Re: Guilt, satiety, calorie restriction...

[Guest guest]

Because there are literally hundreds of studies showing that CR works

in pretty much all animal species. Feasting and fasting has been shown

to work only in mice (I think) and as I've mentioned, the carryover

might be minimal to humans.

I wish feasting/fasting has the same benefits though...it sure would

be easier!

-

>

> >Yeah, I'd love to know to what extent we can extrapolate from mice

> >studies concerning feasting and fasting. The CR part seems like a sure

> >bet (theoretically--that's assuming you're upto the challenge).

> >

> >-

>

> I'm curious: why do you think CR is a sure bet but are

> unsure about the feast/fast idea? AFAIK the evidence is

> about the same for both.

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Yeah, that's exactly the case with me. I suspect it is for most

people...which is why they keep eating badly (especially younger people).

The only improvements I've noticed in eating clean are:

1.) Better bowel movements

2.) Cleaner teeth--less brushing required (less sugar, essentially)

3.) No more headaches due to not having eaten.

-

>

> >I'm curious: has anyone else had the same experience as Betsy? It

> >hasn't held true for me (so far--I've only been eating clean less

> >about 6 months now) yet. A study I saw showed that people still found

> >most junk foods delicious after 6 years of abstinence.

> >

> >Any anecdotes?

> >

> >-

>

> It has been the opposite for me ... but my " junk " food all has

> my favorite allergen in it and they make me nauseous. Once

> I put two and two together, my mind gets repelled

> by eating them. I can feel the queasiness I WILL feel in

> advance. I craved some of them for a LONG time though,

> until I figured that out. Also I had to get rid of every bit

> of wheat in my diet.

>

> So it might depend WHY you are avoiding the junk. If

> it gives you some actual problem, just paying attention

> to the effects may be enough to retrain your brain.

>

> If it is just a theory " I shouldn't eat this because I've

> read it is bad " then I think it is really hard to stick to.

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Alright, I checked back and the study wasn't exactly too good. What

kind of things do you find revolting, exactly (could you elaborate)?.

Would you eat NT icecream if it were sweetened with stevia, for example?

There are healthy versions of foods that I find are better (such as

natural nut butters) but in most cases I'd still prefer the unhealthy

alternative it boiled down simply to taste.

I wish I could get rid of cravings and know they'd never come back. I

just tried drinking non sweetened green tea for about a month and I

just couldn't get used to it, so I've started adding liquid stevia

drops again. And just now I was very tempted by a loaf of white bread

so I dug into a jar of cashew butter.

Thanks for the comments,

-

> In a message dated 9/30/03 2:17:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > I'm curious: has anyone else had the same experience as Betsy? It

> > hasn't held true for me (so far--I've only been eating clean less

> > about 6 months now) yet. A study I saw showed that people still found

> > most junk foods delicious after 6 years of abstinence.

>

> Yes, but these people were probably abstaining from junk food in

favor of

> other junk food, and never replacing the junk food with true

nutrient-dense food.

>

> I occasionally eat sugary stuff out of respect when people offer it

to me,

> and I find it absolutely revolting.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

What I don't understand is why something which throws of the apestat

(haven't heard the term before so I'm inferring its meaning) is

necessarily bad? Well, it's bad in that it causes over consumption of

food, but isn't increased apestat a completely natural feeling? From

an evolutionary perspective wouldn't those with continued cravings

have a better shot at survival than those who only ate what they

needed to sustain them in the next few hours?

-

> In a message dated 9/30/03 2:26:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > I'm very intrigued by what you're saying here. It all seems so

> > counter intuitive to me. Could you elaborate on allergies and

> > stimulated hunger?

>

> Not really, because I don't know much about it. But that's basically

> indisputable, as far as I know. Heidi probably knows a lot more

about it than me.

>

> If something is throwing off your appestat, if something you eat

makes you

> more hungry, which is obviously opposite of what should happen, or

if something

> is truly addictive rather than tasting good, then that is a pretty

clear sign

> it's doing some sort of damage.

>

> > About guilt...I'm eating throw a whole bag of pistachios as we speak

> > guilty free.

