theory, if we spent a lot of time under conditions of surplus where tending to become obese led you to be less able to survive and pass on your genes, natural selection would select against those who seemed inclined to become obese IF the effect was to kill them off before they reproduced or made it less likely that their children would survive until adulthood (the latter being more likely in a primitive world with a problem with a surplus of calories plus inactivity).
What you stated sounds like Lamarckianism.
My point is that we don't know what Stone Age man was like. He could've been just like us, for all we know. Actually, considering that the animals in store fat also, it is most likely that they were like us. The problem with thinking that natural selection would lead to less obesity is that obesity tends to get worse as people age, so the children of the obese are likely to survive anyway.
Of course they were like us. They were humans too. Evolution doesn't change that fast. Humans 200,000 years ago and humans today have the same ability to store fat if we consume too many calories. The fact is, there are many people today who live much like humans lived 200,000 years ago and biologically they're no different than you and me. I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this point. It's ridiculous.
Because someone else made the claim that we're fat because Stone Age man had to look for food. I wanted to point out that it doesn't make any sense.
No one said that.
Do you not think that is what was said with the following statement? "But look at it from this big picture perspective – our bodies seek fattening food and store fat because our prehistoric selves went most of their lives without knowing where and when their next meal would come from."
That sure looks like it to me.
You do realize that "prehistoric selves" goes back a long, long way, beyond man to whatever little creatures we evolved from, right?
Man evolved over the course of millions of years from simpler life forms through evolution. Part of that evolutionary path entailed the survival of creatures that were able to store fat to survive the inevitable periods of famine experienced by animals and later, hunter / gatherer neanderthals and humans. As mankind evolved, it became less susceptible to environmental threats like droughts, due to the emergence of agriculture and animal domestication, but this is only a recent development, it began maybe 12,000 years ago. Even then (and now in some parts of the world), droughts and war made for scarce resources, and the fat storing capability was still integral to survival.
Now fast forward to today, where billions of 1st world humans have an abundance of food, and no one need go any significant period of time without food if they choose not to. Many of us eat a tremendous quantity of food above what is required to survive, and this excess is stored as fat. Our digestive systems don’t have a calendar and don’t understand that it is 2015, but rather still thinks that it is 12,015 BC or 120,150 BC.
Yep
0 -
Don't try to be a victim.
Educate yourself, make your choices and then own them.
Don't like it, make better choices.0 -
I realised I wanted to be lighter, fit and healthy more than I wanted to keep making excuses. Basically I grew up and took responsibility for myself and my body. I can have *some* chocolate/cake/pizza, I don't have to have it *ALL*. I learned to love that buzz after exercise. And I got my 'high' from knowing that I'm doing myself a world of good.
Also the 'If not now, when?' phrase resonated with me. If I didn't reign myself in and learn some good habits right now, it would be a lot harder down the line, by which time the damage my be too great to reverse. Also, I quite enjoy logging (both calories eaten and burned), I treat it like a little game - always trying to be a bit better and beat my PBs. When I don't do as well as I might have liked, I pick myself up and try again/harder. Coming at it from a positive place (dropping the anger and the frustration and embracing the challenge to become a better version of me) helped a LOT!
I dunno - you have to find what works for you but the 'it's not fair' attitude won't get you very far at all. Life isn't fair (which isn't fair!) but that's the way it is, make the best of it.
