Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Support Focus Groups > Pre-Maintenance & Maintenance
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241   ^
Old Mon, Aug-15-11, 19:47
kaarren's Avatar
kaarren kaarren is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 332
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 204/173/150 Female 5'5"
BF:
Progress: 57%
Location: SW Missouri
Default

Well said, Tangy!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #242   ^
Old Tue, Aug-16-11, 02:30
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
August 15, 2011

Foods That Control: Mile Markers on the Road to Our Tech Future?

by Barbara Berkeley, MD


Are you an optimist or a pessimist about the future of mankind? There's a question to start your day.

In May, the Gallup Poll announced that optimism for the future of American youth had reached an all time low. When asked whether they thought that young people in the US would have a better life than their parents, 55% of those polled answered no. Pollsters commented:

The large majority of Americans expressed optimism about the future for U.S. youth when Gallup first asked this question in January 2008, as the recession began to take hold. They continued to do so even as the economic crisis unfolded and unemployment ballooned. Hopes for U.S. youth declined to the 50% level in October 2010, however, before dropping to a new low in the April 20-23, 2011, USA Today/Gallup poll.

Of course, this pessimism reflects doubts about our economic future. But what about the larger future of our species? Is there a connection between the helplessness many of us feel politically and the general trends happening in our world?

On my recent trip to southeast Asia, I had approximately 60 hours of enforced down time (travel and layovers). It was a great opportunity to read, catch up on missed movies, and watch The Godfather, (Parts I and II for the hundredth time ...still fabulous!). One of the movies I watched was a documentary called Transcendent Man. This is a film about futurist Ray Kurzweil, a brilliant, eccentric scientist who has predicted something called "The Singularity". The Singularity refers to the point at which humans and technology will effectively merge, changing the course of human evolution.

As Kurzweil points out in this film and in his written work, the pace of human techological advancement is moving so quickly that we will soon have artificial implants that will enable us to access the internet and other sources of the world's knowledge. Our bodies may soon be enhanced by injectable mini-computers and chips, making us into the bionic man. Essentially, we will eventually cease to be competely human, at least as we define that state today. While this could lead to wonderful improvements in health and longevity, the asymptotic growth of technology has more sobering, and ultimately more frightening, aspects. These relate to the seemingly inevitable development of artificial intelligence. In the not too distant futures, computer intelligence will multiply itself to the point where it exceeds out own. Once computers become smarter than man, the future looks nothing like any we might have envisioned and the place of man in the universe becomes uncertain. While many scientists believe that Kurzweil is incorrect in the timing of his predictions, no scientist who is quoted in the film doubts that we are headed in this direction.

When we imagine a world of endlessly expanding intelligence, we realize how limited we humans are and how vulnerable these limitations make us. If we look at our behavior, our literature, our art, we are fixated on a few basic themes: tribalism (war), love, and the search for spiritual meaning are the most obvious. Similarly, we are highly motivated by one very simple thing: our brain's system of rewards. Endorphins, endocannabanoids, and other brain chemicals are what keep us coming back for more. And more. Whether it's the pleasure created by food, the colors and noise of a gambling casino, the smell and feel of a cigarette, the rush of alcohol, sex or drugs, we are led around by these ancient responses, often to the point of our own destruction. Advances in technology have already shown how vulnerable we are.

Modern science has made it easier to deliver hits to our pleasure centers. Whether these come from the bright colors of video games, the instant access to pornography, or destructive foods masquerading as wonderful fun, we are easy to lure. It is not hard to imagine a future in which many of us will opt to live in a virtual world, full of colors and sensations that cannot be obtained on good old Earth. This tendency to give in to the enjoyable without regard to consequence is what gives me grounds for pessimism. Just today, for example, I saw a new patient who had been uttterly destroyed by food. He weighs over 300 pounds, is riddled with pain, is losing function in his eyes and kidneys, has had several heart attacks, is injecting insulin multiple times a day and yet he describes an utter passion for junk food, fast food, and sweets. Perhaps it is judgemental to say that this is a tragedy. We all have the freedom to pick the way we want to live. But my worry stems from a suspicion that we aren't choosing so much as being manipulated by ever-heightened pleasure experiences. The modern production of food may be one of the best examples of this unfortunate phenomenon.

Our inability to see that our country is being weakened by tehnologically enhanced food and our sheer willingness to embrace these products as harmless fun makes me worry for our greater future. If we are willing to be killed by food, how easy will it be to offer us other kinds of pleasurable "enhancements"? How simple we will be to control. Unless we start looking at our changing world critically, it will take no more than a sweeter, brighter, more colorful drug to destroy us completely. Now that's pessimism.
http://refusetoregain.com/refusetor...ech-future.html
Reply With Quote
  #243   ^
Old Tue, Aug-16-11, 09:02
freckles's Avatar
freckles freckles is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,730
 
Plan: Atkins Maintenance
Stats: 213/141/150 Female 5'4 1/2"
BF:
Progress: 114%
Location: Dallas, TX
Default

Quote:
If we are willing to be killed by food,


What a shocking but truthful way to put it....
Reply With Quote
  #244   ^
Old Thu, Aug-18-11, 02:49
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
August 17, 2011

The Too Busy Brain: Implications of Decision Fatigue

by Barbara Berkeley, MD


When I was younger, I could never understand people who went to the same place for vacation year after year. Wouldn't they want to explore the world? Have new adventures? It seemed very uninteresting. But as I've gotten older, my family has found themselves returning to the same beach in Caribbean for over 20 years. It's a place that provides complete peace and rest. I've often wondered why.

This particular island paradise is not all that perfect. There is escalating crime, an unacceptably high rate of poverty and AIDS, and, at the moment, an epidemic of Dengue Fever. But after my recent return from a trip that my younger self would have cheered: a complicated, stressful and stimulating trip to Asia, the appeal of our Caribbean retreat suddenly came into focus. It is a place that removes all need to make decisions.

Our island has no malls, no big box stores, and no glut of restaurants. From the moment our plane touches down, we have very few choices. Pool or beach? Dinner at five or at seven? Watch a movie or go to sleep? While away, we stay mostly disconnected from our jobs and our cell phones. This, combined with a soaking of sun and sea breeze, makes for a wonderful, restorative retreat.

Vacations (aside from adventure travel) have always had this element. Whether it's the sand and a good book or a cozy fire at your favorite ski lodge, vacation has traditionally meant down-time; a time that the brain as well as the body goes on holiday.

