I can't do it! I can't live with hunger

Increase protein and limit process foods. They generally have a higher caloric density and are less filling per unit calorie.

**edit** some hunger is NOT a bad thing imho. Us westerners have no idea what TRUE hunger is. It can be useful. It makes you sharper and Farr more grateful when you are sated.

psychod787 wrote: »

Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks.

I didn't woo you but I would argue the point you made that hunger makes you sharper. This might be the case for some people, but hunger can also affect a persons ability to concentrate and sometimes even the ability to think straight. I would never say I am of a sharper frame of mind when I am hungry because the opposite often holds true. In saying that I do agree that most of us would have no idea of what real hunger, beyond a missed meal or two is actually like.

Many ‘westerners’ live below the poverty line and are hungry daily. That is such an insulting and generalised statement. And that is from someone who grew up in a missionary family travelling to many third world nations.

psychod787 wrote: »

Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.

The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1

You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?

Ditch the Low fat/light stuff...they are usually filled with other stuff to make it taste palatable that stall loss... I add chia seeds to yogurt, cottage cheese with raspberries (my fav), and even my coffee in mornings. Adding fat does add calories but our bodies process better and you feel fuller longer on less. It took me years to grasp this concept but once I realized it I ditched all the "low fat" items and less fills me up now. Try soup at night...less calories than the cereal and fills you better I found. Also, measuring EVERYTHING is key to All of it. Weight, measure etc... all of it. Lots of water!!! No artificial stuff as that kills metabolism. You will vary each day a bit in weight so try not to obsess on a number...measure your self and use that. Sometimes you will have higher number on scale but in actuality you have lost inches. Good Luck! that last 15lbs is a killer to loose... I KNOW first hand as struggling still there myself... No fast fixes. Eat nutritionally packed foods and long term you will see inches lost.

psychod787 wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.

The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1

You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?

Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.

I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.

But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.

I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.

Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)

I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.

As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".

Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).

:drinker:

psychod787 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.

The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1

You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?

Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.

I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.

But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.

I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.

Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)

I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.

As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".

Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).

:drinker:

Possible, but another hypothesis is protein leverage. While the diets in Kevin hall's study were roughly the same per gram, it actually took less food to reach that "magic" 15% protein that "seems" to be the norm in tribal diets.

Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.

In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.

Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?

I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.

psychod787 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.

The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1

You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?

Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.

I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.

But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.

I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.

Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)

I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.

As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".

Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).

:drinker:

Possible, but another hypothesis is protein leverage. While the diets in Kevin hall's study were roughly the same per gram, it actually took less food to reach that "magic" 15% protein that "seems" to be the norm in tribal diets.

Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.

In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.

Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?

I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.

No Anne, no answers for anything, just hypothesis. Though as the saying goes, If it walks like a duck.... get my drift?😏

[

Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.

In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.

Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?

I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.[/quote]

No Anne, no answers for anything, just hypothesis. Though as the saying goes, If it walks like a duck.... get my drift?😏[/quote]

Yeahbut: You finding processed food tastier doesn't mean it's tastier. And my finding it less tasty doesn't mean it's less tasty. There aren't universals in that space. It doesn't even matter what the average is . . . but no one has even demonstrated averages yet. They're being assumed.

We see what people commonly eat. There are myriad possible reasons why they eat it. Optimal tastiness is an assumption.

I think we serve others best by encouraging them to make very open-minded n=1 trials about tastiness, because AFAIK science hasn't much touched that question.

Geese walk like ducks, more or less. They aren't ducks.

psychod787 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.

The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1

You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?

Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.

I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.

But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.

I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.

Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)

I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.

As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".

Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).

:drinker:

Possible, but another hypothesis is protein leverage. While the diets in Kevin hall's study were roughly the same per gram, it actually took less food to reach that "magic" 15% protein that "seems" to be the norm in tribal diets.

Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.

In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.

Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?

I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.

