Rejecting Dieting

cakeforbrains

MargeretClare, what you're talking about is termed 'food !!!!!!', which I think is quite apt - the positioning of food as a kind of lustful sin. In fact, doesn't one of the mainstream diets essentially count calories as 'sins'?

Food isn't a sin. Food is an opportunity to enjoy and to nourish. There is nothing wrong with enjoying food. I have been 'addicted' to chocolate all my life, for instance, but never tasted it as fully as I have since I have been intuitively eating.

I understand what a couple of you are saying about sugar and about processed foods. They are far from ideal and often don't sit well in our bodies. That said, I don't agree with cutting out whole food groups/types with the aim of losing weight. If you cut out certain foods because you've realised that your body doesn't tolerate them well, that's positive, but if you're cutting things out to lose weight the chances are that you'll end up obsessing about that food and craving it much more than you would if you just ate it in the first place (not directing this at anyone in particular; should have said 'one' instead of 'you'!)

Although Fat is a Feminist Issue is one of my main sources of guidance, I don't really blame men for the problems that women face with food and bodies. Nor do I think that it's only women who have these problems. It's much more complicated than that. I would argue that a lot of the problems are the result of a patriarchal society - but that's not the same as blaming men. It takes a lot of history to develop patriarchy.

As LolitaLove says, loving and appreciating your body is the key. We all have a natural pre set optimum size that our bodies will be most happy at. If we truly listen to our bodies they will become this size, but for many people this size will still be 'fat'. 'Healthy BMI' is, to my current understanding, a load of rubbish not backed up by science. In reality the weight range in which people remain healthy is much much wider than we're told about. After all, the massive, multi-billion dollar diet industry would fall flat on its face if we weren't all striving to exist within the same 20lb band.

That reminds me, if anyone is interested there's a four-part series starting tonight on BBC2 called 'The Men Who Made Us Thin'. It examines the diet industry and how it's a business that depends upon 'failure'. I've got high hopes for it...

cakeforbrains

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I agree with margaretclare (as usual!), but just to add that we should be aware of our optimum weight (medical not vanity) and try to stay around that, and not let it creep up.

BUPA told me what I should be and because of health problems (cholesterol, kidney, liver), it's in my interest to stay close to that level. I just didn't want to take medication.

(63 kgs and I'm 5'5" and age 66).

Research shows that activity levels and diet content (oh, and not smoking) have a much greater bearing on health than one's weight or BMI. The amazing book 'The Obesity Myth' explains this much better than I could.

Hope you feel better soon.

margaretclare

I've been to Anglo-Saxon themed dinners, and a couple of interesting things:

There were no potatoes (these were introduced in the 17th century and became a cheap food for the poor, largely because they could be grown on marginal land (e.g.Ireland, the Scottish Highlands).

There was no sugar. Sweetening was done with honey, but mostly, food was far less sweet than we're used to.

So, potatoes and refined sugar. Do we really need them? Over centuries of human evolution, in our country at least we didn't have them.

I've eaten very good dinners as per the Anglo-Saxon way of eating. In addition, for them eating a good meal, or 'feasting' as they called it, was a social situation. Snacking, or eating on your own between meals, was unheard-of. It's known that eating in company as an enjoyable activity, sitting at a table, is much better for you than is eating on your own on the sofa in front of the TV.

I think one of the things that may have happened was, following the years of rationing (we came very close to starvation) the national mindset changed. 'Just enough', as we'd had during rationing, was no longer good enough. 'More is better' became the mantra.

Just a few thoughts.

Jennifer_Jane

cakeforbrains wrote: »

Research shows that activity levels and diet content (oh, and not smoking) have a much greater bearing on health than one's weight or BMI. The amazing book 'The Obesity Myth' explains this much better than I could.

Hope you feel better soon.

Why thank you!

I actually feel fabulous, these things (cholesterol, kidney and liver disease) are silently working on your body, and only tests reveal the problems until it gets too late.

I have been working on what the doctors have said to me, which, indeed does concur with activity and diet content. I apologise for not saying this more clearly: it was weight reduction, but also eating 3 helpings of oily fish a week, and I swim on average 2-3 times a week for an hour.