Just prior to leaving for the Asia trip, my brother-in-law convinced me that I should buy an IPad. He had become addicted to this little piece of technology and assured me that it would be the perfect travel companion. It was. This tiny wafer of a computer held all my books, connected me to the internet, took photos for me, made phone calls and stored the six movies I wanted to watch during 20 hours of flight time. It even let me play Scrabble with daughter and listen to all of my music. It was great!

But the entry of the IPad into my life, along with my recent decision to switch from a PC to a Mac, has plunged me into a sea of choice that has been dizzying and disconcerting. Just holding the IPad triggers a low level wave of anxiety. Read the headlines? Finish the next chapter in that book I'm reading? Go back to that other book I started? Check Facebook? Answer email? It's all a moment away, and I find myself flipping from one to the other in a way that feels more like a rat trying to find its way through a maze than a person accessing needed information.

So I was particularly intrigued to read a lengthy, but extremely important article on decision making in today's NY Times. Entitled Do You Suffer From Decision Fatigue?, this is a must-read piece that confirms what most of us already know: we are paying price for the abundant choice in our world.

Constant decision making wears us down and deteriorates our ability to make good choices. Essentially, after being asked to decide on everything from the elements of our latte to the features we want on our phones to which of the thousands of items in our supermarket we choose to buy, we revert to default or to making the easiest choice. We lose our willpower, which is another way of saying that we lose direction. I can feel the pressure of this decision fatigue every day. It feels very real to me, particularly when I juxtapose my life here with my life in vacation mode.

Obviously, the issue of willpower is of prime importance to those who want to control weight. This article is in agreement with my belief that limiting choice is essential for keeping willpower intact.

When you read this article, I hope you'll take the section about glucose with a grain of salt. The authors of some studies appeared to show that giving people sugar helped restore their willpower. I haven't looked at all the data, but it doesn't seem that they tried other restoratives, like feeding people a healthy meal or having them take an exercise or meditative break. While a shot of glucose does recharge the brain (and this is one of the reasons that sugary foods are so attractive), we pay for it with hunger and cravings later.

This caveat aside, I think that you will all relate to the data presented in this article. I'd be interested to know if others feel similarly overwhelmed by the need to choose. I loved this quote, which closes the Times piece:

“Good decision making is not a trait of the person, in the sense that it’s always there,” Baumeister says. “It’s a state that fluctuates.” His studies show that people with the best self-control are the ones who structure their lives so as to conserve willpower. They don’t schedule endless back-to-back meetings. They avoid temptations like all-you-can-eat buffets, and they establish habits that eliminate the mental effort of making choices. Instead of deciding every morning whether or not to force themselves to exercise, they set up regular appointments to work out with a friend. Instead of counting on willpower to remain robust all day, they conserve it so that it’s available for emergencies and important decisions.

This view dovetails with my own. In order to keep our lives on track and preserve our will to move in the directions we desire, we need to limit our exposure to needless choice. Doing this is a personal task and the ability to tolerate decision making may vary in individuals, but the research cited in this article suggests that most of us are vulnerable to a world that fatigues our brain. While we work to make ourselves healthier in body, let's not forget that the brain and body are part of one entity and both need our care.
http://refusetoregain.com/refusetor...on-fatigue.html
Reply With Quote
  #245   ^
Old Thu, Aug-18-11, 10:52
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
August 18, 2011

The Tag-a-Long Phenomenon: A Healthy Contagion

by Barbara Berkeley, MD


You may have read the headlines awhile back in your local newspaper. Obesity is contagious.

Based on data emerging from several large scale clinical studies, researchers announced that those of us who socialize with, or live with those who are obese have the tendency to "catch" it, making obesity into a sort of fatty measles.

This news made all the major papers and media outlets and of course led to the obvious and unfortunate conclusion that obese people were to be avoided just as we might give those with strep throat a wide berth. As with many pieces of research that are trumpeted with great fanfare, this one is now being called into question. Unfortunately, the media spotlight rarely catches up with the reviews and criticisms that occur after an announcement is made.

A recent article in the New York Times pointed out the shortcomings of this research. Basically, it's extremely difficult to separate contagion from other phenomena. Perhaps overweight people tend to cluster together because they choose friends who have similar lifestyles or because watching the behaviors of close friends and family tends to normalize those behaviors in their minds, making them more acceptable.

The jury is out.

However, I think that this controversy gives me the perfect opening to discuss one of my favorite related phenomena: the fact that those who develop new, healthy, lifestyles seem to have a strong influence on those around them. In fact, a large percentage of my successful patients report that someone in their life, a spouse, friend, or child, will have lost significant weight and changed behaviors as a result of watching their progress.

I call this the Tag-a-Long Phenomenon and I believe it demonstrates the same principles documented by the researchers on obesity contagion: but in reverse.

A friend of mine developed an autoimmune disease and was overweight. As a result of knowing and observing me, she adopted a grain-free diet and became a 90% Primarian. She lost all of her excess weight and had a marked decrease in the symptoms of her disorder (which had reached the point where she was about to begin steroid treatment). About a year later, her overweight son adopted the same diet and normalized his weight. Sometime after that, her husband, who had been highly skeptical of dietary change, began to eat the same way.

Our practice treated a man who had been told he needed gastric bypass to control a new case of diabetes. After losing all of his weight and becoming a Primarian eater, his wife came to us for similar treatment. We then treated their children. Friends who knew the family turned out to have been influenced by their results. Some came to us and some adopted similar eating principles on their own. This single man's food conversion has now effected upwards of a dozen people.

We work with the president of a major company. After losing significantly and becoming a runner and primarily Primarian eater, our patient noticed that members of his management team began to show similar inclinations. One became a marathoner and others lost and maintained weight. The change in their lives has led to an interest in new programs and healthy initiatives throughout the company.

What is contagion? In my view, its definition is clinically unimportant when it comes to behaviors. Whether we call it contagion, influence, or modeling, it is obvious is that human beings closely observe one another and learn from what they see. If eating too much is the norm in your circle, it will be harder to avoid it. However, if you make the effort to be someone who changes and has a true shift in belief and behavior, there will be many people around you who will watch and perhaps mimic your efforts.

Because behaviors get into the cultural atmosphere and have the ability to spread "virally", it is important to create an environment that values health more and relies on medicines less. We all have a bit of the lemming in us. But given the chance, it's as easy to follow the one who's ascending to the mountaintop as it is to pursue the one who's headed off the cliff.
http://refusetoregain.com/refusetor...-contagion.html
Reply With Quote
  #246   ^
Old Tue, Aug-23-11, 11:47
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
August 23, 2011

Novak Djokovic: The Diet That Conquered Tennis

by Barbara Berkeley, MD


For those of you who don't spend your days watching Tennis Channel, let me bring you up to date.