>

> Good for you. lol. As I said before, my personal philosophy is to

fill up

> on what I know I need, and then eat the pleasure stuff after. It so

happens

> that I don't have a lot of room for much pleasure stuff, and since I

have all

> the nutrients I need, my regulatory systems are working and eating

sugar stuff

> (what I call sugary stuff is probably a bit different from the average

> person...) doesn't make my stomach a bottomless pit.

>

> Chris

> ____

>

> " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It

is a

> heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings,

birds, and

> animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the

sight of them

> make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion,

> which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear

the sight of

> the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

> ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth,

and for those

> who do them wrong. "

>

> --Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Um, this is sort of disheartening/shocking considering ANY and ALL

delicious foods make my hungrier. Unsalted/spiced vegetables is about

the only thing I eat because I know it's healthy. Even something which

you'd consider healthy like liver and onions makes me hungry.

Isn't it normal that the process of eating would make one hungrier?

(L'appetit viens en mangeant...)

-

" and if a food actually induces hunger than there is definitely

something

wrong with it. "

[Guest guest]

Perhaps the factors are too numerous to make a conversion, but there's

reason to doubt the extrapolation from mice to humans. (I'm not the

one making the claim here).

I said I trained two years ago (I was 15)...for a year and stopped for

a year. I've just starting lifting again. When I feel like I'm

over-eating I can always justify it by telling myself it help in the

pursuit of muscle and strength. ;-)

-

> In a message dated 9/30/03 12:48:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> heidis@t... writes:

>

> > Good point. I'm not sure how long it takes for food to travel

through their

> > intestines though, which might be the key. A snake eats once

> > a month, but it takes a week to digest the food.

> > However, I think it is likely that fasting for 20 is better than

> > constant browsing.

>

> I think there are way too many factors to try to make a human-mouse

> conversion factor for fasting time. It is like trying to figure out

what a dollar is

> worth in 1838 compared to 2003.

>

> I think the point of the WD is that it makes the benefits of fasting

> convenient and practical.

>

> > Sheesh, at 17 you can probably do anything and be ok! I only

mentioned

> > it because you were talking about the " restricted calorie "

> > experiments and your own concern about long life and guilt

> > etc. Ori has a pretty good take on the psychological

> > aspects of eating and life the universe and everything.

>

> As long as he doesn't try veganism! I went veggie at 18, vegan at

19, and NT

> at 20, and if it weren't for the latter change I'd be in big trouble

by now,

> and already was.

>

> , didn't you say you'd been working out for 10 years before?

Maybe I'm

> mis-remembering.

>

> Chris

>

>

> ____

>

> " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It

is a

> heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings,

birds, and

> animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the

sight of them

> make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion,

> which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear

the sight of

> the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

> ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth,

and for those

> who do them wrong. "

>

> --Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

My experience has been pretty much exactly the same as Betsy's. I

got off processed food when I decided to try the macrobiotic diet. I

committed to doing that strictly for 6 months (which ended up

stretching into 2 years). I had the motivation to be extremely

strict because one doctor wrote, " Don't say you've tried macrobiotics

unless you've done it without cheating. " I was/am sick with chronic

fatigue and I wanted to know if it would help.

I cheated twice in 6 months. The first time I had a hamburger, coke

& fries at Mc's. I remember thinking the coke didn't taste as

good as I remembered (although I didn't yet think it tasted bad).

I did macro for 2 years and I've done NT for 1 year and a few

months. I eat off the diet less and less because the longer I've

been off processed foods, truly the worse they taste when I eat

them. Or, sometimes they still taste good, but I feel sick after

eating them. I'll eat something and afterwards think, " That really

wasn't worth it. I don't like feeling this way. "

Before I did my cold-turkey macrobiotic experiment, I'd done smaller

experiments, like " no dairy " for a month, or " no sugar " for 2

months. However, I was still eating a regular SAD diet except for

those exceptions. During that time period, I didn't notice any

change in my health when I was off some food or when I started eating

it again. Even with sugar! I lost weight when I was off sugar, but I

didn't feel any better.

I think the complete change in diet is what helped me notice the

difference in taste/how I feel when I eat some of my former foods.

