The eating habits of our ancestors - they were always thin [Archive]

View Full Version : The eating habits of our ancestors - they were always thin

Jacklinger

11-01-2009, 08:29 AM

As a fat person who's devoted much more time to the subject of obesity than I ever would have wanted to, I can't help but think about how the problem simply didn't exist in pre-industrial times. Have you ever wondered why people back then just stayed thin no matter what they ate? Chunkiness was so rare that it was even considered exotic and attractive. The oldest known stone carving shows an overweight woman, possibly pregnant, but definately F-A-T fat. There would be no reason for neo-lithics to carve such an image unless they thought it was special.

Look at the art we are producing today. When our descendants, 5000 years from now, dig up a magazine shop from 2009, they would be convinced by the pictures that there was not a single fat person in existance at this time. I've often thought about how confounded my ancestors might be, if they knew I was obsessed with fatness and could not lose weight. They would say "How did you get fat? Seriously? We thought it was impossible, you must be blessed!" And my response would be, "Diabetes, alienation, and a markedly shortened lifespan, is hardly a blessing."

But why was it so hard for pre-industrites to get fat and so easy for me? It's not like I woke up thin one morning and said, "OK, I'm not sure if I can do this, but I'm going to try my hardest to get as fat as I can no matter what it takes!" Fat just happens these days. Right? ... What's that about a lifestyle choice? Do thin people make a lifestyle choice to be thin? No, they don't (ask the annorexics). Pre-industrites made no lifestyle choices pertaining to food unless it concerend superstitions such as using garlic to ward off curses. And they may argue that it worked amazingly well too, just as modern folk will swear that counting calories and 30 minute workouts are all you need to do to be healthy forever. Yet as the average weight of the world continues to balloon, we still hear the same song and dance from health experts even though it only leads to failure.

Simply put, pre-industrites were all thin because:
1. Their food sucked. There was no refridgeration and getting fresh food daily was impossible. The only way to preserve food was to salt it, or dry it out. Ever heard of tac? No? Then you're lucky. It was a common staple before farming and grain storage tech allowed us to produce fresh bread year round. Imagine baking a slice of bread in low heat until it was as hard as a stone. Then wrap it in a cloth and stow it in a cabinet for 3 months. Then eat it. That's tac. If you wanted meat, you would probably be eating salted pork. Forget beef, it was for rich people who could afford to milk their cows and eat them too. Chicken was only available if you had too many chickens. And the pre-industrial version of fast food was, vegetables. Vegetables can grow in almost any soil and nearly every household had a vegetable garden, or bought cheap veggies from a neighbor that grew them. Seeds were cheap, soil was everywhere. Just add water and wait a few weeks. If you were really hungry, just go outside and pull up a carrot. So getting your veggies was easy, because in many cases, that's all there was. How heavy would you be if all you had to eat were cabbage, tac, and salted pork?

2. Their were no machines. If an object had to be moved any amount of distance through space, you had to do it. Whether it was your own body that needed to get to town, or clothes that needed to pass through soapy water, you did it, or it didn't happen. The act or procuring food itself might require a bit of harvesting and butchering, then cooking, before you were ready to sit down and eat. There were no dish washers, no clothes washers, no dryers, no cars, and the only source of entertainment was sports or lurid gossip, both of which involved alot more moving around. No one joined a gym. No one had trouble finding time to exersize. Because all times were times to exersize or else you simply couldn't live your life. Now, we have machines that do everything. We even have machines that are supposed to help us exersize! Seems like that defeats the purpose but I do like watching a movie while using my eliptical. So I have a machine to occupy my legs and another machine, a DVD player, to occupy my brain while I suffer through a boring hour of exersize. I continued this routine daily until I finally moved closer to my work and began walking to work everyday. I'm much less bored on the walk to work for some reason than I am on my machine and I only have to worry about making myself work out on the weekends now.

So, we're basically getting fat because we got really good at handing off most physical labor to machines, especially refridgerators and microwaves which are happy to produce anything we want to taste almost instantly. I don't think it has anything to do with modern DNA, or lifestyle choices, or emotional problems (except for some cases). If we could extract a pre-industrite with a time machine and bring them to our time, they would also probably gain weight as they scarfed down steaks, burgers, fried starches, ice cream, and then sat entranced in front of a TV for hours on end. The human brain was not meant to be kept near so much convenience. It was designed to endure moderate hardships. It was designed, sadly, to suffer in a certain way, that triggers pre-programmed rewards and behavioral cues that helped us stay motivated to live even in the midst of adversity and strife. Without that steady negative reinforcement, apparently, life gets boring, we get fat, and then get hit with a different kind of negative reinforcement that the brain does not like, alienation.

In ancient times, alienation was a death sentence. No individual could survive alone. The group was everything. If the majority of the group didn't like you, you might be expelled and were left to die in the wilderness. Obviously, no one is going to burst into my apartment and take me 100 miles away to the mountains and leave me there, but my primal mind thinks it could happen and is constantly stinging me to become more acceptable, using unhappiness endorphines, like a slave driver cracking a whip. It's quite painful, as most of you already know. Other forms of punishment might be bad, such as a beating or temporary ostracization, but that was somewhat endurable, because there was always a hug at the end. "We hate what you did but we still love you, hug time!" But alienation had no hug at the end, unless you count the cold embrace of the wind that slowly drained the heat and life from your body. And even when we describe alienation today, we use words like "cold" and "desolate."