Since the current professional men's season began last year, Serbian tennis phenom Novak Djokovic has dominated his sport in a way that is nothing short of astounding. He has won 57 matches and lost only 2 and has ascended to the number one spot in the world (view Djokovic's website here) What makes this so incredible? He's done it in the very midst of the dominant era of unbeatable superstars Rafa Nadal and Roger Federer. Federer and Nadal have controlled the two top rankings in tennis since 2005 and, until recently, Rafa appeared poised to claim his spot as one of the greatest ever as he took over from a slightly slower 30 year old Federer.

Before this season began, Djokovic sat in the number three spot. His tennis was strong and sharp, but he often struggled with breathing problems, what seemed to be an episodic de-conditioning, and a mental attitude that made him prone to frustration and breaking things.

That Djokovic could so completely turn things around in one short season is mind-blowing. Sports writers chalk this up to a new confidence, a stronger serve, and a better mental game. Less frequently discussed is another intriguing factor: before this season began, Novak Djokovic gave up carbohydrates.

A piece written in May for the Wall Street Journal (see previous link) mentioned the diet change in its title, but gave it short shrift when discussing possible reasons for Djokovic’s near-miraculous improvement. Surely the change must have occurred because he gained confidence. Surely the dietary contribution is nothing more than a placebo.

The article quotes David Levinksy, a nutrition professor from Cornell:

Levitsky said a gluten-free diet might have benefits for those with mild allergies, or even no allergy at all. "The other part of the story is, if you believe in a cause of your disorder, it becomes the cause," he said. "We see this in many different studies. If you believe it, you change your behavior in the direction of being cured."

This explanation seems odd, considering that it appears in an article entitled, “Starch Madness: Novak Djokovic’s Domination of the Sport Has Coincided with His Gluten-Free Turn”. It’s as if the writer posed the question, but didn’t dare go after the answer. Is it possible that, in fact, cutting out carbohydrates made Djokovic into a better athlete? Is it possible that everything we've believed about the importance of loading our muscles with tons of starches is untrue? Is it possible that we can play endlessly taxing endurance sports without jamming ourselves full of pasta and potatoes? And is it possible that we might be better off for it?

It seems that world number 4 Andy Murray thought so. He has adopted the Djokovic diet. How much do you want to bet that others follow. By the way, Murray just became the second person to beat Djokovic this year (although Djokovic did have a shoulder injury and was forced to withdraw after a set). Commentators for the match remarked repeatedly about Murray’s fitness and ability to move around the court. Coincidence?

I have held a consistent view on diet and it is a view that I believe holds up when one examines Djokovic’s transformation. Rather than worry about individual dietary elements, we should attempt to eat foods that are most like the ones are bodies understand genetically. Since our genes are thousands of generations old, we need to look at the foods that were prevalent in those times: lean proteins, fats that come from natural sources (and thus have higher omega 3-6 ratios), vegetable and fruit matter, seafood, nuts and other naturally occurring plant foods. Suars and starches (including grain) were not a part of that original diet and are processed poorly or even cause overt harm in those of us who are more “original” genetically. In addition, our body has certain fuel expectations. Large amounts of carbohydrate as fuel seem to me to be inconsistent with what our body was fine-tuned to expect.

In my own practice I treat many tennis players and runners who are significantly overweight despite many hours of intense exercise. When they change their diet to one that is primarily Primarian, they not only lose weight but they become more efficient at their sports. For those who are interested in pursuing very taxing endurance exercise like triathalons or marathons, I suggest reading the book Paleo Diet for Athletes by Loren Cordain and Joe Friel. This addresses the particular needs of those who require some additional carbohydrate when training for specific endurance events.

In my own life, I attribute the ability of my 63 year old body to run a 5K, play hours of tennis, and do aerobic exercise at high capacity to the right mix of fuels. I have no doubt in my mind that it is Primarian eating, and not placebo, that has kept me lean and strong.

Dietary beliefs die hard and unfortunately, our unwillingness to give up the conventional wisdom leads to real death, the death of those who develop diabetes, heart disease and cancer as a result of the profligate consumption of insulin stimulating carbohydrates.

Is the Djokovic diet phenomenon real? You bet it is.
http://refusetoregain.com/refusetor...red-tennis.html
Reply With Quote
  #247   ^
Old Thu, Sep-22-11, 12:03
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
September 21, 2011

Controlled by a Cookie: When Foods Become Drugs

by Barbara Berkeley, MD

Do you take medicine to treat your blood pressure? Once you swallow your pill, can you control your blood pressure via sheer willpower? While such feats of bodily control are reported by swamis and other advanced body-mind practitioners, they are not in the average person's repetoire. And a good thing too, because the power of drugs to take over ailing body systems is the reason they work. Medicinal drugs are substances which enter from the outside and take control of inner processes. They cause chemical changes that in turn change those who take them..hopefully with positive effect. But, as we well know, drugs can have negative effects too, especially when their chemical properties are used to create pleasure.

Consider these two definitions of the word "drug":

1. a chemical substance that affects the processes of the mind or body.

2. a substance used recreationally for its effects on the central nervous system, such as a narcotic.

Every overweight person I've ever encountered recognizes that certain foods have drug-like properties. During an intake visit, a new patient will generally put his finger right on the foods that are submarining him. He or she will often use the language of addiction to describe these foods: "I'm addicted to sweets", "I'm a chocoholic", "I just can't stop eating bread." It's not coincidence that such language should leap to the lips. Foods DO alter the processes of the mind and/or body. Foods ARE substances that are used recreationally and which do have effect on the central nervous system. In fact, certain foods can be viewed very much as drugs. Despite this, we believe that once ingested, we can control these particular "drugs" by sheer willpower.

Perhaps you do not agree that food and drugs are similar. After all, we are designed to eat food and even if ingesting food does cause changes within the body, they should be natural, expected changes. Until recently, this has certainly always been the case, but let me suggest two reasons why things may have changed.

First: There can be no question that eating food is a natural behavior that provokes natural responses. I would make the case, however, that in a very real way we no longer eat "food". Processed foods that are chock full of preservatives, colors, and chemicals have little resemblance to what our body is equipped to handle. Foods that hit us with enormous punches to the insulin system---the sugar and starch foods---are also very new to human experience.

Second: Many of us who eat the western diet or SAD (Standard American Diet) have developed inappropriate reactions to eating these newer foods. This is especially true for those foods that turn into sugar after digestion (the sugars themselves and the starchy carbs like grain, cereal, pasta, flour based foods and potatoes). If we have begun to develop a "broken" reponse...in the form of what we call insulin resistance... we will react in a new and negative way to eating. We will experience more hunger, more craving and less ability to control these foods.

