Wow! We finally made it to the answer section.
Welcome to the continuing group read of Dr. David Kessler's The End of Overeating. For those who have been following along, it's a milestone. We have been reading up to now from multiple points of view about about the reasons Kessler believes that food that is high in fat, salt and sugar acts like a drug for some subset of the population. (Some of us think umami -- free glutamate -- can present a similar hazard.) With such "hyperpalatable" food made widely and cheaply available by market forces today, those of us who are vulnerable easily get hooked, habituated and habit-formed at a young age to repeat behaviors that inevitably pile on many unwanted and unhealthy pounds.
But what remedies are there? Finally we get to Part Four, "The Theory of Treatment," which starts with Ch. 36, "Invitations to the Brain." For earlier installments, page on back to Ch. 35 with Edward Spurlock, the founder of this reading project, who also kindly provides links back to the entire series.
WHEE (Weight, Health, Eating and Exercise) is a community support diary for Kossacks who are currently or planning to start losing, gaining or maintaining their weight through diet and exercise or fitness. Any supportive comments, suggestions or positive distractions are appreciated. If you are working on your weight or fitness, please -- join us! You can also click the WHEE tag to view all diary posts.
This chapter is about refusing cues that invite us to engage in troublesome eating behavior. (You know what I mean -- those doughnuts ;-).
It's all very well to talk about "just say no," but for many of us, there's no "just" about it. We experience both the "no" and the "yes."
We vividly experience a preoccupying inward struggle of greater or less length. And then...a lot the time, "yes" wins. So -- is it possible to arrange for the "no" impulse to receive some kind of lasting power boost?
Here's the precis:
One. Those of us who have been plagued with "conditioned hypereating" need to be aware that we have become hypersensitized to external cues that suggest we eat something extra rewarding. Like those donuts. We have to stay awake and alert to those cues and intervene before our automated response kicks in. Once the response starts, it's almost impossible to stop in mid-stride. ("Bet you can't eat just one.")
Two. Dally with the impulse, and your resolution to abstain is toast.
The refusal must come early..."It's only at the very beginning, when the invitation arises, that you have any control over it," [James] Leckmann confirmed.
Leckman is a professor with the Child Study Center at Yale's School of Medicine.
Three. As with smokers, there is no such thing as a cure. The impulse to eat those donuts may remain in abeyance for months for years, but the right kind of cues in the right kind of situation will always tend to reactivate the automated eating response. And then you'e on the vicious cycle all over again.
Four. Avoiding the cues, when possible, is a good idea. But with a Dunkin Donuts or equivalent on every street corner, with co-workers bringing in donuts for the office, and a plate of them on the counter at the place that dos your taxes, total avoidance is impossible. There have to be other tactics. (E.g., I can remind myself that Dunkin Donuts is owned by the Carlyle Group. Trouble is, there's still the Seven Eleven down the street, which donates to Democrats.) More tips promised in forthcoming chapters.
Self-indulgent (and even self-pitying) commentary, which may be skipped by those more practically inclined: something about this chapter in Kessler has had me musing in almost a Buddhist vein. Who is this who wants to eat this donut? Who is this who wants not to eat this donut?
It seems two centers of the brain entertain simultaneous conflicting motives: one motivation is an immediate, short-term emotional lift, which eating the donut is almost guaranteed to provide. The other motivation has two parts. It encompasses a desire to feel better in the long term, which is real, but not so vivid. Also, a desire to look better in the terms approved by our society, which is an ego need, basically. But health or ego, both represent a potential emotional lift, in the long term, and less vivid than the immediate taste of sugar on the tongue.
So it's on the one hand, emotional lift in the short term, immediate and vivid to the imagination, versus on the other hand, emotional lift there, on a longer horizon, less vivid to the imagination.
Is it any wonder the short-term payoff wins such decisions more often? Eat, drink and be merry is an old wisdom. For tomorrow, who knows?
And I ask this philosophically -- why is it that I sometimes identify "me" with one or the other impulse? "I" want that donut, bad girl (the superego as not-me tyrannical character, down with her.) "I" don't want that donut, but I "have this powerful(not-me) impulse" that somehow "I'" must find a way to bring under control.
But in fact...oh, dear, this is problematical in a WHEE context, but who am I to say that the long-term choice is RIGHT and the short-term choice is WRONG? And who is this who can seemingly entertain both impulses and judge one impulse as better than the other? One part of the brain hoping to trick or train another part of the brain into behaving "better", when I think about it, is almost...absurd. Which is probably an angle on why a lot of diet schemes that look good on paper don't work in practice.
The question then is to what extent short-term and long-term needs -- pleasure and health and looking good -- can all be accomodated? Rather than having to choose? Certainly "hyperpalatable" food faces us with a choice, pleasure or health. Another reason to go with fresh, whole food choices that -- once our palates adjust -- can provide both.
Full disclosure: I "lost" it on Christmas Day, having too much fun with good company to give a darn about long-term anything, and consumed, in addition to the classic dinner, 1 1/2 glasses of red wine, 1 slice of pumpkin ice cream pie, 1 glass of Amontillado sherry and about six hazelnut truffles. As a result, I developed a severe craving for more sherry and after 2 days of concerted resistance, am drinking a glass as I type. Also, in the intervening days, I've consumed a lot of highly palatable, high-calorie stuff including a thick, delicious tomato soup, steak (sorry, veggies), bleu cheese, and cream cheese, and these have been a genuine pleasures, and was that wrong? But who is this that is distressed that the scale is up by about 1 pound? And who is rather depresssed to conclude that this cannot continue, but rather calories would have to be cut significantly from the prvious weight-loss level, if there is to be any further decline in poundage? I.e., (self-pityingly) it probably means living on 1/2 cup of oatmeal per day, skim milk, no sugar. And after the relief of the recent celebration, how is this thinkable?
Scheduled WHEE diaries
December 30
Weds AM - ???
Weds PM - Edward Spurlock (Geek My Fitness)
December 31
Thurs AM - freedapeople
Thurs PM - ???
January 1
Fri AM - kismet
Fri PM - ???
January 2
Sat AM - ???
Sat PM - Edward Spurlock (Kessler, Ch. 37)
January 3
Sun AM - ???
Sun PM - ???
January 4
Mon AM - NC Dem (looking at your pecs!)
Mon PM - ???
January 5
Tues AM - ???
Tues PM - Clio2 (Kessler, Ch. 38)
Please feel free to volunteer under the tip jar.