Also, the time factor. I basically haven't eaten processed foods for

3+ years now. I almost never even desire them. I desire the

convenience -- and pretty much that's the only reason I ever eat off

my diet. I don't like restaurant food anymore and I used to love to

find fun places to eat out. That's been a bummer. I miss

restaurants.

> I'm curious: has anyone else had the same experience as Betsy? It

> hasn't held true for me (so far--I've only been eating clean less

> about 6 months now) yet. A study I saw showed that people still

found

> most junk foods delicious after 6 years of abstinence.

>

> Any anecdotes?

>

> -

[Guest guest]

" You're right...guilt isn't the best way to gain control over a

positive eating lifestyle, but I haven't yet mastered any better way. "

This very inefficient method of self control sounds very catholic to me and

very familiar. It is a hard habit to break if you concentrate on NOT doing

it. I mean just try right now to NOT think of a white tiger........ LOL

The best advice I have read lately is from Carolyn Myss, " Positive energy is

always more efficient " So simple and so true and so hard to remember

sometimes.

I try to use the sinking feeling I get in my body when I criticise myself as

a trigger to remind me to find the positive. For instance, yesterday I yet

again succumbed to Coffee even though each and every time I indulge I get

stomach cramps, palpitations, a feeling of anxiety and I yell at my kids. I

started to feel angry at myself for setting this up again as I found myself

being a very cranky mum. I realised I was beginning to berate myself and

stopped everything and went and nourished myself with a lovely bubble bath

with the kids. By the end of it I was congratulating myself for catching my

mood and resolving to learn my lesson (again)

Hope this confession helps.

Joanne

[Guest guest]

>As long as he doesn't try veganism! I went veggie at 18, vegan at 19, and NT

>at 20, and if it weren't for the latter change I'd be in big trouble by now,

>and already was.

My brother at 17 was eating whole pizzas, then coming home

for dinner. HOW can a teenage guy go veggie? I think

they are eating machines.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>> I'm very intrigued by what you're saying here. It all seems so

>> counter intuitive to me. Could you elaborate on allergies and

>> stimulated hunger?

>

>Not really, because I don't know much about it. But that's basically

>indisputable, as far as I know. Heidi probably knows a lot more about it than

me.

I don't know much about it either -- in fact I've never heard

a *tested* explanation. But most doctors that work with

people, and most people that have food intolerances,

talk about it. The explanations I've heard are:

1. Cortisol. Cortisol is produced by ANY stress (not

getting enough sleep, for example) and it stimulates

hunger big time. Allergies stress you out, so you

get more cortisol. This causes you to not use your

fat, and to be more hungry.

2. Food absorption. IgA intolerances, and candida,

and probably IgG intolerances, and probably others,

cause you to not absorb your food (the villi problem

is part of this, but not all of it). So you might eat 500

calories but only absorb 200, or not get some vitamin,

and your body wants to eat more to compensate. Or

the correct hormone doesn't get triggered to

say " I'm full now " .

3. Addiction. Some foods are thought to produce

opiates, or perhaps some other chemical, and the

brain LIKES IT. MSG might go in this category.

4. Insulin. High sugar foods are thought to cause

too much insulin to be produced, which the body

fights by producing too much cortisol, then you

have the same problem as #1.

>If something is throwing off your appestat, if something you eat makes you

>more hungry, which is obviously opposite of what should happen, or if something

>is truly addictive rather than tasting good, then that is a pretty clear sign

>it's doing some sort of damage.

Which is the shorthand version. If it makes you want to eat too much

of it, it's probably not good for you!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Because there are literally hundreds of studies showing that CR works

>in pretty much all animal species. Feasting and fasting has been shown

>to work only in mice (I think) and as I've mentioned, the carryover

>might be minimal to humans.

>

>I wish feasting/fasting has the same benefits though...it sure would

>be easier!

>

>-

OK, I'll buy that. You are young ... I suspect that in a few years there

will be hundreds of studies with feast/fast so you can

think about it then.

Actually I suspect F/F will be quite a fad in a bit. It DOES have a lot

more appeal than semi-starving for 130 years.

Also I never could figure out why CR didn't cause muscle loss?

