If you want to understand this concept better, read some of Geneen Roth's books. It's basically just intuitive eating. People who can do this basically just don't have food issues. They eat what they want, when they want, as much as they want. They eat when they are hungry and stop when they are full. They think they are eating "as much as they want" but they are just listening to their bodies and their bodies know when they've had enough. So they basically reach their natural ideal weight. They never feel deprived so they don't feel the need to overeat. They can stop at just one. If they do eat too much the instinctivly eat less at the next meal. I could go on and on and I'm probably over simplifing a lot of it. But these people are truely lucky and I think they main point is that they do no eat emotionally and this is why they can eat what they want and not gain weight.
But these people are truely lucky and I think they main point is that they do no eat emotionally and this is why they can eat what they want and not gain weight.
I think there's more to it than whether one eats emotionally. Face it--if any of us were like that, we wouldn't be here, would we?
I am not an emotional eater--and I don't binge eat--and I gained weight eating healthy, nourishing foods, not junk. I have never been big on eating desserts or chocolate or overly sweet foods--they happened, but rarely. But I gain weight when I eat what I want, because what I want to eat ends up being more than I burn.
There are things I use to ate (creamy chocolate) before that I would sure love to be able to eat all the time but there are things like the fast food lunch I used to eat Monday through Friday I am not missing at all..
If you want to understand this concept better, read some of Geneen Roth's books. It's basically just intuitive eating. People who can do this basically just don't have food issues. They eat what they want, when they want, as much as they want. They eat when they are hungry and stop when they are full. They think they are eating "as much as they want" but they are just listening to their bodies and their bodies know when they've had enough. So they basically reach their natural ideal weight. They never feel deprived so they don't feel the need to overeat. They can stop at just one. If they do eat too much the instinctivly eat less at the next meal. I could go on and on and I'm probably over simplifing a lot of it. But these people are truely lucky and I think they main point is that they do no eat emotionally and this is why they can eat what they want and not gain weight.
No. If I eat what I want until I am satisfied and not stuffed I need 2200-2700 calories a day. If I eat emotionally I eat upwards of 3000 calories a day. I know the difference. My hunger is much greater than my metabolism can handle.
So what if you not only didn't gain weight, you didn't have any other ill effects?
I think that's almost a scifi question - what if you could fly (would you), what
if cheesecke were healthy and broccoli was bad for you - would you crave broccoli because you shouldn't be eating it?
If money; health; physical comfort; local and global economics and employment; threats to natural resources; and world hunger were not an issue - then I probably would eat very differently.
If no one was going hungry, no species risked extinction, noone suffered financially from my choices (including myself).... (it's starting to look like sprouting wings and flying might be more likely)... but if all those things were true....
I probably would eat differently if there were absolutely no consequences for my choices - but it's a scifi question that doesn't work very well in applying it. Nothing we do has NO consequences (or to avoid the double negative - There are always consequences to every one of our choices). Imagining a world where there are no consequences makes so little sense, that the answer doesn't either.
but for the sake of argument, if I could be in perfect health and could eat and do whatever I wanted, because there were no negative consequences (directly or indirectly - we'd eliminated illness, hunger and poverty from the world), I still wouldn't be eating much of the foods that most people think fat people are gorging on - fast food, candy, chips, cake... They're foods that only appeal to me, if they're right in front of me (and even then, mostly when I'm hormonal and crave red meat, crispy carbs, chocolate, and salt).
My food-related dream would be to travel the world, and try every food that people have ever eaten, and will ever eat (of course I'd have to be immortal too - but if we're already on that primrose path, why not throw immortality into the mix).
evilwoman - I think you are my opposite, the one thing I don't like about cake is the frosting and I never liked white cake!
I don't eat frosting either. Never have, never will.
The purpose of frosting (which is mostly grease) is to seal the cake so it won't dry out. The only reason frosting is sweetened is to prevent the cake from tasting funny. DH, a former professional baker, learned this in baking school and passed the information onto me.
Speaking of craving broccoli, my husband and I were driving to the grocery store and I said really loud "I want broccoli".