So what do we do to make our brains like us again? Become Amish? Eschew all mechanical assistance and live on a farm? Even the Amish are beginning to gain weight these days, and no one knows for certain why that is (though they are still mostly very slender and fit people). A few of us could do that without any problems, but what if everyone did it? Our civilization would revert to pre-industrial status and without modern machines and medicines and even modern mass food production, millions would die. Maybe we should just try to sneak more physical activity into our mechanized life? Scrub the floors more often? Take the cat for a walk, even though it's a cat? Do some laundry by hand? Walk to work or school instead of driving? Even if we did all that, there's still the problem of having whatever we want to eat at our fingertips. So what do we do about that? Make it a crime for fat people to buy fast food and TV dinners? Rediculous (though some politicians are trying to propose a fat tax).

Perhaps you will come to a different conclusion, but after 19 years of dieting and failing, I've come to the conlusion there is only one real solution: self-imposed starvation. Recently, I began denying myself food with a death wish, because I am dying. My weight is killing me. The alienation is killing me. I'm not technically annorexic because I still eat about 1700 calories a day, but for someone who used to eat about 4000 per day, it feels like starvation. I've just decided not to trust my hunger anymore. I only eat when I can audibly hear my stomach growl, so that way I know for certain it's ok to have some food. But I can have hunger pangs hours before that happens. They become very intense. So I may think about how my ancestors would have reacted to a similar situation. In pre-industrial times, "I am hungry but 1. my food sucks and 2. it would take too much work to prepare it anyway, so maybe I'll just have some coffee for now and eat later"; versus "I am hungry, and there's a McDonald's half a mile away with my name on it, time for 3 big macs and a coke."

So I think, "hunger is inevitable, but only growls must be fed." This is my new mantra. My ancestors did not have the luxury to feed their pangs whenever they happened, and so I have to assume a similar posture. I still can't avoid buying foods that I really like, but I have so far been able to avoid eating every time I get hungry, and I'm hungry all the time. I'm trying to just accept that hunger is something I have to feel always, or else I will die. I call it my divorce from food and am now going through the mourning that happens after a divorce. I feel sad and tired alot, but have built up a resilience to such feelings after 19 years of alienation. Now I'm having a trist with Mrs. Coffee, no sugar, light cream of course -- a trick I picked up from annorexics to help deal with excessive hunger.

So what's the end assertion of this big long post? Starve or give up, I guess. All humans starved. Starving is actually normal when taken into historical consideration. Yes, I've talked to doctors, they're stumped. Yes, I've talked to nutritionists, they're mostly frauds. I will just starve until someone invents a perfect appetite supressant, which hopefully won't take many more years.

lovebexs

11-01-2009, 01:56 PM

that was very interesting.
it's definitely true that our modern day lifestyles allow us to be much more sedentary than people were in the past days.. many people rarely walk, they just drive about and others never eat home-cooked meals, they just buy pre-made junk :[ it's kind of sad, actually

Static

11-01-2009, 03:21 PM

You should read this book, it's called "In defense of food" by Michael Pollan.
I think you'd get a lot out of it.

Vision Thing

11-01-2009, 03:59 PM

Vision Thing

11-01-2009, 04:00 PM

Simply put, pre-industrites were all thin because:
1. Their food sucked. There was no refridgeration and getting fresh food daily was impossible. The only way to preserve food was to salt it, or dry it out. Ever heard of tac? No? Then you're lucky. It was a common staple before farming and grain storage tech allowed us to produce fresh bread year round. Imagine baking a slice of bread in low heat until it was as hard as a stone. Then wrap it in a cloth and stow it in a cabinet for 3 months. Then eat it. That's tac. If you wanted meat, you would probably be eating salted pork. Forget beef, it was for rich people who could afford to milk their cows and eat them too. Chicken was only available if you had too many chickens. And the pre-industrial version of fast food was, vegetables. Vegetables can grow in almost any soil and nearly every household had a vegetable garden, or bought cheap veggies from a neighbor that grew them. Seeds were cheap, soil was everywhere. Just add water and wait a few weeks. If you were really hungry, just go outside and pull up a carrot. So getting your veggies was easy, because in many cases, that's all there was. How heavy would you be if all you had to eat were cabbage, tac, and salted pork?

2. Their were no machines. If an object had to be moved any amount of distance through space, you had to do it. Whether it was your own body that needed to get to town, or clothes that needed to pass through soapy water, you did it, or it didn't happen. The act or procuring food itself might require a bit of harvesting and butchering, then cooking, before you were ready to sit down and eat. There were no dish washers, no clothes washers, no dryers, no cars, and the only source of entertainment was sports or lurid gossip, both of which involved alot more moving around. No one joined a gym. No one had trouble finding time to exersize. Because all times were times to exersize or else you simply couldn't live your life. Now, we have machines that do everything. We even have machines that are supposed to help us exersize! Seems like that defeats the purpose but I do like watching a movie while using my eliptical. So I have a machine to occupy my legs and another machine, a DVD player, to occupy my brain while I suffer through a boring hour of exersize. I continued this routine daily until I finally moved closer to my work and began walking to work everyday. I'm much less bored on the walk to work for some reason than I am on my machine and I only have to worry about making myself work out on the weekends now.

This is sadly true. Also, there was more economic benefit for farmers and people who worked on the land.

So, we're basically getting fat because we got really good at handing off most physical labor to machines, especially refridgerators and microwaves which are happy to produce anything we want to taste almost instantly. I don't think it has anything to do with modern DNA, or lifestyle choices, or emotional problems (except for some cases). If we could extract a pre-industrite with a time machine and bring them to our time, they would also probably gain weight as they scarfed down steaks, burgers, fried starches, ice cream, and then sat entranced in front of a TV for hours on end. The human brain was not meant to be kept near so much convenience. It was designed to endure moderate hardships. It was designed, sadly, to suffer in a certain way, that triggers pre-programmed rewards and behavioral cues that helped us stay motivated to live even in the midst of adversity and strife. Without that steady negative reinforcement, apparently, life gets boring, we get fat, and then get hit with a different kind of negative reinforcement that the brain does not like, alienation.