Recent research into the modern epidemic of insulin resistance suggests that those of us whose insulin is no longer properly interacting with our body may also have a problem with insulin's role in the brain. The brain's form of insulin resistance occurs when insulin-related signals which normally tell us to stop eating are blunted. Thus, foods that cause insulin release are no longer equipped with the satiety safety valve that nature intended. Indeed, these foods may make cause more hunger rather than less. And who among us has not experienced the inexplicable carbohydrate craving that follows a day of bread, pasta and cookie consumption?

Thus, my hypothesis is that foods become drugs when our body no longer tolerates them well. As a child, you might have been quite able to eat a cupcake and simply stop. As an adult, one doughnut might lead to an entire box. When drugs are at the helm, you can forget willpower. Be they medicines in pill form or cookies that are decorated like Grover, your physiology is co-opted and someone else is driving the bus.

Sometimes I use the following analogy in the office: think of your trigger foods as concealed aliens. Remember the movie Men in Black? An innocuous shop-keeper might look harmless, but was actually a man-eating cockroach! Drug-foods are like that. They look attractive, luscious, and controllable, but allow them past your lips and you are under their control. You can bemoan your lack of willpower all you want, but if you've given yourself over to the aliens you are likely to spend quite some time doing things you didn't intend.

Many people simply can't understand how something as small as a cookie could cause them to abandon all resolve. But there is the error! A cookie isn't small at all. The chemical signals and bodily changes that start the moment a susceptible person sees and smells that cookie are quickly overwhelming. Eat that cookie and it is very possible that---diet-wise---all is lost.

This illustrates the problem I have with advice that suggests that it's ok to eat everything in moderation. Yes, if you are a person whose food-processing systems are all in good shape, this may be a fine strategy. In fact, if this works for you, you might well be unable to understand why it wouldn't work for everyone. But most people who are overweight have gotten heavy because food has become drug-like for them. To me, this is part of a larger picture which includes fundamental physiological changes in the way their body handles that food (mostly the starches and sugars). If you have been wrestling with willpower and blame yourself for being weak, I advise you to start seeing the true nature of your trigger foods. Start with a healthy respect for their power and a strategy of avoidance whenever possible. Remember, if you don't take a drug it can't own you.
http://refusetoregain.com/refusetor...come-drugs.html
Reply With Quote
  #248   ^
Old Sun, Oct-02-11, 09:59
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
October 02, 2011

A Calorie Just a Calorie? No Way

by Barbara Berkeley, MD


A calorie is a calorie.

This is my least-favorite dietary mantra. Why? Because in the real world of real people and real weight loss, it isn’t true.

In scientific terms, a calorie is a specific measure that refers to the amount of heat needed to raise the termperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree centigrade. We can measure the amount of heat contained in any substance by burning it in a machine called a calorimeter. Using this narrow definition, there is no question that calories are all the same. One calorie of lettuce will raise 1 gram of water by one degree. So will one calorie of M&Ms.

But the colloquial usage of “a calorie is a calorie” (let’s call this C=C) bears no relation to the scientific definition. What's usually meant is this: diets that contain the same number of calories will have the same effect on your weight loss. It doesn’t matter if those calories come from chicken breast or chocolate cake.

Those who claim that any calorie we eat is equal to any other calorie, routinely invoke the First Law of Thermodynamics as evidence. This argument is a real show-stopper. It’s hard to argue with the basic laws of universe!

But a deeper look at the thermodynamic argument reveals many holes. The First Law says that energy cannot be created or lost, only transformed. C=C proponents interpret this to mean that any calorie that goes in has to be balanced by a calorie that goes out. If the balance is tipped one way or the other, you will either lose or gain weight. But the equation for the First Law was designed to represent energy in a closed system, not in a biological system that exchanges energy with the outside world. It would be much more true if the body acted like a perfectly consistent machine and burned all calories with equal efficiency. While all calories may be the same, the way in which the body burns calories is not. This variation depends on the package which surrounds those calories.

The calories in food don’t stand alone. They are intertwined with the other properties of foods… their protein, fat and carbohydrate contents for example. These properties have absolutely no effect on a calorimeter, but they have profound effects on the human body.

This leads to an important omission in the thermodynamic argument. While those who believe in C=C support their contention with the First Law of Thermodynamics, they never mention The Second Law. (There are four, but only two apply to the physics of food). This Law states that when energy goes through a transformation, there is always some loss of energy as heat. This dissipation of calories is a function of the efficiency with which the calories are burned.

In a 2004 paper on this topic Dr. Richard Feinman offered this useful analogy (the italics are mine):

The efficiency of a machine is dependent on how the machine works and, for a biochemical machine, the nature of the fuel and the processes enlisted by the organism. A simple example is the inefficiency of low-test gasoline in high compression gasoline engines. If a "calorie is a calorie" were true, nobody would pay extra for high test gasoline. (The calorimeter values of a gasoline will be the same whether or not it contains an antiknock compound).

This dovetails nicely with what I have observed clinically for many years; that our body loses fat, works better and is less hungry when we feed it “primary” or ancestral foods. I believe that these foods are our biological “high-test”. As I often say to first-time patients, “Your body is a Ferrari but for years you’ve been putting kerosene in the gas tank”.

Feinman’s article posits a “metabolic advantage” to low carbohydrate foods. There are many studies that show that at equal calorie levels low carbohydrate foods promote greater weight loss than high carbohydrate foods. While a single calorie of each of these foods will look exactly the same to a calorimeter, it doesn’t look the same to the body. One possible reason for the difference in weight loss? The brain needs a certain amount of glucose, or blood sugar, to run. On a low carbohydrate diet, the food we eat may not provide enough. The body has to manufacture its own sugar via a process called gluconeogenesis. This process uses energy and therefore burns calories. Thus, the net available energy from a low carb calorie is lowered simply by the fact that it provokes another, heat-generating, bodily process.

A low carb calorie may be very different from a higher carb calorie in other ways. It appears to suppress appetite better. A 2011 study in the journal Obesity reported that dieters who were fed a low carb diet for two years had significantly less hunger and a statistically significant decrease in cravings for sweets and starches when compared to those on a low fat diet.

A diet that is higher in protein may have the same calories as another diet, but the protein content may cause increased thermogenesis…the loss of calories that occurs through digestion. This effect and others are laid out in a paper in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition http://www.jissn.com/content/1/2/21.