So I agree with you completely, I only gave half the story, but this thread is about whether or not to diet, and most people do it to lose weight. My point was know your medically-approved weight and try to keep at about those levels. Don't let it get out of hand, so it becomes a huge (sorry, no pun intended) problem.

If your weight is correct, then usually your diet (talking about your food regime, rather than a specific "diet") is correct and your health is better.

~Chameleon~

margaretclare wrote: »

I've been to Anglo-Saxon themed dinners, and a couple of interesting things:

There were no potatoes (these were introduced in the 17th century and became a cheap food for the poor, largely because they could be grown on marginal land (e.g.Ireland, the Scottish Highlands).

There was no sugar. Sweetening was done with honey, but mostly, food was far less sweet than we're used to.

So, potatoes and refined sugar. Do we really need them? Over centuries of human evolution, in our country at least we didn't have them.

You might want to research the Paleo Diet, which is a modern take on basically what you describe above. Many of us follow this way of eating, to an extent, although I don't go as far as cutting dairy out of my diet which some of the more extreme versions do.

cakeforbrains

margaretclare wrote: »

I've been to Anglo-Saxon themed dinners, and a couple of interesting things:

There were no potatoes (these were introduced in the 17th century and became a cheap food for the poor, largely because they could be grown on marginal land (e.g.Ireland, the Scottish Highlands).

There was no sugar. Sweetening was done with honey, but mostly, food was far less sweet than we're used to.

So, potatoes and refined sugar. Do we really need them? Over centuries of human evolution, in our country at least we didn't have them.

I've eaten very good dinners as per the Anglo-Saxon way of eating. In addition, for them eating a good meal, or 'feasting' as they called it, was a social situation. Snacking, or eating on your own between meals, was unheard-of. It's known that eating in company as an enjoyable activity, sitting at a table, is much better for you than is eating on your own on the sofa in front of the TV.

I think one of the things that may have happened was, following the years of rationing (we came very close to starvation) the national mindset changed. 'Just enough', as we'd had during rationing, was no longer good enough. 'More is better' became the mantra.

Just a few thoughts.

Interesting theory. I'm sure that rationing must have affected us in many ways.

With regards to potatoes, I see what you're saying there, but that can be said for loads of different foods depending on what part of the world you're in. Many people believe, for instance, that olive oil is in some way essential, but not that long ago it was only available to people in the Mediterranean. And then there are other foods, cheese for instance, that would have required such a complicated thought process to invent that we can assume that plenty of humans got along fine without it beforehand.

i really don't think that we can blame eating problems and unnatural weight gain (can't think of a better phrase) on any particular food or food group. I think it's to do with the way we eat and the way we see food and our bodies. Babies are born fully able to regulate their food intake; they naturally eat when they are hungry and stop when they are satiated. Pretty early on we start teaching them all manner of food rules (only eat at certain times, don't snack, finish your plate, eat savoury before sweet, don't eat 'naughty' foods, teat yourself with a slice of cake, console yourself with chocolate etc. etc.) so by the time they come out of childhood they've already managed to repeatedly override their body's natural cues in favour of societal eating conventions.

At that point we tend to add to the load all sorts of negative messages about body shape and size. (Increasingly younger) children are well aware that there is a very limited weight range that they should fit into, and that their individual body parts are almost certainly problematic (big bum, small bust, not muscly enough etc.). We promise them that these problems can be fixed by dieting, and when those diets inevitably fail (as they almost always do) we blame them for being too greedy/lazy/lacking in willpower. We fetishise food and fetishize thinness with equal vigour. People learn that their bodies are wrong and that their appetites are not to be trusted. They get into binge/purge cycles that often lead to weight loss, and almost always lead to discomfort around food and eating.

I find it amazing to watch my children eat. I'll never be able to shelter them from all this completely, but the fact that they are all boys will probably help. I don't discourage snacking, I never force them to finish a meal, and I try not to get het up with (m)any food rules. The youngest was full Baby Led Weaned, which means I've never put a spoon on mush into his mouth; he's always been fully in control.