This post really spoke to me. I've been a member of MPF for a few years and have lost weight using the tools and from inspiration I've found from other members posting on the boards. I fell off the wagon a few months ago and recently have decided I want to get back on. I opened this thread to hopefully find some comfort and inspiration and all of these posts are helpful, although the post quoted above really hit home with me. The main reason is the post puts emphasis on coming into this journey with a positive frame of mind and as a challenge which actually CAN be enjoyable! I have also found pleasure from logging -- it's a visual proof of my progress every day. And I truly believe that if you view the weight loss journey with resentlment and anger then yu're setting yourself up for failure. We all have the ability to CHOOSE what we eat and how much to eat. No one forces us to. So there shouldn't be any reason to feel resentful. I understand the frustration about why we crave foods that aren't great for us, and I'm a major junk food junkie. I love it SO MUCH. I don't crave kale and carrots. I crave McDonalds and cake and ice cream. But I also have to admit that eating htese things without control is not going to get ME where I want to be. I can eat whatever I want, but then I won't attain my goal. No one else is going to care if I reach my goal or not, so I'm really only sabbotaging myself. You CAN reach your goal, and looking at it as a personal challenge and a step toward being a better you is a positive way to think about it. Each day that you stay on track is one day closer to your goal. One step at a time.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »My point is that we don't know what Stone Age man was like. He could've been just like us, for all we know. Actually, considering that the animals in store fat also, it is most likely that they were like us. The problem with thinking that natural selection would lead to less obesity is that obesity tends to get worse as people age, so the children of the obese are likely to survive anyway.
Yes, I don't disagree with that (not sure how this argument started, but I think you are reading in an argument that I missed if someone made it).
I think the point is simply that for obvious evolutionary reasons we tend to be really good at efficiency when it comes to using/storing food.0 -
Hi,
So how did you do it? How did you manage to change your mind? Accept continualy logging? Accept that some foods were trigger foods and were off the menu for life? Say no to yourself when a craving hits? Get your *kitten* down the gym when you dont want to? Be at peace with it all?
I didn't. I wrote down all the things that I hated about being on a diet. I wrote down all the self-destructive things I tend to do on a diet, and mapped out their triggers.
Then I made a plan for myself that avoided them. When things changed, my plan adapted.
Counting calories every day is unsustainable for me. I made the simple rule that I wouldn't eat unless I was hungry, and I'd stop when I got full. I wanted to see what I ate, and how it affected my weight. I used paper logs, where I'd scribble down "sausage with peppers and onions, sauteed greens, a little pasta" and check off three servings of veggie, two of meat and one of starch. That which is measured improves - I ate smaller servings and shifted toward lower calorie density, I lost weight and I didn't skip anything I wanted.
Eventually I got tired of that kind of logging, and it became a lot of effort. I switched to eating about the same number of calories at meals/snacks every day. The first time I make something, I count calories, and then I know generally how it can fit into my days. When that irritates me - I'll do something else.
Where the rubber meets the road, all that matters is my weight trend. There's no prize for making myself miserable along the way.
0 -
This has turned into a excellent thread. My choice to post some of the bitching my negative inner voice does, seems to have really resonated with some people and alot of the advice here is golden.
Just so you have a bit more background. I was 16st 7lb, I got down to 11st 9lb, mum died and I crept back up to 14st over two years. I am only 5' 6" so still obese. Now back in the weight loss game and working on some of the old thought patterns that came back.
I have used postive visulization, goal setting, habit forming, affermations, vision boards, baby steps, hypnotherapy the list goes on and on. All of these tools work on each of us in different ways. Some days they are really effective and others not so much.
What I found was that alot of the tools worked on changing my mind to see the new positive /healthy me as something I wanted so badly I would be drawn to it like a magnet.
I guess I was looking for addtional tools to help when your negative inner voice has got the reins, taken over, is shouting "*kitten* is all I dont care" and is going for the car keys to head to the nearest store.
I have been given two tools by my therapist to use when its rearing its head.
But what I am asking is what you do when your 3 rounds into your fight with your inner demons. You've made sure you've eaten correctly so your blood sugar is ok. You have exercised, taken a walk to clear your head, meditated, you told it to take a hike and it's still on your case like a crazed stalker. You keep going, you ignore it, you do everything you can to not let it take over but your getting tired. There is only so much fight in you and you can feel yourself starting to wear down. At that point I find it's like I am a tiny voice in the back of its head instead of it being a tiny voice in the back of my head.