I've been on plenty of restricted diets and they ALWAYS caused

muscle loss.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Yeah, that's exactly the case with me. I suspect it is for most

>people...which is why they keep eating badly (especially younger people).

>

>The only improvements I've noticed in eating clean are:

>

>1.) Better bowel movements

>2.) Cleaner teeth--less brushing required (less sugar, essentially)

>3.) No more headaches due to not having eaten.

>

>-

I also wonder ... do you cook for yourself? My family eats well ...

partly because they eat whatever is on the table. If

a big dinner is served, one doesn't have much ROOM

for dessert. I snack much less if there are meals " happening " .

Now that I have a family and MUST cook, I don't have much

desire to eat, say, a candy bar.

Another trick that works is

to have " junk day " -- say on Sunday you eat all the

junk you want. That makes it easier to wait. Plus, you will

find you don't feel all that good on Sunday and maybe you

don't WANT to eat so much junk.

That and the house is FULL of good snacks. There is a basket

on the counter full of dried fruits and nuts, and a bowl

of peanuts, and a bowl of fresh fruit. So people tend to

snack on those because they are there.

A 17 year old male seems to need a LOT of calories, in

my experience, so eating a bunch of pistachios or whatever

is pretty normal and I wouldn't even think it is harmful

(unless you are overweight or want to go on a CR diet).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>What I don't understand is why something which throws of the apestat

>(haven't heard the term before so I'm inferring its meaning) is

>necessarily bad? Well, it's bad in that it causes over consumption of

>food, but isn't increased apestat a completely natural feeling? From

>an evolutionary perspective wouldn't those with continued cravings

>have a better shot at survival than those who only ate what they

>needed to sustain them in the next few hours?

If that was ALL it did, then maybe not. But the things

I mentioned in the last post all cause health risks.

Stuffing the body too full of food on a constant

basis is NOT a survival trait. It causes obvious

and measurable damage -- too much STUFF for

the body to handle. Look at any 400 lb person ...

If Ori is right, then humans DID normally stuff

themselves, but not every few hours. And, after

being stuffed, they were satisfied and ready to go,

not moaning with hunger the next day, or too

dizzy to think straight. Food takes a good 24 hours

to digest, and it makes sense to me that a person

should be relatively satisfied for that long. So

I think " getting stuffed " is natural and probably good.

But when I get " the hungries " I am NEVER satisfied,

and never feeling very good either. That can't be

good! If I can't think straight because of " low blood

sugar " symptoms, then I'd be easy prey. And

a lousy hunter. Or driver. " The hungries " don't

come about, for me, from high carbs or even

from lack of calories ... just from certain food

triggers.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

> A study I saw showed that people still found

> most junk foods delicious after 6 years of abstinence.

*Most* junk food that I used to love just does not appeal any more,

those nasty cookies notwithstanding. Just a few days ago my mom

brought home a lemon pound cake-y kinda thing from the Safeway bakery

that I would have demolished in a heartbeat. I took a bite and spit it

out. I mean, it just really wasn't that good, certainly not worth the

heart palpitations and headache.

Lynn S.

-----

Lynn Siprelle * Writer, Mother, Programmer, Fiber Artisan

The New Homemaker: http://www.newhomemaker.com/

Siprelle & Associates: http://www.siprelle.com/

People-Powered ! http://www.deanforamerica.com/

[Guest guest]

> Because there are literally hundreds of studies showing that CR

works

> in pretty much all animal species. Feasting and fasting has been

shown

> to work only in mice (I think) and as I've mentioned, the carryover

> might be minimal to humans.

>

> I wish feasting/fasting has the same benefits though...it sure would

> be easier!

>

> -

On the other hand, there's no epidemiological evidence to support

calorie restriction is valid in humans, though there are long-living

populations, and calorie restriction would lead to a less enjoyable

life, making the merits of life-lengthening highly questionable.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Alright, I checked back and the study wasn't exactly too good. What

> kind of things do you find revolting, exactly (could you

elaborate)?.

Store-bought cakes and pies I find particularly revolting. Homemade

versions I do not find revolting, but also have no desire to eat

either. To the extent it is made with refined ingrediets, I find it

proportionally less enjoyable in terms of taste and texture.