I think it has everything to do with lifestyle choices. Who says you have to sit down? Who says you have to eat junk food? Just because it's consistently advertised doesn't make it right to do. It's the path of convenience, and most people choose this because it is easy. And easiness isn't necessarily correct.

But yes, we were designed to be physically active and face hardship. But not to "suffer". Why would evolution set us up for suffering, as you said, to set us up for failure? That would wipe out a species. We're set up to cope with a variety of environments, and have adapted to them. But now that we've adapted to the 'modern environment', our natural bodily functions cannot remain balanced.

Vision Thing

11-01-2009, 04:01 PM

In ancient times, alienation was a death sentence. No individual could survive alone. The group was everything. If the majority of the group didn't like you, you might be expelled and were left to die in the wilderness. Obviously, no one is going to burst into my apartment and take me 100 miles away to the mountains and leave me there, but my primal mind thinks it could happen and is constantly stinging me to become more acceptable, using unhappiness endorphines, like a slave driver cracking a whip. It's quite painful, as most of you already know. Other forms of punishment might be bad, such as a beating or temporary ostracization, but that was somewhat endurable, because there was always a hug at the end. "We hate what you did but we still love you, hug time!" But alienation had no hug at the end, unless you count the cold embrace of the wind that slowly drained the heat and life from your body. And even when we describe alienation today, we use words like "cold" and "desolate."

As a species of primate, we do depend on the nourishment of love and support from a social group. And people will isolate those that do not live up to their standards. This includes grossly overweight people.

And essentially, what's wrong with that? Obese people eat more food, draining the precious resources of the planet. They require additional bed space in tax-payer funded hospitals and ambulances, increasing the cost to society. Overweight mothers have a greater chance of miscarriage, which just suggests that you don't care about having a healthy baby, you just want to eat. No one wants to be around someone who is going to cause them undue hardship.

So what do we do to make our brains like us again? Become Amish? Eschew all mechanical assistance and live on a farm? Even the Amish are beginning to gain weight these days, and no one knows for certain why that is (though they are still mostly very slender and fit people). A few of us could do that without any problems, but what if everyone did it? Our civilization would revert to pre-industrial status and without modern machines and medicines and even modern mass food production, millions would die. Maybe we should just try to sneak more physical activity into our mechanized life? Scrub the floors more often? Take the cat for a walk, even though it's a cat? Do some laundry by hand? Walk to work or school instead of driving? Even if we did all that, there's still the problem of having whatever we want to eat at our fingertips. So what do we do about that? Make it a crime for fat people to buy fast food and TV dinners? Rediculous (though some politicians are trying to propose a fat tax).

Our brains will always like us if you do what's right by it. In short, yes, do all the physical exercise you suggested. What wrong or unusual with it? Nothing. Who cares if it's not the most modern thing to do? Do it anyway.

You have overlooked the fact of the economic benefit food brings. Think of the row in your supermarket dedicated to junk food. Why is a whole ROW necessary? I don't see what's wrong with turning that entire aisle into a small section with one brand of chips, one brand of chocolate ect. If it's not available, people won't eat it.

And would a 'fat tax' not offset the huge burden overweight people are upon our society?

Perhaps you will come to a different conclusion, but after 19 years of dieting and failing, I've come to the conlusion there is only one real solution: self-imposed starvation. Recently, I began denying myself food with a death wish, because I am dying. My weight is killing me. The alienation is killing me. I'm not technically annorexic because I still eat about 1700 calories a day, but for someone who used to eat about 4000 per day, it feels like starvation. I've just decided not to trust my hunger anymore. I only eat when I can audibly hear my stomach growl, so that way I know for certain it's ok to have some food. But I can have hunger pangs hours before that happens. They become very intense. So I may think about how my ancestors would have reacted to a similar situation. In pre-industrial times, "I am hungry but 1. my food sucks and 2. it would take too much work to prepare it anyway, so maybe I'll just have some coffee for now and eat later"; versus "I am hungry, and there's a McDonald's half a mile away with my name on it, time for 3 big macs and a coke."

No. You are absoulutely ignorant if you think starvation is the only way. If you have been trying for NINETEEN YEARS, do you not think it's something based upon your mindset? It is because you see everything as a 'diet'. You see a 'modern diet' and a 'pre-industrial diet'. This is not the case. You need to begin to look at your LIFESTYLE.

Most men need 2500 cals a day to live, or 17500 a week. If you change your eating to 2000 cals a day, you can lose a pound a week. That's five meals a day, 400 cals each.

Go through your house. Donate all unhealthy foods to a charity food bin or soup kitchen. Get exercise by cleaning up all the cupboards thouroughly and vaccum up all the floors. Open the windows and let in some fresh air. Bet that makes you feel good?

Then, plan your meals. Go shopping one day a week, and make it a habit. You'll become more nutritionally aware. Aim for breakfast being high-carb for energy, lunch being high-fibre for health, and dinner being high-protein for strength. It's common sense and it's not hard to do. It takes about 3-4 weeks of certain actions becoming habit, and there you go. A lifestyle. And it really is that easy if you can work your mind into that state.

People in pre-industrial times did not react the way you implied. Many had no/little food to begin with. I'm nearly 18, and I know that people of my grandparents generation, having being around in the war when rationing was abundant, have completely different attitudes to food. You were LUCKY to be able to eat a filling meal in that time.