This is the point where I come unstuck. Somedays by the skin of my teeth I outlast it. Others it wins.
So for those of you that have expericaned something like what I described what do you do?
0 -
Hi,
So how did you do it? How did you manage to change your mind? Accept continualy logging? Accept that some foods were trigger foods and were off the menu for life? Say no to yourself when a craving hits? Get your *kitten* down the gym when you dont want to? Be at peace with it all?
I stopped listening to my stories and "Just Did It Anyway!"
I conquered my phobia of water by deciding to learn to dive! "Do It Anyway!" Is what I said to myself before every single one of my first 40 dives! I became a rescue diver and was busy with my dive masters when I had to stop.
It is a simple choice! Nothing stops you from being angry and still log your food! Ranting feels good, it's done now, so what is your next step?0 -
Oooookay..I have something positive to say, instead of bashing this person who has nevertheless chosen to better their health. So what if they complain? Talking down to them isn't going to help.
I don't want to assume, but I'm going to anyways: Based on your sentence about therapy and trigger foods, combined with your weight battles, I'm guessing food is your comfort source and your way of coping with past and present events in your life. That's okay. You are doing what you need to do to remedy it. I can explicitly understand what you are going through. Food, your comfort source, is now your enemy; how do you handle that? That's what the added therapy should be helping with.
It isn't easy at all. Clearly.
Do your research and make smart food choices, get up off the couch. You NEED to find hobbies or you will increase your struggle tenfold. Logging to me is easier if it's a game or competition. I like to look ahead of time at what I want to eat and then find an exercise that will burn me that many calories and therefore, I'm allowed a reward.
I will never be at peace with it, being an emotional eater who has been addicted to food for over half my life. I will always struggle and be mad that I can't soothe myself with my favorite comfort. But in order to really LIVE my one and only life, I need to trust in my mind and body's ability to overcome.
If you aren't committed, you won't succeed. It's that simple. I have tried so many times before. My therapy has been a big help. To be 100% honest I can't even say that this attempt will stick. I just don't look that far into the future. Take it one day at a time. Baby steps.
I hope some of this has helped.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I get that this all gets tedious; I’ve been on this site logging for over 600 days, and sometimes there are things I’d rather be doing with those 10-15 minutes a day it takes to log my food and exercise. But look at it from this big picture perspective – our bodies seek fattening food and store fat because our prehistoric selves went most of their lives without knowing where and when their next meal would come from. Imagine scratching out your existence day in and day out, scavenging for food, just a bad luck incident or two away from starving to death or being weakened by hunger to the point where you would get killed by predators, either animals or humans. Now fast forward thousands of years, and appreciate the nature of your burden – you are surrounded by such an overabundance of food resources that you actually have to force yourself to limit how much you eat!
Appreciate where we are in terms of human development, eat one of those delicious cakes (but not the entire box), log it, and enjoy the rest of your day as a contemporary, civilized human being
Do you really think that it would make any difference if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food? There is no evidence to support such a notion.
I’m a little taken aback that you don’t know the basic evolutionary principles behind these types of biological characteristics.
We don't know much about our "prehistoric selves" other than finding a few old bones. Everything else is pretty much speculation, and we certainly don't know what would have happened if our "prehistoric selves" had had an abundance of food. Perhaps they all would've gotten fat and died of heart failure.
We don't have to go back in time to learn about our prehistoric selves. I've worked in international development for 20 years. Look at some of the global indicators for malnutrition in the poorest communities worldwide -- there's all the evidence you need.
So we're fat because children in Africa are starving?
*sigh* No. I don't understand why you say we don't have evidence about how humans lived in prehistory when there are many living examples today of people living exactly the way we lived during the Stone Age.
I don't have a problem with that, but the original claim was that prehistoric man was somehow different from what we are today, but because they couldn't find enough food, they evolved into a being that stores more fat than is required. There is not evidence to support the claim that they didn't already have the ability to store fact and certainly no evidence to claim that if they were overfed that they would lose the ability to store fat.