And then there is this important consideration: many of us who eat the SAD (standard American diet) have developed insulin resistance. This is a condition in which insulin is produced in response to elevated blood sugar, but fails to work properly. The muscles, which normally would burn off some of this sugar, have stopped responding to insulin. Instead, there is diversion of calories into fat. For people with insulin resistance, calories from sugar and starch provoke a very different bodily response than do protein or fat calories. They should be avoided.

Perhaps the issue is not whether a calorie is a calorie. It is the understanding that a calorie is not ONLY a calorie. When it comes to food, the body reacts to myriad elements of the food package and calories may be only a minor part of that. Even for those who already believe that calories are just a single aspect of food, the answer to the question of perfect diet remains elusive. Much of the literature refuting the C=C position comes from scientists who support low carbohydrate diets. When designing studies that pit low carb against low fat diets, they tend to use the Atkins diet as the low carb choice. While I am firmly in the low carb camp I believe in low carb in the context of Primarian (or ancient-style) diet. In our clinic, we see all of the benefits of very-low carb diets like the Atkins induction (brisk weight loss, decreased hunger, correction of metabolic abnormalities). We achieve this, however, with Primarian plans which are less restrictive and easier to follow. Unfortunately, there are few studies that have looked at the effectiveness of ancient-style eating for weight and health.

The moral is this: calories are not the be-all and end-all we’ve been led to believe. While lowering calories is key to weight loss, the type of calorie you’re consuming is equally—if not more—important.
http://refusetoregain.com/refusetor...rie-no-way.html
Reply With Quote
  #249   ^
Old Sun, Oct-02-11, 14:50
freckles's Avatar
freckles freckles is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,730
 
Plan: Atkins Maintenance
Stats: 213/141/150 Female 5'4 1/2"
BF:
Progress: 114%
Location: Dallas, TX
Default

This is a great article! I know just the person that might benefit greatly from reading it!
Reply With Quote
  #250   ^
Old Thu, Oct-20-11, 02:56
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
October 14, 2011

Binge Eating: Eat Without Restriction or EWI?


Here's a question I ask all of my new patients: "Are you a binge eater?"
About 80% of the men and women I see have to stop and think, yet they do not have anything resembling binge eating disorder. Many of those who eat the SAD (Standard American Diet) feel that they are under the control of food. Despite their best efforts, they may find themselves at the other end of an entire bag of Fritos or a full pint of ice cream. They "wake up", trance-like, with a spoon in one hand and a dazed expression, like an alcoholic after a lost weekend. Yet this is not binge eating disorder as experts would describe it. The Fritos gorge is more of a normal variant of eating behavior in America.

The definition of a binger look like this (Wikipedia):

▪ Periodically does not exercise control over consumption of food.

▪ Eats an unusually large amount of food at one time, far more than an average person would eat.

▪ Eats much more quickly during binge episodes than during normal eating episodes.

▪ Eats until physically uncomfortable and nauseated due to the amount of food consumed.

▪ Eats when depressed or bored.

▪ Eats large amounts of food even when not really hungry.

▪ Usually eats alone during binge eating episodes in order to avoid discovery of the disorder.

▪ Often eats alone during periods of normal eating, owing to feelings of embarrassment about food.

▪ Feels disgusted, depressed, or guilty after binge eating.

▪ Rapid weight gain/sudden onset of obesity.

The difference between a normal, out-of-control American eater and a true binger is one of degree, compulsion and emotional tone. Bingers describe feeling completely out of whack when binging. They also often feel that they have an “on” and “off” switch. When they are restricting food by dieting, they can be very, very good at it. One bite of the wrong food, however, or one day of unbalanced emotion can throw everything off the rails.

I specialize in treating obesity and not in the management of eating disorders, but inevitably…because of their weight… bingers make their way into my practice. When I am successful at identifying them, I always recommend that they get counseling from an eating disorders program or specialist concurrent with our treatment.

Herein lies the rub.

Most eating disorder therapists employ a form of dialectical behavior therapy. This is a treatment based on helping patients to identify stressors and maladaptive behaviors and finding healthy alternatives. At the same time, therapists usually advise patients that they must stop restricting food. Learning to control intake naturally and accept the fact that they may never be as thin as they might like is seen as an important pillar of recovery.

But I have a question about this, and I ask for help from readers in sorting it out:

The on/off nature of binging makes me suspicious that there might be a physiological trigger. Many bingers have described to me their intense compulsions to eat certain foods and the feeling of being utterly out of control after consumption. While it’s certainly possible to see the compulsion to binge as a psychological problem, it’s not the only---or even the most logical---explanation.

When I was in my twenties and thirties, I routinely ate huge meals and consumed whole cheesecakes and loaves of bread in one sitting. I ate whenever and whatever I wanted, in enormous amounts. Yet no one suggested that I had an eating disorder. Why not? Because I didn’t get heavy. If I had been obese as a result of my eating, I would no doubt have developed shame, depression and an entire approach and avoidance cycle around eating. I would likely have ended up in the office of an eating specialist.

Recently, one of my patients who has BED was advised to entirely stop restricting food intake. She gained an unacceptable amount of weight rather quickly. In discussing it with her, I shared my discomfort with the direction to eat without restriction. Because of our SAD food culture, we are surrounded by dangerous food substances, some of which appear to be particularly toxic and addictive to certain people. It seemed to me that telling such a person to eat whatever he wanted was tantamount to suggesting that he drive a car without regard to the consequences. Go ahead: Hit someone. Crash into a store. Run a red light if you feel like it.

I have always had a problem with critics of diet (the “diet is a four letter word” folks) because I think they base their objections on a misinterpretation of the idea of restriction. Restriction has a pejorative feel. It’s a tough word that doesn’t feel good to us. But suppose we substitute the words “eat with intelligence”. To eat with intelligence, one would need to know the foods that react well with ones body and those that are dangerous and destructive. It would only make sense to avoid the latter at all costs. Some would call that restriction, but I would call it EWI.

Bingers, like all humans, undoubtedly come in many permutations. For those whose binging is primarily emotional, based on previous trauma or an offshoot of significant psychological issues, an approach that asks the patient to learn dietary modulation without restriction may be appropriate. However, I suspect that for many people binging may occur in those who are highly sensitive to the chemical reactions of certain modern foods in their brains. For these people, learning to EWI rather than eat unrestrictedly would seem to be a much better treatment.

I am very interested in the experience of bingers and eating disorder specialists who may read this blog. Has DBT worked for you? Have you learned to eat “unrestrictedly” while controlling your desire to binge? I am completely open to having my theory taken down. Let me know if I’m wrong or if your experience suggests I might be onto something. Please write to me here or on Facebook at Refuse to Regain: Barbara’s World, or on Twitter at BBerkeleyMD.
http://refusetoregain.com/refusetor...ion-or-ewi.html



Quote:
October 15, 2011

This response from Alexie deserves a place in the main blog. I agree with this so completely that it really struck a chord. Thanks so much Alexie.