Vision Thing

11-01-2009, 04:03 PM

So I think, "hunger is inevitable, but only growls must be fed." This is my new mantra. My ancestors did not have the luxury to feed their pangs whenever they happened, and so I have to assume a similar posture. I still can't avoid buying foods that I really like, but I have so far been able to avoid eating every time I get hungry, and I'm hungry all the time. I'm trying to just accept that hunger is something I have to feel always, or else I will die. I call it my divorce from food and am now going through the mourning that happens after a divorce. I feel sad and tired alot, but have built up a resilience to such feelings after 19 years of alienation. Now I'm having a trist with Mrs. Coffee, no sugar, light cream of course -- a trick I picked up from annorexics to help deal with excessive hunger.

If you are "sad and tired", do you really think you are doing the best by your body? No. You are trying to blame your weight issues on the essence of humanity - 'oh our ancestors did things in way X and now in modern times we do things in way Y therefore its all the fault of modern times boo hoo'. NO. It is your lack of control and mental attitudes that is a barrier to your weight loss. This is why binge eating and compulsive overeating fit in the same catergory of eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia.

How far will the anorexic tips take you, in reality? Not all that far. Problem with coffee? Simply don't drink it or have tea instead. Dissasociate food with emotions that make you feel good, and you will have control.

So what's the end assertion of this big long post? Starve or give up, I guess. All humans starved. Starving is actually normal when taken into historical consideration. Yes, I've talked to doctors, they're stumped. Yes, I've talked to nutritionists, they're mostly frauds. I will just starve until someone invents a perfect appetite supressant, which hopefully won't take many more years.

Starving is not "normal", but a byproduct of living in a pre-modern environment in which humans were hunters and scavengers. Again, your mental attitude is wrong. You are convinced that doctor's don't know anything. Wrong. You go to a nutritionist with the preconcieved notions that they are defrauding you. Wrong. You want to turn to drugs to help you? Wrong!

Do you think you will ever learn in that way? No. Teach your body healthy habits, and you have to open yourself up to the right people. There are good nutritionists and dieticians out there, so go do your research. You're setting yourself up for failure if you've already got these preconcieved ideas of how weightloss 'should' or 'shouldn't' be.

Seeing you're so keep to look at the humanistic aspects of a pre-modern lifestyle in order to understand weight loss, how about you look at the humanistic growth of the child. If a child is taught that hitting people is bad, then they are less likely to do it. If they are taught that saying 'please' is a good thing, they are likely to do it. things that happen in this learning period of life tend to stay with people forever.

So, if you have 'good' values instilled within you, then you are more likely to do the 'correct' thing (apostrophes because things that are 'good' are relative to personal morals and ethics). So you need to find someone to help change your mental state into being able to make the right dietary choices for you. I said it was simple, but it's not easy. You need to be able to do this for yourself, and I really don't think all that many people here will be able to truly help you. Again, you need a healthy lifestyle, not a 'pre-industrial starvation diet'.

Jacklinger

11-01-2009, 05:11 PM

As a species of primate, we do depend on the nourishment of love and support from a social group. And people will isolate those that do not live up to their standards. This includes grossly overweight people.

And essentially, what's wrong with that? Obese people eat more food, draining the precious resources of the planet. They require additional bed space in tax-payer funded hospitals and ambulances, increasing the cost to society. Overweight mothers have a greater chance of miscarriage, which just suggests that you don't care about having a healthy baby, you just want to eat. No one wants to be around someone who is going to cause them undue hardship.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong or right about alienation. I'm just explaining that it exists as a source of negative reinforcement that is not as construtctive as other forms of negative reinforcement. I think you're reading judgement and morality calls from my post that I didn't intend.

Our brains will always like us if you do what's right by it. In short, yes, do all the physical exercise you suggested. What wrong or unusual with it? Nothing. Who cares if it's not the most modern thing to do? Do it anyway.

You have overlooked the fact of the economic benefit food brings. Think of the row in your supermarket dedicated to junk food. Why is a whole ROW necessary? I don't see what's wrong with turning that entire aisle into a small section with one brand of chips, one brand of chocolate ect. If it's not available, people won't eat it.

And would a 'fat tax' not offset the huge burden overweight people are upon our society?

You're missing the point again. I already do large amounts of physical exersize. I exersize 6+ hours per week and used to exersize 12 hours or more. I had to decrease my exersize because it was destroying my joints, yet I had almost no weight loss to speak of. And no, my brain still didn't like me.

The reason why supermarkets have junk food is because people buy them. Supermarkets are designed to make profits like any other business. Take away people's food choices and you will be hurting the economy more than helping anyone lose weight.

A fat tax is going to hit think people more than fats because thin people eat junk food too, while fat people waste billions on "healthy alternatives". And if we could get a government that would stop trying to bring about a socialist utopia then other people's food choices wouldn't matter to you, requiring no need for a fat tax.

No. You are absoulutely ignorant if you think starvation is the only way. If you have been trying for NINETEEN YEARS, do you not think it's something based upon your mindset? It is because you see everything as a 'diet'. You see a 'modern diet' and a 'pre-industrial diet'. This is not the case. You need to begin to look at your LIFESTYLE.

Most men need 2500 cals a day to live, or 17500 a week. If you change your eating to 2000 cals a day, you can lose a pound a week. That's five meals a day, 400 cals each.

Go through your house. Donate all unhealthy foods to a charity food bin or soup kitchen. Get exercise by cleaning up all the cupboards thouroughly and vaccum up all the floors. Open the windows and let in some fresh air. Bet that makes you feel good?

Then, plan your meals. Go shopping one day a week, and make it a habit. You'll become more nutritionally aware. Aim for breakfast being high-carb for energy, lunch being high-fibre for health, and dinner being high-protein for strength. It's common sense and it's not hard to do. It takes about 3-4 weeks of certain actions becoming habit, and there you go. A lifestyle. And it really is that easy if you can work your mind into that state.

People in pre-industrial times did not react the way you implied. Many had no/little food to begin with. I'm nearly 18, and I know that people of my grandparents generation, having being around in the war when rationing was abundant, have completely different attitudes to food. You were LUCKY to be able to eat a filling meal in that time.

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not focusing on moral or ethical issues around eating but merely raw chemical brain responses. Everything you have suggested, I have tried, and the point is that it still feels like starvation even if it isn't. So when I say we have to just starve, I meant that to include following a "healthy lifestyle." People seem to think if we fats just would stop everything and eat like they do that we would be happy and thin. Here's a news break: we don't do that because it feels like starvation. Eating 2000 calories feels the same as eating zero calories for most of us fats. So that's what I meant by "just starve." It's as if the brain refuses to recognize the first 2000 calories of the day and still tells itself it's hungry until it gets double that.

I went on to propose that this strange mechanism existed in pre-industrial times as well, but it failed to cause excessive eating in the average person because flavorful fresh food was not readibly accessible like it is today. So those people just sat and starved mostly and considered that "normal."

Static

11-01-2009, 05:25 PM

I was going to multiquote half of everything that's been posted so far. Then I realized I can sum it up in a much shorter response:

(Applause)

Vision Thing

11-01-2009, 07:02 PM

You're missing the point again. I already do large amounts of physical exersize. I exersize 6+ hours per week and used to exersize 12 hours or more. I had to decrease my exersize because it was destroying my joints, yet I had almost no weight loss to speak of. And no, my brain still didn't like me.

You didn't mention this in your OP. I can think of a number of things why it still may not work:
- You did not do the right kinds of exercise. Just like you have your certain food groups, there is different exercises that you need to do to maximise your weight loss.
- You did too much exercise. You always need a balance. Even too much of a good thing is harmful, as you can see with your worn out joints.
- You don't seem to have a professional look at your exercise plan, you may need this to discuss why you aren't losing weight with exercise and changed eating patterns.

The reason why supermarkets have junk food is because people buy them. Supermarkets are designed to make profits like any other business. Take away people's food choices and you will be hurting the economy more than helping anyone lose weight.

A fat tax is going to hit think people more than fats because thin people eat junk food too, while fat people waste billions on "healthy alternatives". And if we could get a government that would stop trying to bring about a socialist utopia then other people's food choices wouldn't matter to you, requiring no need for a fat tax.

Supermarkets existed before junk food did! You cannot say that supermarkets exist solely to provide one sort of food. If the government increased farming (increasing jobs, and supporting local food as we would not have to import as much), we would have many economic benefits. Supermarkets would then compete as to who could provide the freshest produce, allowing a sound buisness market.

Why should people have a food choice in relation to 'unhealthy foods'? Obviously with overeating, there is a lack of control with foods, so by not providing junk food, it cannot be eaten.

A fat tax would not provide a socialist utopia. It would remind people living in democratic nations that as well as having rights (e.g. the right to eat what they want) they must have responsibilities (e.g. maintaining a healthy weight so as not to impact upon not only the lives of others but to themselves).

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not focusing on moral or ethical issues around eating but merely raw chemical brain responses. Everything you have suggested, I have tried, and the point is that it still feels like starvation even if it isn't. So when I say we have to just starve, I meant that to include following a "healthy lifestyle." People seem to think if we fats just would stop everything and eat like they do that we would be happy and thin. Here's a news break: we don't do that because it feels like starvation. Eating 2000 calories feels the same as eating zero calories for most of us fats. So that's what I meant by "just starve." It's as if the brain refuses to recognize the first 2000 calories of the day and still tells itself it's hungry until it gets double that.

But now you are using 'the brain's mechanisms' as your excuse. If the brain worked that way for everyone, wouldn't we all be overweight? Brains are trained into actions that become repetitive cycles of behaviour. If you encourage a better lifestyle, and maintain it both mentally and physically, then you should have no problem losing weight unless you have a very extreme disorder.

You have not been losing weight due to the fat that you cannot attain that perfect mental mode. Exercise, diet and good sleep will help, but it seems your issue is deeply psychological if none of these changes work.

I went on to propose that this strange mechanism existed in pre-industrial times as well, but it failed to cause excessive eating in the average person because flavorful fresh food was not readibly accessible like it is today. So those people just sat and starved mostly and considered that "normal."

People did not sit and starve. That is a ludicrous idea. You keep linking the notion of 'pre-modern eating' to 'starving'. This is not so. Pre-modern diets were based off opportunistic hunting. If you had food, you would stuff yourself with it and build up fat reserves in order to burn this off until you were able to hunt another meal.

Additionally, in pre-modern times, food was not linked to health, beauty, weight-loss, fitness and emotions. It was, and still should be seen as a means to survive. Can I ask........

What sort of support group do you have? E.g. family, girlfriend, friends?
What professionals have you seen over your 19 year period?
What do you hope to achieve by frequenting an ED site?
Where do you see yourself in 5 years?

Vision Thing

11-01-2009, 07:05 PM

I was going to multiquote half of everything that's been posted so far. Then I realized I can sum it up in a much shorter response:

(Applause)

What do you mean? Am I doing by stubbon schtick again? Sorry :(

Jacklinger

11-01-2009, 08:37 PM

You didn't mention this in your OP. I can think of a number of things why it still may not work:
- You did not do the right kinds of exercise. Just like you have your certain food groups, there is different exercises that you need to do to maximise your weight loss.
- You did too much exercise. You always need a balance. Even too much of a good thing is harmful, as you can see with your worn out joints.
- You don't seem to have a professional look at your exercise plan, you may need this to discuss why you aren't losing weight with exercise and changed eating patterns.