I don't think that's the argument. The idea is more like: prehistoric man lived under conditions where food was scarce, so being able to store fat efficiently aided in survival, and those with that ability were more likely to live and pass on their genes than those who did not tend to store fat well/deal well with conditions of scarcity.
In theory, if we spent a lot of time under conditions of surplus where tending to become obese led you to be less able to survive and pass on your genes, natural selection would select against those who seemed inclined to become obese IF the effect was to kill them off before they reproduced or made it less likely that their children would survive until adulthood (the latter being more likely in a primitive world with a problem with a surplus of calories plus inactivity).
What you stated sounds like Lamarckianism.
My point is that we don't know what Stone Age man was like. He could've been just like us, for all we know. Actually, considering that the animals in store fat also, it is most likely that they were like us. The problem with thinking that natural selection would lead to less obesity is that obesity tends to get worse as people age, so the children of the obese are likely to survive anyway.
Of course they were like us. They were humans too. Evolution doesn't change that fast. Humans 200,000 years ago and humans today have the same ability to store fat if we consume too many calories. The fact is, there are many people today who live much like humans lived 200,000 years ago and biologically they're no different than you and me. I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this point. It's ridiculous.
Because someone else made the claim that we're fat because Stone Age man had to look for food. I wanted to point out that it doesn't make any sense.
No one said that.
Do you not think that is what was said with the following statement? "But look at it from this big picture perspective – our bodies seek fattening food and store fat because our prehistoric selves went most of their lives without knowing where and when their next meal would come from."
That sure looks like it to me.
You do realize that "prehistoric selves" goes back a long, long way, beyond man to whatever little creatures we evolved from, right?
Man evolved over the course of millions of years from simpler life forms through evolution. Part of that evolutionary path entailed the survival of creatures that were able to store fat to survive the inevitable periods of famine experienced by animals and later, hunter / gatherer neanderthals and humans. As mankind evolved, it became less susceptible to environmental threats like droughts, due to the emergence of agriculture and animal domestication, but this is only a recent development, it began maybe 12,000 years ago. Even then (and now in some parts of the world), droughts and war made for scarce resources, and the fat storing capability was still integral to survival.
Now fast forward to today, where billions of 1st world humans have an abundance of food, and no one need go any significant period of time without food if they choose not to. Many of us eat a tremendous quantity of food above what is required to survive, and this excess is stored as fat. Our digestive systems don’t have a calendar and don’t understand that it is 2015, but rather still thinks that it is 12,015 BC or 120,150 BC.
If you say so. I was trying to avoid turning this into a religious discussion. I was really just trying to point out that it is better to take responsibility for one's own weight problem rather than blaming it on some ancestor that we know very little about.0 -
For me - fear was the key. I never really considered myself really overweight. I was at 225, but at 6' tall, it's not terrible. Sure, I had put on a few pounds since I started working an office job, but I like to eat... there's nothing wrong with that, right?
Well, everything was all fine and good until I went to see my doctor this past November. Before I knew it, I'm in having a biopsy done on my lymph nodes for possible cancer (luckily it came back benign, but still makes your mind work overtime), and my cholesterol is through the roof and I have to take Lipitor every day. None of this I should have to go through at 34 years old.
Heart disease runs in my family. My father died of a heart attack when he was 50, my mother has had 2 heart attacks (first one at 51) and a quadruple bypass. I got a lot left to do, and I don't know that I can accomplish everything I want to in the next 15 years...
So, December 23 is when I received the results of my biopsy and found out about my cholesterol... after I left the doctor that day I just sat in my car and made a decision right then that I'm fixing this... and NOW! No more excuses! I'm exercising, eating right, and doing everything I possibly can to make sure I get to see my kids grow up and live as long as I possibly can.
That's what it took for me, fear that I wasn't going to be here as long as I wanted to. Again, things I shouldn't have to think about at my age, but at least it got me motivated.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 387 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions