If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:57:00 -0300, Crafting Mom wrote:
Starvation sucks, but hunger, the true signal that it is time to eat, is a good thing. Hunger is not the true sign that it is time to eat as very often we are hungry with no need whatsoever to eat. Same with thirst. Your body can willingly lie to you which is why hunger needs to be viewed from an intellectual basis not an emotional one. The ability to allow oneself a bit of time to feel that their stomach is indeed truly empty, is indeed a *good* thing. The reason being, because being NOT in a third world country, chances are high that the hunger will soon be gone. It's still even then, not a true hunger, because it's wayyyyy more temporary than those in 3rd world countries experience. We have so much food that the notion that we should have a *short* period of time (waking hours) that we have an empty stomach freaks us (the colloquial 'us') out. It's a mindset pounded into our brain so much that we've become fat. (I'm in Canada, but the availability of food is pretty much the same as the US). All you say about hunger above is accurate except that it is responsible for being fat. Most overfat people I know eat when they are not hungry in the least, mof, few know any hunger regularly at all. And for us to have an empty stomach for a few hours is not the agony that our culture would love for us to believe. Nor is it the fear or the "assurance" of malnutrition, disease letting or a host of other so called related conditions. Feeling hungry may be uncomfortable but it is a lack of comfort that, in time, becomes manageable. Like overeating becomes a manageable when uncomfortable. This temporary lack of comfort, imo, is the price, the sacrifice, one must pay to lose weight and maintain weight. And why not? Anything gotten without effort is going to be valueless and lessons learned under fire are lessons ingrained. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:48:59 GMT, DigitalVinyl wrote:
And yes foods have become the enemy but not through each consumers fault. Most of us never have any control over what we buy. Organic foods are very expensive and many people don't have the luxury of voting with their wallets. Yet they all cost more more. In the past and even now they are LUXURY items--not meant for the lower class who can't afford it. We can't vote with our wallets and control the manufacturing chain the way the capitalistic-free market is supposed to work. That's why inferior products usually become the norm instead of the best. Quality of food has little to do with the obesity epidemic in the USA. Quantity of food does. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:48:59 GMT, DigitalVinyl wrote:
And yes foods have become the enemy but not through each consumers fault. Most of us never have any control over what we buy. Organic foods are very expensive and many people don't have the luxury of voting with their wallets. Yet they all cost more more. In the past and even now they are LUXURY items--not meant for the lower class who can't afford it. We can't vote with our wallets and control the manufacturing chain the way the capitalistic-free market is supposed to work. That's why inferior products usually become the norm instead of the best. Quality of food has little to do with the obesity epidemic in the USA. Quantity of food does. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
MU wrote:
::: I'll just ::: remind myself in general to be grateful to live in an age and ::: country of abundance, remind myself that it wasn't always this way ::: and it still isn't this way everywhere in the world, and remind ::: myself not to take even one bite of food for granted. Having to ::: struggle to lose weight is a luxury in the eyes of those who are ::: truly hungry. :: :: Very nicely said. Want one reason why Americans are reviled :: internationally (especially in Muslim dominated countries. Here is :: one Luna points out. Nonsense. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
MU wrote:
::: I'll just ::: remind myself in general to be grateful to live in an age and ::: country of abundance, remind myself that it wasn't always this way ::: and it still isn't this way everywhere in the world, and remind ::: myself not to take even one bite of food for granted. Having to ::: struggle to lose weight is a luxury in the eyes of those who are ::: truly hungry. :: :: Very nicely said. Want one reason why Americans are reviled :: internationally (especially in Muslim dominated countries. Here is :: one Luna points out. Nonsense. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute nonsense.