I did the following exersizes = cardio and weight lifting. That's really the only 2 kinds of exersizes there are. The myth that changing your routine burns extra calories is carried by personal trainers that need to keep themselves marketable. But ask a doctor if that's true. It isn't. Doctors almost always recomend walking. I have used professionals both in person and by reading their books. It rarely works.

Supermarkets existed before junk food did! You cannot say that supermarkets exist solely to provide one sort of food. If the government increased farming (increasing jobs, and supporting local food as we would not have to import as much), we would have many economic benefits. Supermarkets would then compete as to who could provide the freshest produce, allowing a sound buisness market.

I never said supermarkets exist solely to provide on sort of food. I said they exist to make money. Government intervention, outside of enforcing base-line regulations, rarely has the results that are intended. Creating new farms should largely be up to the farmers. I am against the grain and sugar subsidies that farmers get however. One of the reasons high calorie bready foods are so cheap is because of these subsidies. Supermarkets already procure fresh produce at low costs, but you can't force people to buy it.

Why should people have a food choice in relation to 'unhealthy foods'? Obviously with overeating, there is a lack of control with foods, so by not providing junk food, it cannot be eaten.

Because people should have choices, period. We don't need authorities deciding how we are to live. That's called fascism. If you banned junk food, who gets to decide what's junk and what isn't? How do you keep people from making donuts unless you banned flower, sugar, and water? What you're suggesting is not just nanny-state tyranical, but unconstitutional as well.

A fat tax would not provide a socialist utopia. It would remind people living in democratic nations that as well as having rights (e.g. the right to eat what they want) they must have responsibilities (e.g. maintaining a healthy weight so as not to impact upon not only the lives of others but to themselves).

Freedom cannot be freedom unless it includes the freedom to destroy oneself. I would rather have an evil tyrant scaring me into submission every now and then, because at least he would get tired or bored and give me reprieve. But a benevolant watcher that kept me under scrutiny to make sure I didn't hurt myself would be an Orwelian hell that I don't like to think about.

But now you are using 'the brain's mechanisms' as your excuse. If the brain worked that way for everyone, wouldn't we all be overweight? Brains are trained into actions that become repetitive cycles of behaviour. If you encourage a better lifestyle, and maintain it both mentally and physically, then you should have no problem losing weight unless you have a very extreme disorder.

The brain does not work that way for everyone. Our brains are slightly different by each individual. We don't really understand how the brain does what it does in detail. If maintaining a "healthy" lifestyle is so easy for everyone, then why does it fail 95% of the time? Are fat people really so inept? Or is it that it just doesn't work?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You have not been losing weight due to the fat that you cannot attain that perfect mental mode. Exercise, diet and good sleep will help, but it seems your issue is deeply psychological if none of these changes work.

I've lost nearly 1000 pounds over the past 19 years. The problem is I've gained about 1050 pounds. I would lose 20 or so pounds, then gain 21 back. Once I lost 100 pounds and inevitably, gained it all back plus more. Before I tried any weight loss, dieting, exersizing at all, I weight 250 pounds. Now after so many years of up and down yo-yo dieting, visiting dieticians and gyms, I now weigh 280 pounds. So after all my troubles I have 30 more pounds to show for it.

What is this "perfect mental mode?" It seems to be a magical condition that you get to set so that no matter how hard we try, you can always say "you didn't get your perfect mental mode, that's why you failed." What if I said you had to maintain a perfect mental mode before you could get a drivers license? Or buy a house? How would you ever know you succeded?

As for deep psychological reasons, I supose that might be a cause if you consider hunger as psychological. I don't eat because I'm sad, or happy, or bored. I eat because I'm hungry. That's it. Is it because someone was mean to me in my past? Or is it a spiritual ireconciliation? Sounds like I'm lacking the "perfect mental mode."

People did not sit and starve.

Yes they did.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(Ireland)

And here's a more complete list of famines:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That is a ludicrous idea. You keep linking the notion of 'pre-modern eating' to 'starving'. This is not so. Pre-modern diets were based off opportunistic hunting. If you had food, you would stuff yourself with it and build up fat reserves in order to burn this off until you were able to hunt another meal.

So, building up fat reserves and then not being able to eat until your next kill is not starving, how?

Additionally, in pre-modern times, food was not linked to health, beauty, weight-loss, fitness and emotions.

I never said it was.

It was, and still should be seen as a means to survive.

So why do you want to ban it?

Can I ask........

What sort of support group do you have? E.g. family, girlfriend, friends?
What professionals have you seen over your 19 year period?
What do you hope to achieve by frequenting an ED site?
Where do you see yourself in 5 years?

I don't attend group therapy anymore. I made some friends from it but never lost any weight. My family constantly bugs me to lose weight and say they will help me any way they can, but I don't know what that could be. I've seen several doctors and a few dieticians and trainers, as well as reading the literature written by many self-help gurus. At some point you have to begin questioning their techniques when they have 95% failure rate. My current doctor admits he has no idea why I'm experiencing excessive hunger even with my diabetes under control. All he can do is recommend gastric bypass surgeons, but even that has a high recidivism rate.

I'm here to get information. I wrote about this in my very post on the annorexia forum. I'm not sure how to link to it here, but you can still see it near the bottom of the first page.

In 5 years, I have no idea where I'll be. 5 years is a long time. Anything can happen.

Vision Thing

11-01-2009, 09:32 PM

I did the following exersizes = cardio and weight lifting. That's really the only 2 kinds of exersizes there are. The myth that changing your routine burns extra calories is carried by personal trainers that need to keep themselves marketable. But ask a doctor if that's true. It isn't. Doctors almost always recomend walking. I have used professionals both in person and by reading their books. It rarely works.