Gone on for a bit longer than I thought I would here. Just a few thoughts!

~Chameleon~

cakeforbrains wrote: »

Research shows that activity levels and diet content (oh, and not smoking) have a much greater bearing on health than one's weight or BMI. The amazing book 'The Obesity Myth' explains this much better than I could.

Hope you feel better soon.

Whilst weight and BMI are fairly irrelevant indicators of health, one measurement which is very important, and people should start adopting, is the waist circumference to height ratio.

If your waist measurement is more than 50% that of your height then you are what is classed as centrally obese, which means you're carrying visceral fat surrounding your internal organs.

This is far more harmful to health than the adipose fat stored under the skin, and what people naturally associate with obesity. Apparently slim (visually) people can still be (centrally) obese and unhealthy and at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes so get measuring those waistlines!

If you're female and your waistline is >35" you are at risk.

If you're male and your waistline is >40" you are at risk. (Asian males 38")

And for men, this measurement is NOT your trouser waist size (that is actually your hip measurement) but the measurement taken around your natural waist in line with your navel. This will often be 3"-4" greater than your actual trouser size




ETA: Amended waist measurement figures above but the ones I originally typed are the ideal measurements for good health which was women should be ≤31.5" and men should be ≤35" (Asian men ≤34"). Hope that makes more sense to everyone now

cakeforbrains

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Why thank you!

I actually feel fabulous, these things (cholesterol, kidney and liver disease) are silently working on your body, and only tests reveal the problems until it gets too late.

I have been working on what the doctors have said to me, which, indeed does concur with activity and diet content. I apologise for not saying this more clearly: it was weight reduction, but also eating 3 helpings of oily fish a week, and I swim on average 2-3 times a week for an hour.

So I agree with you completely, I only gave half the story, but this thread is about whether or not to diet, and most people do it to lose weight. My point was know your medically-approved weight and try to keep at about those levels. Don't let it get out of hand, so it becomes a huge (sorry, no pun intended) problem.

If your weight is correct, then usually your diet (talking about your food regime, rather than a specific "diet") is correct and your health is better.

I (politely) disagree with your last point here. I think 'correct' weights as prescribed by the health industry are unnecessarily narrow. Research shows that being overweight, or even obese, as an independent factor, has little to no bearing on health. That means, for instance, that an obese person has the same mortality rates as an 'average' person (and often lower mortality rates than a mildly underweight person). Exercise, diet content, and smoking status are much better indicators of health. That means that you can't tell how healthy a person is (or will be) by looking at their BMI/weight/size.

Also, many slim people have terrible diets, and many fat people have good diets.

adouglasmhor

margaretclare wrote: »

I've been to Anglo-Saxon themed dinners, and a couple of interesting things:

There were no potatoes (these were introduced in the 17th century and became a cheap food for the poor, largely because they could be grown on marginal land (e.g.Ireland, the Scottish Highlands).

There was no sugar. Sweetening was done with honey, but mostly, food was far less sweet than we're used to.

So, potatoes and refined sugar. Do we really need them? Over centuries of human evolution, in our country at least we didn't have them.

I've eaten very good dinners as per the Anglo-Saxon way of eating. In addition, for them eating a good meal, or 'feasting' as they called it, was a social situation. Snacking, or eating on your own between meals, was unheard-of. It's known that eating in company as an enjoyable activity, sitting at a table, is much better for you than is eating on your own on the sofa in front of the TV.

I think one of the things that may have happened was, following the years of rationing (we came very close to starvation) the national mindset changed. 'Just enough', as we'd had during rationing, was no longer good enough. 'More is better' became the mantra.

Just a few thoughts.

Of course someone in their late 30s was old in Anglo Saxon times. Just the sort of culture i would look at for heath advice.

Gloomendoom

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

If you're male and your waistline is >35" you are at risk. (Asian males 34")

And for men, this measurement is NOT your trouser waist size (that is actually your hip measurement) but the measurement taken around your natural waist in line with your navel. This will often be 3"-4" greater than your actual trouser size

So is it 35" or 50%?