> Would you eat NT icecream if it were sweetened with stevia, for

example?

I wouldn't make it with stevia, because I think the taste is

inferior. I make blueberry ice cream with a little over 1 quart

heavy cream, 2 cups of wild blueberries, and several tbsp of raw

honey. There are only about 10 grams of carbs in a half-serving, and

it is absolutely loaded with nutrients, so I don't consider this an

unhealthful food in any way.

> There are healthy versions of foods that I find are better (such as

> natural nut butters) but in most cases I'd still prefer the

unhealthy alternative it boiled down simply to taste.

I suggest that either a) you've only found poor formulations of

the " healthy " version, you're idea of " healthy " is rather skewed,

or c) you still are having problems or simply haven't spent enough

time eating a healthy diet.

Sometimes whoever comes up with a healthy version of something is

just better making things healthy than they are making good recipes.

But please, you can't possibly tell me you've had french fries fried

in free-range organic lard and you prefer the ones fried in

hydrogenated vegetable oil. It's impossible.

My donuts made with whole grain flour that had been soaked in kefir

and raw honey overnight to neutralize the phytates and pre-digest

starches,with no refined sugar (and 30% less total sugar) than the

recipe called for, fried in free-range organic lard, were absolutely

delicious, and my grandparents had no idea they were made with

unrefined ingredients until I told them well after they ate them and

thought they were fantastic. Sometimes it comes down to recipe and

skill putting the recipe to work.

You also have to give your brain time to figure out what tastes go

out with what health benefits; over time you lose your taste for less

healthy versions of things.

> I wish I could get rid of cravings and know they'd never come back.

I

> just tried drinking non sweetened green tea for about a month and I

> just couldn't get used to it, so I've started adding liquid stevia

> drops again. And just now I was very tempted by a loaf of white

bread

> so I dug into a jar of cashew butter.

Seriously? Have you tried sourdough whole grain breads? The taste

is so much richer.

Manna Bread (sprouted) is also great tasting-- and wheat free, if you

buy the rye.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> What I don't understand is why something which throws of the apestat

> (haven't heard the term before so I'm inferring its meaning) is

> necessarily bad? Well, it's bad in that it causes over consumption

of

> food, but isn't increased apestat a completely natural feeling? From

> an evolutionary perspective wouldn't those with continued cravings

> have a better shot at survival than those who only ate what they

> needed to sustain them in the next few hours?

This logic is particularly odd coming from someone who supports

calorie restriction!

Your body is supposed to sense when it's full. When something throws

that off kilter, something's wrong. I don't see what the issue is.

Of course you are suppposed to only get full when you've gotten what

your body needs, but that is a separate issue. If you don't get full

despite eating enough, that probably indicates absorption problems,

or hormonal problems.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Um, this is sort of disheartening/shocking considering ANY and ALL

> delicious foods make my hungrier. Unsalted/spiced vegetables is

about

> the only thing I eat because I know it's healthy. Even something

which

> you'd consider healthy like liver and onions makes me hungry.

>

> Isn't it normal that the process of eating would make one hungrier?

> (L'appetit viens en mangeant...)

>

> -

>

,

I may have misunderstood your plight. If you are referring

specifically to post-fasting eating, yes, it is normal to get

hungrier once you start eating. However, it is also normal for that

food to make you full once you've eaten your fair share. If you are

not getting full, or if the food continues to make you hungry that's

a sign of 1)not enough long-chain saturated fat (butter or tallow)2)

allergy, or 3)absorption problems.

Different people need different amounts of fat, some might need 70%

of calories from fat. You might be one of those people.

If you find that *specific foods* increase the sensation of hunger in

a way that others do not, that may indicate some sort of intolerance.

However, if you just find that you get hungry when you start eating

after fasting, that's normal.

And if you find that no matter what you eat you never feel full, that

probably indicates you aren't eating enough fat, specifically

saturated fat.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Perhaps the factors are too numerous to make a conversion, but

there's

> reason to doubt the extrapolation from mice to humans. (I'm not the

> one making the claim here).