I didn't mean having a routine as such, but a variety. I think there's another type also, flexibility exercises e.g. pilates.

I have a difficult time believing that doctors can help everyone else but you. There will be medical abnormalities on occasion, but I find it very strange that every single person thaht you have gone to and every single book you've read over 19 years hasn't helped at all.

I never said supermarkets exist solely to provide on sort of food. I said they exist to make money. Government intervention, outside of enforcing base-line regulations, rarely has the results that are intended. Creating new farms should largely be up to the farmers. I am against the grain and sugar subsidies that farmers get however. One of the reasons high calorie bready foods are so cheap is because of these subsidies. Supermarkets already procure fresh produce at low costs, but you can't force people to buy it.

True, but once it is the only food available to buy, people will buy it. Governments are aimed at promoting the best interests of peoples, so why should it disregard our personal health?

Obviously in relation to the freedom thing, our personal morals and ethics differ. I'm talking about banning highly processed junk foods. People can still makes cakes and bisuits and whatever at home in the oven. I just don't think things like that should be provided with a mass market, but if people want to make the odd treat, that's no problem at all.

I do agree with what you said though on some things. I do realise my view is a bit more 'idealist', and would lack necessary enforceability, so obviously any potential law is on shakey ground there already.

The brain does not work that way for everyone. Our brains are slightly different by each individual. We don't really understand how the brain does what it does in detail. If maintaining a "healthy" lifestyle is so easy for everyone, then why does it fail 95% of the time? Are fat people really so inept? Or is it that it just doesn't work?

I've lost nearly 1000 pounds over the past 19 years. The problem is I've gained about 1050 pounds. I would lose 20 or so pounds, then gain 21 back. Once I lost 100 pounds and inevitably, gained it all back plus more. Before I tried any weight loss, dieting, exersizing at all, I weight 250 pounds. Now after so many years of up and down yo-yo dieting, visiting dieticians and gyms, I now weigh 280 pounds. So after all my troubles I have 30 more pounds to show for it.

Yes, each individual is different. It doesn't fail 95% of the time, I don't even think that's a real statistic. I didn't say it was easy, I said it was simple. With the proper medical attention, this has almost always been the case. Anyone under a professionally supervised diet plan I've ever heard of has lost weight. And you know what they started to put back on weight? When they ignored the plan, lost motivation, lost control. And that's why eating is psychological, and why you need a psychologist. Just look at the weights you've showed me. If these methods do not work for you, then they do not, and will not work, unless you speak to a psychologist, because it is clearly apparently that you have a deeply rooted complex with food.

What is this "perfect mental mode?" It seems to be a magical condition that you get to set so that no matter how hard we try, you can always say "you didn't get your perfect mental mode, that's why you failed." What if I said you had to maintain a perfect mental mode before you could get a drivers license? Or buy a house? How would you ever know you succeded?

As for deep psychological reasons, I supose that might be a cause if you consider hunger as psychological. I don't eat because I'm sad, or happy, or bored. I eat because I'm hungry. That's it. Is it because someone was mean to me in my past? Or is it a spiritual ireconciliation? Sounds like I'm lacking the "perfect mental mode."

I would consider a perfect mental mode to be one that does not eat for emotional benefit, one that can exercise control over eating habits and portion size, one that has the ability to say 'no' to eating certain foods. In short, something that does not use food as a crutch. It's not about 'success' or 'winning', it's about changing yourself for the better. You do not eat because you are hungry, the body simply does not need to eat that much. Like you mentioned in your OP, the body is designed to go through periods of semi-starvation when food is scarce.

Yes they did.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(Ireland (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.))

And here's a more complete list of famines:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So, building up fat reserves and then not being able to eat until your next kill is not starving, how?

So? Famines happen? And?

Because you aren't starving. You are associating 'not eating' with starvation. I associate 'starvation' with burning hunger pangs. When you've built up fat reserves, you have something to live off, and therefore you are not starving until you are physically incapacitated due to lack of food.

I don't attend group therapy anymore. I made some friends from it but never lost any weight. My family constantly bugs me to lose weight and say they will help me any way they can, but I don't know what that could be. I've seen several doctors and a few dieticians and trainers, as well as reading the literature written by many self-help gurus. At some point you have to begin questioning their techniques when they have 95% failure rate. My current doctor admits he has no idea why I'm experiencing excessive hunger even with my diabetes under control. All he can do is recommend gastric bypass surgeons, but even that has a high recidivism rate.

You're still looking at this from the outset with a failed outlook. 'Oh I've read X and talked to Y, that didn't work, there's some procedures but they are negative because of Z'. If this weight loss is truly so difficult and so abnormal to any one else they've ever seen, you need to visit a specialist in some form of nutritional field. They are more learned than anyone here.

I'm here to get information. I wrote about this in my very post on the annorexia forum. I'm not sure how to link to it here, but you can still see it near the bottom of the first page.

Okay. And what sort of information did you expect from a group of very psychologically damaged <25 year olds? I know I keep saying this, but you are a sensible guy, so surely you can realise that anything here really can't help you. The support aspect is good, I'm behind you 100%, but there's a point to which untrained people can help. Personally, from what you've said, I believe your weight patterns are due to some form of psychological/chemical imbalance. If you always feel hungry, then some necessary chemical is being either over-released or inhibited by your body. I'm not sure how diabetes would factor into that either.

In 5 years, I have no idea where I'll be. 5 years is a long time. Anything can happen.