"This is slightly tangential to your point, but I read a lot of blogs where the idea of restricting food in any way is anathema and people talk about HAES and following body cues etc. One thing I think we've missed in all the discussions is the collapse of social rules around eating. We have, in the last twenty years, abandoned thousands of years of food culture. There have only been very specific instances in history where it was OK to eat on the run, or eat publicly while walking down the street etc, or skip communal meals. Yet now we seem to see meals served on a table, with the family all present, as an unaffordable luxury. I wonder how many problems with food would simply vanish if regular, ordered eating became normative again. If eating cake is only done at socially sanctioned times and in socially sanctioned ways (the Sunday visit), then cake ceases to be a problem. Once cake becomes something you can eat at any time of the day or night, you're going to have to expend precious mental energy consciously limiting your exposure to cake. And if you don't, you'll soon be in trouble."
Reply With Quote
  #251   ^
Old Thu, Oct-20-11, 02:57
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
October 19, 2011

Getting Fat: What You've Been Told Is Wrong

by Barbara Berkeley, MD


If you listen to the loudest voices repeating the most conventional wisdom, getting fat means that you simply eat too much. It also means that you are a slovenly slug, sitting around when you should be doing something strenuous. In addition, you are psychologically damaged and using food to salve your painful problems. Finally, you are a weak-willed incompetent who can't control a simple thing like food. What does getting fat mean? If you believe what you hear, it means you are a failure. Not just at one thing, but at many.

This is a great big, destructive, lie. (OK, let's give the wisdom-spouters the benefit of the doubt and say that they are not lying, just laboring under a major misconception).

Suppose we consider a complete shift in the way we look at weight gain. Just hear me out on this.

Suppose that we start to get fat because we have developed an intolerance to certain foods in our diet? Imagine it's akin to an allergy. You can develop an allergy any time in life, so why couldn't you develop a reaction to certain foods after years of eating them? Let's call these foods PTFs for "Poorly Tolerated Foods".

Now imagine that you are born with a normal body mechanism that knows just how to handle food. Your body has mechanisms to handle just about any perturbation. If you eat 5 bunches of bananas today for example, the potassium load won't kill you. A neat body mechanism will take care of excreting the excess. We don't think about how to heal a cut, send antibodies to fight a bacteria, or adjust our body temperature. Under normal circumstances, we shouldn't have to worry about how to keep our weight stable either. We are designed with a mechanism (I call this IBM or Intake Balance Mechanism) that does this automatically whether we eat more or less, exercise alot or a little. While some people have a weight problem from a very young age, many overweight people remember an earlier life stage during which they could eat what they wanted and exercise minimally. What happened to those halcyon days? Their IBM stopped working when they lost their tolerance to certain foods. The PTF problem messes up the function of your IBM. It no longer balances intake, but sends these foods to fat storage.

Now let's further hypothesize that one of the side effects of this intolerance is that these PTFs provoke a hunger reaction. In other words, eating a PTF disturbs the normal balance of hunger and satiety so that it feels like taking a shot of hunger hormone. It's demonic, but the effect of eating a PTF is to make you want more of it. And that craving is a strong one. At times, almost impossible to control by force of will.

Finally, let's imagine that most people have no idea of the PTF hypothesis. With the best of intentions, they suggest that you control your weight by eating exactly what's causing the problem: PTFs.... but by controlling the size of your portions. They also suggest that you exercise like mad..something which has very little to do with the PTF problem. So you go on eating these foods, getting more and more intolerant to them and gaining weight. You exercise like a fiend but don't lose anything much. You feel hungry all the time and can't understand why you can't control yourself. You resort to the default explanation: "I must have a slow metabolism". Neither you nor any scientist can fully explain or yet define the complete metabolic processes of the body. But every magazine cover says that diets and exercise can do all kinds of things to your "metabolism", so you believe that this amorphous thing called metabolism is at fault.

This is,in fact, the scenario that I see each and every day in my weight loss practice. My PTF hypothesis (which simplifies what I believe about more complex issues involving insulin, insulin resistance and fat storage) is part of a growing movement to understand obesity in a different way, one that is more intuitively obvious and yet still fits with our current knowledge of science.

The foods that most of us become intolerant to are the very foods that are new to the human diet. No human being consumed large amounts of starchy carbohydrates and sugar prior to quite recently. Is it overconsumption of these foods that disturbs the automatic mechanism that stabilizes weight? Who knows? The initial insult might come from food additives, background radiation, plastics in our containers, or just about anything you can posit. For the moment, what starts the process is less important than this: if you are gaining weight and your body is not preventing that gain, you have almost certainly developed an intolerance to starch and sugar. These foods are no longer handled properly by the IBM.

But what of overeating? Don't we eat way too much? There are two points to be made.

1. There are people who simply overwhelm the normal balance mechanism by eating SO much that the mechanism can't handle it. Remember the banana analogy? If you inject potassium directly into the body in high concentration, you have the Jack Kevorkian scenario. You'll die, because the normal corrective mechanisms are simply overwhelmed. This is true for those who overeat massively like some with binge eating disorder or people who attain weights in the high triple digits. However, even for them, avoidance of PTFs may be a crucial element in recovery.

2. Yes, we eat too much. But in my view this is happening largely because we eat so many PTFs and they make us hungry. Those who cut out these foods have no trouble controlling appetite (or much less trouble, anyway). They are still challenged by seeing, smelling and being offered food, but not by the internal gnawing that says, "Let's EAT" 24 hours/day.

The PTF hypothesis is what underlies the growing Primal/Paleo diet movement. I've been an advocate of ancient eating for years and have practiced a form of it myself ever since I gained 20 pounds in middle age. For years, this change in my eating has allowed me to maintain a weight of 123 pounds on a 5'6'' frame. I'm not excessively hungry like I was in the days when I used to inhale cookies and York Peppermint Patties. At 63, I take no medicines, have no joint problems, can exercise with the 20 year olds and no longer fear the tendency to coronary disease that I've probably inherited from my Dad. I am confident that my arteries were not meant to be clogged. If I eat the diet that was eaten by people prior to the advent of coronary disease, I feel very certain I will be protected.