I don't see any reason to doubt it... I just see lots of reasons we

can't be sure of it. The same goes for calorie restriction, and even

moreso, in my opinion, because despite the increased breadth of

subjects and replications, they've had less success in isolating the

single variable they are looking for.

> I said I trained two years ago (I was 15)...for a year and stopped

for

> a year. I've just starting lifting again. When I feel like I'm

> over-eating I can always justify it by telling myself it help in the

> pursuit of muscle and strength. ;-)

Guess I remembered wrong. If you are weight-training, overeating is

the LAST thing you need to concern yourself with.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> My brother at 17 was eating whole pizzas, then coming home

> for dinner. HOW can a teenage guy go veggie? I think

> they are eating machines.

Ideology.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Half of me is amazed that anyone, let alone anyone here, would consider

such a hair-brained scheme. The other half of it chalks it up to the

strong threads of guilt and Puritanism running through this country (and,

to varying degrees, the rest of the world).

>though there are long-living

>populations, and calorie restriction would lead to a less enjoyable

>life, making the merits of life-lengthening highly questionable.

-

[Guest guest]

they are!!!

I have two of them at home [18 & 13] and they eat TONS... fortunately they very

sporty [basketball and cycling] and thoroughly 'brain-washed' re real food etc.

so stray very rarely.

Dedy

-- Heidi wrote --

<<My brother at 17 was eating whole pizzas, then coming home for dinner. HOW can

a teenage guy go veggie? I think they are eating machines.>>

[Guest guest]

>

> . . .

>

> My donuts made with whole grain flour that had been soaked

> in kefir and raw honey overnight to neutralize the phytates

> and pre-digest starches,with no refined sugar (and 30% less

> total sugar) than the recipe called for, fried in free-range

> organic lard, were absolutely delicious, and my grandparents

> had no idea they were made with unrefined ingredients until

> I told them well after they ate them and thought they were

> fantastic.

Good gods, you people on this list make me alternately angry,

then hungry! Have you posted your recipe for donuts here

before Chris? If not, would you please do so?

[Guest guest]

i just read some of the posts in this thread, and since i am one of

the few people who actually practice calorie restriction i figured i

should chime in. i don't think CR is in any way associated with

guilt or Puritanism. for myself, i've never experienced any sort of

guilt related to food quantity and i have always been skinny. i have

experienced guilt related to food quality, like eating at a

restaurant and thinking that the meat might be factory-farmed or

something, but never quantity. i have stuffed myself many times and

it was always a lot of fun. (of course, at this point with my

current food lifestyle this is very rare, maybe once or twice a year,

and my mode of enjoying food has changed to one of savoring variety,

subtle details, and the elegance of complex, small meals.) the only

guilt i've ever felt is falling asleep in the library trying to study

after gorging at an indian lunch buffet, which was a regular

occurence for me several years ago! (of course, at this point with my

current food lifestyle this is very rare, maybe once or twice a

year.) however, there may be people who practice CR and have

feelings of guilt related to food quantity, but this is not inherent

to CR, just a feature of those individuals. there is a concept of

asceticism that i associate with CR, but this is very different than

guilt or Puritanism. this asceticism is more of a personality

feature and lifestyle orientation, and there is nothing inherently

negative about it. i'm a somewhat extreme example of the ascetic,

monkish scholar/artist type driven by elaborate long-range goals, but

i'm an extremely happy and worry-free person. there are only

certain personality types who would even have any desire to live

longer than normal, so CR is not at all something that most people

should even pay attention to or consider. as far as chris' claim

that CR leads to a less enjoyable life, in general i think that's

very untrue. the only downside i'm aware of to CR is increased

osteoporosis risk, but that doesn't make life less enjoyable (at

least not until your 110 or something and lose mobility!), and it's

possible that there are solutions to this potential problem.

anything enjoyable in life can be enjoyed while doing CR just as much

as while not doing CR; there's simply no connection between the two

things. i derive tremendous pleasure from all aspects of eating,

and the fact that the quantity of food is slightly smaller than

normal has no effect on this pleasure. furthermore, i've found that

CR has INCREASED my enjoyment of life in two ways. one, i feel a

certain light, bouncy, energetic body awareness, which is probably a

result of being a little bit skinnier than i was before CR. two, it

has forced me to focus on tiny details of my diet that have resulted

in an increased enjoyment of subtle flavors and different methods of

food preparation.