You need to give yourself some form of goal, of you won't have anything to hope for. Like you said, it's a long time. You may want kids, you might move house, you may break an arm. But you need to really get a plan going for that time and a set of goals to achieve. If you can't see the end, you're never going to be able to start.

Static

11-02-2009, 02:42 AM

What do you mean? Am I doing by stubbon schtick again? Sorry :(

Ah, no, sorry-- what I meant was that agree with your argument and thought you bring your points along nicely. Couldn't have said it better, so I didn't.

On another note...

Because people should have choices, period. We don't need authorities deciding how we are to live. That's called fascism. If you banned junk food, who gets to decide what's junk and what isn't? How do you keep people from making donuts unless you banned flower, sugar, and water? What you're suggesting is not just nanny-state tyranical, but unconstitutional as well.
Way to blow things way the hell out of proportion there. There are actually a ton of debates going on about that-- what SHOULD be banned are the things that aren't food: they're just food-like products. Sugar and colour and salt and chemicals masquerading as food. You're the one talking about eating like our ancestors and whatnot. The people who decide what's junk and what isn't just have to look at the ingredients and ask about the ingredients which don't even qualify as food because they're so ridiculously processed.
Maybe question what the state of the cows your milk comes from is, etc.

I think people just should eat things if they don't know what they are, personally. It's so much simpler that way.

nathrakh

11-02-2009, 05:27 AM

Our ancestors also burned a lot more calories about 3000-4000 or even more per day. And the foods they ate were all pure and unrefined foods, Like nuts and meat(full of protein) And fruits. full with nutrients rather then empty calories like most products today. And our ancestors ate to live, rather then eating to enjoy it. Sure they probably enjoyed there meals aswell tho :P.

I do think a small fat tax on candy etc would be good, to bring the prices more up to par with healthy foods or make the really healthy foods a bit cheaper because vegetables and fruits are still very expensive compared to a package of chocolate,sweets or cookies or anything like that. Just a package of celery costs like 1 euro, while i could have 2 packages of chocolate chip cookies for the same price. And i dont have too much money to spend unfortunatly. Removing candy etc from stores all togheter would be bullshit tho, its our own responsibility to take things in moderation.

But then again, the question could be raised if candy etc really is that bad. Its just a highly refined source of a lot of calories and fast energy and when taken in moderation it doesnt really have to be bad. And u can get fat from eating healthy foods too. If u eat too much of them, and being bulimic i have no problem reaching 4k+ kcals per day, eating healthy foods only.

Funny thing to think of also. If we would ever be in a situation where we know we would be unable to buy food for months/years and would have to stock up on food. Candy would be the way to go. Lets say u have 100 kg of salads,meats etc in ur basement,fridge. Or 100 kg of chocolate/candy. The person who stocked up on the chocolate and candy etc would be able survive longer then the person who stocked up on healthy foods :P

Jacklinger

11-02-2009, 06:46 AM

Way to blow things way the hell out of proportion there. There are actually a ton of debates going on about that-- what SHOULD be banned are the things that aren't food: they're just food-like products. Sugar and colour and salt and chemicals masquerading as food. You're the one talking about eating like our ancestors and whatnot. The people who decide what's junk and what isn't just have to look at the ingredients and ask about the ingredients which don't even qualify as food because they're so ridiculously processed.
Maybe question what the state of the cows your milk comes from is, etc.

I think people just should eat things if they don't know what they are, personally. It's so much simpler that way.

I don't think it's out of proportion. The US Constitution protects us from government telling us what to eat for good reason. In North Korea, citizens were told to eat tree bark and grass at one point, and were expected to. It would sound hilarious if it wasn't true. But when the government gains the power to control our food, or any aspect of our personal lives, it never has the intended results.

The only time we've had a real famine in the US was during the Great Depression. And it's no coincidence that the goverment seized control of vast farmlands at the same time so they could make sure food got to people, and ended up starving them instead.

Starving-Beauty

11-02-2009, 04:32 PM

well said! i get you back in the day fat people were admired maybe because everyone was skinny then and the hot was to be fat. now because most people are of average weight or overweight the thing is ot be slim.

female 16 5"6.5

cw=114
lw=114
hw=148
gw=112

Vision Thing

11-03-2009, 12:05 AM

I think people just should eat things if they don't know what they are, personally. It's so much simpler that way.

Yeah, that's what I was sort of getting at. Like how we have legislation regulating that you can put 'fat free' on a label if it has < some number of grams of fat or whatever. Why not legislate that anything that goes into a product must be displayed clearly, and in 'laymans terms?

And our ancestors ate to live, rather then eating to enjoy it.

Whoa this was toally what I was trying to say but I am really bad at expressing myself.

I don't think it's out of proportion. The US Constitution protects us from government telling us what to eat for good reason. In North Korea, citizens were told to eat tree bark and grass at one point, and were expected to. It would sound hilarious if it wasn't true. But when the government gains the power to control our food, or any aspect of our personal lives, it never has the intended results.

The only time we've had a real famine in the US was during the Great Depression. And it's no coincidence that the goverment seized control of vast farmlands at the same time so they could make sure food got to people, and ended up starving them instead.

It's true, and I know I am being idealistic. But I don't think you could honestly say that every government is doing the best they could. I think it's nearly a criminal offence that there is not stricter procedures on food labelling and misrepresentation of nutrition. It's not 'interfering', it's permitting people to see the absolute truth. I hope you're doing okay today too.

well said! i get you back in the day fat people were admired maybe because everyone was skinny then and the hot was to be fat. now because most people are of average weight or overweight the thing is ot be slim.

I don't think it was the 'fat' that was attractive so much as what it conveyed, e.g. I have enough wealth/power to eat all I want so therefore I am an important person.