No Anne, no answers for anything, just hypothesis. Though as the saying goes, If it walks like a duck.... get my drift?😏

Yeahbut: You finding processed food tastier doesn't mean it's tastier. And my finding it less tasty doesn't mean it's less tasty. There aren't universals in that space. It doesn't even matter what the average is . . . but no one has even demonstrated averages yet. They're being assumed.

We see what people commonly eat. There are myriad possible reasons why they eat it. Optimal tastiness is an assumption.

I think we serve others best by encouraging them to make very open-minded n=1 trials about tastiness, because AFAIK science hasn't much touched that question.

Geese walk like ducks, more or less. They aren't ducks.

Well Anne, unfortunately on a calorie counting website, you have to show evidence of your statements. Especially when they venture outside the "mainstream". As far as tastes, that's a very cultural thing. What we find tastier in the say, USA in my case, a French person may find horrid. Though, if we look inside of what goes into the individual cultures taste, we tend to find similar things. Caloric density, absence of bitter flavors, fat, and carbs. When OP is complaining of hunger, showing someone an alternative idea is all one can do. I am stating to be "open". Though when one is looking at the "elephant" so to speak, one must look at ot from all angles. Oh Anne... I question almost everything these days.. lol😁 you know i like you as well..

Dear sir, I believe you made the first leap in your post about the Hall study, when you said (what I bolded) "Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet.", specifically in what I italicized in this most recent quoting.

Unless you're assigning a remarkably broad intepretation to reward value?

I believe the Hall study didn't find that participants found the unprocessed diet more palatable, more filling, or that it took longer to eat so feelings of satiation had more time to set in (among other theoretically possible interpretations). The study concluded that people ate more calories of the unprocessed food, ad libitum. It didn't decisively conclude a "why", as far as I can see (though protein leverage hypothesis was cited as an unconfirmed potential contributor):

Participants did not report significant differences in the pleasantness (4.8±3.1; p=0.13)
or familiarity (2.7±4.6; p=0.57) of the meals between the ultra-processed and
unprocessed diets as measured using 100-point visual analogue scales (Figure 2D).
This suggests that the observed energy intake differences were not due to greater
palatability or familiarity of the ultra-processed diet. Furthermore, differences in the
energy intake-adjusted scores for hunger (-1.7±2.5; p=0.5), fullness (1.1±2.5; p=0.67),
satisfaction (1.9±2.4; p=0.42), and capacity to eat (-2.9±2.5; p=0.25) (Figures 2E) were
not significant between the diets suggesting that they did not differ in their subjective
appetitive properties.

That actually comes perilously close to suggesting that perhaps palatability and satiation were not the reasons, but it was a subjective assessment (not sure how one would get an objective one. . . fMRI? ).

Your prisoner (or whatever) point seems a little iffy on similar terms, because I suspect you don't know whether it's universally "far less rewarding than what they had on the outside" (though I'm sure many would say so). You're the expert in that realm. But it makes me think of the young man, someone I knew personally in college, who thought that the dorm cafeteria food was the best yummy goodness ever, because his mother had been a truly execrable cook.

And in free-living conditions, I think lemurcat12 has made a good point about convenience and availability.

Burden of proof on you, IMO: I think I made no particular claims. I disputed the generality of (what I perceived to be) your claim, using my n=1 as an individual counterexample.

And, once again, I think we agree on the core advice to OP: It would make sense to try some food choices with more protein. What she's eating now doesn't seem profoundly ultraprocessed to me, but there are alternatives to some of her current choices that might be less so, thus might be worth trying. I believe you also had a point about first-worlders benefitting from toughing out hunger more often . . . I'm neutral on that one, as a generality, though as a bit of a hedonist, I'd prefer not to participate in the experiment, given a choice.

As an aside, apologies for duplicating some content and messing up quote tags in one of my PP. I have the delusion that I've fixed that in the embedded quotes in this post.