I've been craving broccoli recently but I keep forgetting to buy some when I'm at the store so I figured if I told him, he'd help me remember. I started laughing at myself because I said it louder than I meant to and then told him "wow I feel like I have turrets" then my husband said "you have vege turrets"
I think there's more to it than whether one eats emotionally. Face it--if any of us were like that, we wouldn't be here, would we?
I am not an emotional eater--and I don't binge eat--and I gained weight eating healthy, nourishing foods, not junk. I have never been big on eating desserts or chocolate or overly sweet foods--they happened, but rarely. But I gain weight when I eat what I want, because what I want to eat ends up being more than I burn.
I probably generalized my comments a bit, but they're actually not mine, they are Geneen Roth's. She wrote Women, Food and God. It's an interesting read, makes you think, but her ideas are little agravating. She basically makes it sound like we can all eat whatever we want and not gain weight.
I tried intuitive eating, during my "fat acceptance" years (when I firmly believed (and was correct in the way I went about it) that dieting caused weight gain, not weight loss). The refusal to diet, and learning to eat when hungry, did solve my binge eating. When food wasn't forbidden, there wasn't much need to binge, I guess. I also didn't gain weight (I didn't lose any either).
I'd always assumed I was an emotional eater, but avoiding carbs has shown me that is not the case. The carbs trigger the moodswings. I wasn't eating carbs because of emotions, the carbs were causing the emotions. It's a bit like the homer simpson quote about alcohol (the cause of ... and answer to all of life's problems).
My physiological reaction to carbs, makes intuitive eating impossible. In reading David Kessler's book, The End of Overeating, I wonder if intuitive eating is truly possible for anyone who isn't eating almost exclusively whole foods (and maybe some people have to restrict further if they're insulin resistant or have intense carb-cravings).
In the book, Kessler sites research on the almost addictive nature of carbohydrates, and certain flavor/texture combinations, especially the fat/sweet/salty combination (and how it's magnified by stress). Even lab rats aren't immune - there seems to be a biological drive to overreat this flavor combination (possibly because in the natural world, it would be such a rare resource that the instinct is to "stock up" while it's available, because it's likely to be in short supply).
It reminds me of an incident with my own pet rat (a beautiful, silky coated champagne female), Pinky. One evening (I usually had an evening snack, and when I did, I'd give her a bit of it), I fed her a bit of cracker with asiago cheese spread (awesome stuff by the way. $8 a tub at Sam's Club). She'd never had it before, but she obviously enjoyed it (and kept her little nose poking through the bars of her cage for several minutes, before realizing no more would be forthcoming).
The very next evening, when I walked into the room, she wasn't just waiting for her snack in her usual position (hubby and I fed her treats at different times of day, and in different areas of her three story cage - so she knew where she needed to be to get her treat. The top floor left corner in the morning for hubby, the second floor right corner in the evening for me).
Apparently she didn't behave any differently for hubby (but his snack was always the same, a prepackaged rodent treat from the pet store), but the next evening, she wasn't just waiting for me in her usual spot, she had all four paws wrapped around the bars, and she was shaking them with all her might (after that, we called the asiago spread "rat crack").
Unfortunately for Pinky, snack that night was an apple (which she enjoys, and did take from my fingers, and eat - but there was no lingering at the bars waiting for more).
Occasionally I would give her asiago cheese spread on a bit of cracker (it had to have the cracker, she wasn't as interested in it, if it was just a bit of the cheese spread). It was the only food she ever reacted to, in such an extreme way. Even a tiny sliver of jellybean didn't elicit that strong a reaction. It falls into line with the argument in David Kessler's book though, because I don't remember ever giving her any other snack that had the carb/fat/salt combination. In fact, I rarely gave her fatty stuff, because I was eating "low-fat" at the time (but I had my own addiction to the asiago spread - and would use every one of my fat exchanges on the cheese spread, and if I went over my exchange allotment, it was usually on the cheese spread).
I'm actually lucky that our local Sam's doesn't sell the stuff (they have the cheddar spread from what looks like the same brand). Actually, just talking about it, is making me crave it intensely (It's kaplods' crack as well).
....compared to my world today 