The intuitive part of the PTF hypothesis is the connection to ancient diet. I made this connection on my own while on a trip out of the country about 10 years ago. At the time, I was struggling with my weight and had been for several years. I had the sudden thought that perhaps I wasn't eating what I was evolutionarily attuned to...what my genes expected to be food. I put myself on what I thought would approximate a hunter-gatherer diet. I immediately lost 20 pounds and the hunger that went with it. I then started checking around to see if any one else had figured this out. At the time, the community of ancient eaters was smaller, but still quite active. Once I had my personal epiphany, this connection seemed to me so intuitively obvious that I was startled that so few were exploring it. Is it completely correct? I can't say. What I can tell you is that it works. Amazingly well.

I have now treated hundreds of patients with primal diet variants. The plan is simple. Eat what you think a hunter gatherer could have eaten. Don't eat starches or sugars except for those in fruits (non tropical) and vegetables. Don't eat GRAIN or grain products! Do eat low fat dairy (that's my variation on strict Paleo) if your weight tolerates it. I call this variant a Primarian diet. Tailor your Primarian plan to yourself to keep weight stable.

There. Your PTFs are gone. Your balance is restored. And suddenly you're not a failure anymore! That's because you never really were.
http://refusetoregain.com/refusetor...d-is-wrong.html
Reply With Quote
  #252   ^
Old Thu, Oct-20-11, 10:13
tangy's Avatar
tangy tangy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,829
 
Plan: primal blueprint
Stats: 226/000/000 Female 5' 3"
BF:36
Progress: 100%
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada
Default

loved that post - thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #253   ^
Old Wed, Oct-26-11, 11:27
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
October 26, 2011

Halloween to New Year's Day: Joy, Anxiety and Overeating

by Barbara Berkeley, MD



Why do we eat?

In the America of 2011, we eat for the same reasons we buy new TVs, redo our kitchens or replace our perfectly functional cars. We eat not because we need to, but because we can. Eating is cheap, pleasurable and soothing. It's kind of an adult "blankie".

With that in mind, let's look at when we need a blankie most. We want to be soothed when we are stressed, when we are reminded of unhappy memories, when the skies are dark, when winter descends, when we feel tired and overwrought.

In the America of 2011, a supermarket is like a wonder-world of shiny new toys, each one affordable and promising a thrill. The packages say "Fun! Fun!Fun!" while the labels say, "Heart Healthy" and "Cholesterol Free". It's ok to be seduced, it's ok to give in. Heck, it's even virtuous.

Combine these two stimulants to eating and you have the dangerous food period between Halloween and January 1st. As the skies darken (at least in Ohio) and the leaves fall from the trees leaving depressing skeletons, the food intensity ratchets up. Seasonal foods make their appearance. Starbucks puts peppermint back on the menu, along with gingerbread. Cooking magazines, newspapers and food channels exhort us to bake, bake, bake...as if this will somehow stave off our anxiety. As we get older, the holidays remind us more and more about our own mortality. They are still a wonderful time, but we remember how many of these holidays there have been and how many of those we loved are now gone. Our kids may have grown up and live far away. They return for the holidays, but no matter what we do, we can't return to the time when they ran down the front steps dressed as ghosts and princesses. We compare today's holidays to those past and to the celebrations of others. Anything that reminds us of the passage of time tends to make us introspective and unsettled.

So...let's eat! Let's drink!

How do we successfully negotiate such a difficult period and not regain? The answer lies in creative thinking. Maintaining a new, healthier body requires a new, refreshed look at life. Instead, most of us tend to repeat the same patterns. Left unexamined and unchallenged, life tends to break people down. But it doesn't have to. If you as an individual keep creating, keep innovating and keep expanding, the things life removes will have a lesser impact. You will be more expansive.

Here are some questions for those who want to maintain from now until 2012:

Do you REALLY need to bake this year? If baking gets you out of control, are you willing to take the daring step of experimenting and letting someone else make the cookies, cakes and pies? What would happen?

Suppose you didn't have a single piece of Halloween candy this year? Would your life be different? Or would it be the candy manufacturers who suffered most?

Imagine that you designed a completely Primarian plan for Thanksgiving and decided that you would fill you plate with turkey, salad, veggies and maybe a dab of cranberry sauce. Suppose you vowed not to have dessert this year, except for coffee and fruit. Would your enjoyment of Thanksgiving be less?

Suppose that you decided to do something really radical this year and ban non-Primarian foods from your home over the holidays. Suppose that you decided to give yourself a much bigger gift than that new IPhone you've been eyeing? Imagine that you daringly and creatively decided to stick with a primal eating plan with extremely minimal starches and sugars. Would you have lost an entire year of holiday joy?

I can answer these questions because these are changes that I made personally almost 10 years ago. Here are the answers.

The holidays are just the same. It's still great to see everyone and it's still sad to miss Uncle Monroe, Uncle Aaron and Aunt Ellie. It's still great fun to smell the peppermint and have an occasional gingerbread latte (with Splenda). It's still a thrill to see the holiday decorations go up and to enjoy the lights, the music and the sentiments. It's still wonderful to eat dinners with friends and family, and not a soul cares that I don't have the brownies or the stuffing.

And here's what's different. For the past ten years I have not had to worry about my weight, my blood pressure, my blood sugar or my cholesterol. My weight and health have allowed me to live so much more creatively...running, spinning, tennis. Sometimes I'm just so grateful that I can easily squat down and pick up something I dropped. Alot of people my age can no longer do something so simple. Being lean and eating the right foods means that you are quicker and more efficient in every way. My brain works better without the S Foods, which means that I can take up Chess, learn how to use Twitter and blog to the point where you are probably sick of me.

These are the greatest gifts.

So as you approach the holiday season, think bold. Uphold your chosen eating plan..whatever that may be. Consider the possibility that our holiday eating may be motivated less by happiness and tradition than by habit and anxiety. Enjoy and celebrate by continuing on your journey of self-creation. To life!
http://refusetoregain.com/refusetor...overeating.html
Reply With Quote
  #254   ^
Old Sun, Oct-30-11, 04:03
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
October 29, 2011

Dietary Tribalism: Factionalism Goeth Before the Fall

by Barbara Berkeley, MD


I started blogging about 3 years ago. At the time I was a naive, starry-eyed newbie who couldn't wait to share my experiences and opinions with the world. I had just written a book based on the experiences I'd had with patients over a period of nearly 20 years. As I sat, fingers poised over the keyboard for my first foray into the internet world, the prospect of getting my message out to a larger audience was thrilling.

Then....Whack Bam Boom! Not a day after my first words hit the virtual page did I start reading that I was a useless dope, a fool who knew nothing and that my book and pretty much all of my thoughts were drivel.

I ran like a wounded puppy to my blog partner Lynn Haraldson who had been on the internet far longer than I. She was sympathetic but slightly amused. I got the message. The internet is the wild west. Better toughen up girlie.