-- Cheri Type 2, no meds for now. Roger Zoul wrote in message ... Nonsense. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
MU wrote:
:: On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:57:00 -0300, Crafting Mom wrote: :: ::: Starvation sucks, but hunger, the true signal that it is time to ::: eat, is a good thing. :: :: Hunger is not the true sign that it is time to eat as very often we :: are hungry with no need whatsoever to eat. Very true. :: Same with thirst. I'm not so sure about that one. Your :: body can willingly lie to you which is why hunger needs to be viewed :: from an intellectual basis not an emotional one. I agree. :: ::: The ability to allow oneself a bit of time to feel that their ::: stomach is indeed truly empty, is indeed a *good* thing. The ::: reason being, because being NOT in a third world country, chances ::: are high that the hunger will soon be gone. It's still even then, ::: not a true hunger, because it's wayyyyy more temporary than those ::: in 3rd world countries experience. We have so much food that the ::: notion that we should have ::: a *short* period of time (waking hours) that we have an empty ::: stomach freaks us (the colloquial 'us') out. It's a mindset ::: pounded into our brain so much that we've become fat. (I'm in ::: Canada, but the availability of food is pretty much the same as the ::: US). :: :: All you say about hunger above is accurate except that it is :: responsible for being fat. I agree. :: Most overfat people I know eat when they :: are not hungry in the least, mof, few know any hunger regularly at :: all. That was certainly true for me. :: ::: And for us to have an empty stomach for a few hours is not the ::: agony that our culture would love for us to believe. Does our culture tell us that being hungry for a few hours is bad? :: :: Nor is it the fear or the "assurance" of malnutrition, disease :: letting or a host of other so called related conditions. :: :: Feeling hungry may be uncomfortable but it is a lack of comfort :: that, in time, becomes manageable. Like overeating becomes a :: manageable when uncomfortable. Exactly. :: :: This temporary lack of comfort, imo, is the price, the sacrifice, :: one must pay to lose weight and maintain weight. I'm not convinced of that (there are other ways to pay that price), but I do agree that it is managable and a good thing to practice to control giving in to that part of ourselves that wants to just eat for the sake of eating. :: And why not? :: Anything gotten without effort is going to be valueless and lessons :: learned under fire are lessons ingrained. Yes. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
MU wrote:
Quality of food has little to do with the obesity epidemic in the USA. Quantity of food does. Except nutrient density is one of the important issues, as you and Chung both insist while steadfastly denying it, with whited knuckles and tight lips. When you say that a little "common sense" needs to be exercised when doing your preposterous 2PD, what you're really saying is "avoid calorie-dense foods." Lots of calories with few significant nutrients is one of the banes of western society. And everybody else around the world is catching up. Peddle that quantity mantra where they don't know better. Bob |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
MU wrote:
Quality of food has little to do with the obesity epidemic in the USA. Quantity of food does. Except nutrient density is one of the important issues, as you and Chung both insist while steadfastly denying it, with whited knuckles and tight lips. When you say that a little "common sense" needs to be exercised when doing your preposterous 2PD, what you're really saying is "avoid calorie-dense foods." Lots of calories with few significant nutrients is one of the banes of western society. And everybody else around the world is catching up. Peddle that quantity mantra where they don't know better. Bob |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Zoul wrote:
MU wrote: :: On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:57:00 -0300, Crafting Mom wrote: :: ::: Starvation sucks, but hunger, the true signal that it is time to ::: eat, is a good thing. :: :: Hunger is not the true sign that it is time to eat as very often we :: are hungry with no need whatsoever to eat. Very true. I think people are missing what I said. REAL hunger is indeed a true sign that it's about time to eat. PERCEIVED hunger is not. Allowing one's stomach to be *technically empty* and noting the feeling thereof is the technical hunger I am talking about. Learning the difference between that and the so-called "hunger" that most people think of when the word is mentioned is necessary. The hunger I mention is the one with the empty stomach. It does indeed feel *distinctly* different from other types of "hunger". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
sabotaged by hunger | Auntie Em | General Discussion | 13 | May 17th, 2004 02:41 PM |
Ayn Rand on hunger | Chris Braun | General Discussion | 1 | May 12th, 2004 02:28 PM |
Eating right | Diva Martine | General Discussion | 15 | April 8th, 2004 12:21 PM |
Stop Hunger Pangs | jetgraphics | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 12 | March 23rd, 2004 04:35 PM |
Real hunger vs. fake hunger | Luna | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 11 | September 28th, 2003 07:12 AM |