since this is in the same thread, i wanted to say something about

Theo's comments about enjoying food. first, i was aghast

reading of sweetening green tea!! the thought of such a barbaric

travesty makes me wince with disquietude! that is like adding a

backbeat to a piece by Morton Feldman. ****shudder**** , maybe

you are using tea bags instead of loose leaves? try sipping it very

slowly, letting tiny sips gently caress your lips and tongue. you

will find ecstatic hints of sweetness and the bitterness will

transmute into elegance. i used to have similar feelings when i

would read of people sweetening kefir, as plain, unadultered, full-

strength kefir is my absolute favorite food in the world and for many

months i couldn't even bring myself to contemplate the act of adding

anything to it. however, i've been cured of this blinkered prejudice

because i tried adding some raw honey to kefir once and it was

DELICIOUS!! i still prefer it plain and don't regularly consume

honey, but i have no misgivings against sweetened kefir any longer!

by the way, when i eat bee pollen i put it in a little kefir because

it's too dry by itself, and it's an incredible combination!! the

rich sweetness of the pollen is amplified a thousand-fold!

in general, , as far as your hunger issues, maybe you could try

eating much more slowly, savoring tiny bites and immersing yourself

in the hidden details of flavor that abound in minimally processed

foods from robust sources. hunger will become a lead-footed non-

competitor to the leisurely stroll of satiety. make every mouthful

an unrushed celebration! try visiting some asian markets to find

*fresh* waterchestnuts and you will drift into the clouds while

eating veggie salads. or try dipping slices of fresh waterchestnut

into a pile of young (2-3 days, still sweet) broccoli sprouts, and

you might be cured of your problems forever!

mike parker

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Chris-

>

> Half of me is amazed that anyone, let alone anyone here, would

consider

> such a hair-brained scheme. The other half of it chalks it up to

the

> strong threads of guilt and Puritanism running through this country

(and,

> to varying degrees, the rest of the world).

>

> >though there are long-living

> >populations, and calorie restriction would lead to a less enjoyable

> >life, making the merits of life-lengthening highly questionable.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

[Guest guest]

Maybe I must be way below my set point (I'm not extremely lean or

anything about 13% bf) then because anything good pretty much makes me

hungry. Liver included, coconuts, anything.

-

>

> >> I'm very intrigued by what you're saying here. It all seems so

> >> counter intuitive to me. Could you elaborate on allergies and

> >> stimulated hunger?

> >

> >Not really, because I don't know much about it. But that's basically

> >indisputable, as far as I know. Heidi probably knows a lot more

about it than me.

>

> I don't know much about it either -- in fact I've never heard

> a *tested* explanation. But most doctors that work with

> people, and most people that have food intolerances,

> talk about it. The explanations I've heard are:

>

> 1. Cortisol. Cortisol is produced by ANY stress (not

> getting enough sleep, for example) and it stimulates

> hunger big time. Allergies stress you out, so you

> get more cortisol. This causes you to not use your

> fat, and to be more hungry.

>

> 2. Food absorption. IgA intolerances, and candida,

> and probably IgG intolerances, and probably others,

> cause you to not absorb your food (the villi problem

> is part of this, but not all of it). So you might eat 500

> calories but only absorb 200, or not get some vitamin,

> and your body wants to eat more to compensate. Or

> the correct hormone doesn't get triggered to

> say " I'm full now " .

>

> 3. Addiction. Some foods are thought to produce

> opiates, or perhaps some other chemical, and the

> brain LIKES IT. MSG might go in this category.

>

> 4. Insulin. High sugar foods are thought to cause

> too much insulin to be produced, which the body

> fights by producing too much cortisol, then you

> have the same problem as #1.

>

> >If something is throwing off your appestat, if something you eat

makes you

> >more hungry, which is obviously opposite of what should happen, or

if something

> >is truly addictive rather than tasting good, then that is a pretty

clear sign

> >it's doing some sort of damage.

>

> Which is the shorthand version. If it makes you want to eat too much

> of it, it's probably not good for you!

>

> -- Heidi