So here I stand, ready to take your punches. But really, why should we steel ourselves, waiting to be beaten up for ideas, beliefs and hypotheses? The reason for these attacks is supremely ironic, especially for those of us who believe in Primal Diet, or returning to more of the behaviors we practiced in our ancient past. This flinging of verbal barbs and arrows relates to an intense and ancient human desire to be tribal. Unfortunately, I fear that we will be destroyed by this same tribalism if we refuse to acknowledge and dismantle it.

At its best, tribalism can be fun. Cowboys and Indians. Color War. We love nothing more than to divide ourselves into teams and cast the other group as the bad guys. I can be playing doubles with one woman for two sets and hating the two ladies on the other side of the net. Then we switch partners and suddenly my previous hitting companion becomes my sworn enemy. And I really, really do want to sincerely beat her.

Things ratchet up with professional sports. Of course we know that Cleveland really doesn't hate Pittsburgh...(or do they??) Sometimes, it's hard to tell whether tribal enmities related to sports are silly or real. When they explode into occasional violence at events or after championships, we see their actual potential for destruction.

And then there's politics. Why must all Democrats believe that all Republicans are useless idiots and vice versa? We have all come to see the folly in playing the tribal game so intensely that not a single thing gets accomplished.

Finally, we have the real deal. Tribalism as it relates to countries, regions, religions and belief systems. This is where we lose complete track of the idea that we are all human. Each one of us might just as easily have been born into another culture and wound up on the other side of the fence...the enemy. But this never occurs to us. For most of human civilization, indulging in our tribal nature simply meant losing a bunch or our men to spears, arrows and clubs. As weaponry becomes more deadly and more available, the outcome of unbridled tribalism would seem to be obvious. Yet we make no attempt to examine it or control it.

Tribalism seems to be in our biology, but it is expressed as an idea. The idea is that something about our tribe makes us better...more worthy. It is usually connected to the belief that our tribe is in possession of the one and only truth.

So what does this rant have to do with Paleo/Primal diet? In my recent forays into the world of Twitter, I've discovered a new and quite vocal community that believes in ancient diet. Among this "tribe" I am dismayed to see that there appears to be a great deal of proclamation of truth and declamation against those who see things differently. People with varying opinions are branded as "asshats" and "fools". This is not unique to the Primal Diet believers. It is also on display in the writings of followers of other diets. And yet, at least as I see it, the truth about optimal diet remains the furthest thing from being settled. It is as complex and elusive as a shadow that recedes into our endless human past. Does any group, whether it be the vegans, the vegetarians, the Primalists, the Mediterranean Diet followers...ad infinitum.... truly have the hubris to believe that they have completely solved the equation? There is no diet on earth that does not eventually lead to death. And if there is ever to be one it will have to come with the assist of modern science, since no living species has yet negotiated immortality. Thus, we come full circle. We are each human and would benefit from listening to and respecting one another. Of one thing we can be certain, no one of us has "the answer". It is only together that we can create enough intellectual and spiritual firepower to push closer to real enlightenment.
http://refusetoregain.com/refusetor...e-the-fall.html
Reply With Quote
  #255   ^
Old Sun, Oct-30-11, 12:58
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
October 30, 2011

The Judicious Use of Addiction: The Positive Pleasure Experience

by Barbara Berkeley, MD


We are all addicts.

Our brain works by a system of rewards that are mediated by chemicals like endorphins, enkephalins and endocannabinoids. Pleasurable experiences "hit" these systems and provide a nice jolt; one we want to repeat. Thus, craving the experience of playing music, running or watching Dancing With the Stars (my personal yen) is a kind of addiction, especially if we feel withdrawal when we don't do these things or only feel "normal" when we do.

Because of the limits of our language, there is no descriptor for healthy and perfectly normal uses of the brain's reward system. The word "addict" is almost always used in the negative.

Nicholas Kristof writes about exercise addiction in the October 30th edition of the New York Times. He references the work of David Linden at Johns Hopkins regarding pleasure-producing substances:

Professor Linden explains how drugs such as cocaine that light up these pleasure centers (there are several interconnected areas) actually rewire the brain to increase cravings. You can look at magnified photos of rat brains and tell which animal was given cocaine and which wasn’t.

Brain chemistry research also suggests that gambling and overeating can be addictive behaviors, analogous to narcotics addictions. In particular, foods with sugar or fat seem to trigger cravings that then rewire the brain’s pleasure circuitry to amplify that craving.

One study found that rats fed foods like cheesecake and chocolate showed differences in brain circuitry after just 40 days. The impact was that the pleasure centers of their brains were numbed, so they apparently needed to gobble even more cheesecake to generate the same satisfaction. Whether it’s sugar or heroin, the body steadily ratchets up the quantity necessary to provide the same high.


Kristof then asks, "Does this mean the end of free will?"

Far from it.

Such research gives us the knowledge and power to understand the things that control us, and to return the control where it belongs. Let's start with the premise that all pleasurable substances can lead to addictive behaviors. Let's also acknowledge that pleasure is an extremely important part of life and that lifestyles that severely limit enjoyment are likely doomed to fail.

In writing about his passion for running, Kristof says: "OK I confess. I might be an addict." But "addiction" to running is not a bad thing and why should we look at it that way? Unless a runner is avoiding all human contact, blowing off his job, or running until he weighs 50 pounds, this kind of "addiction" is something that is basically positive. Perhaps we could call it a Positive Pleasure Experience.

It's also intuitively obvious that certain pleasure experiences are more intense and thus much more likely to cause destructive addiction. On this list are drugs, alcohol and almost certainly the "thrill" foods: sugar, starches and foods that combine fat with sugar.

Since we all need pleasure and judicious amounts of addiction, why not figure out how to control our doses? Why not also practice complete avoidance of those things that are dangerous and risky? We advocate this all the time for alcoholics and drug abusers, but are hesitant to come right out and tell overweight people to cut out the sugar, starch and thrill eating. Yet this approach works beautifully. Cut the drug and the cravings for it disappear. Play with the drug here and there and it will quickly reassert itself.

For those who do decide to cold turkey off S foods, the judicious use of alternate addictions is important. After I started to play tennis 6 years ago, I noticed that I began to get a little high everytime I struck a good, powerful ball. I began to crave playing and began to feel intensely disappointed when games were cancelled (withdrawal). I had created a new Positive Pleasure Experience. When I was out on the court, the furthest thing from my mind was sugar and starch.

Can you create new PPEs? For certain! And you can be the one in control of this process. But you must be patient, because things only become pleasurable when you gain a measure of competence. This is why most dieters give up on exercise. They never get to the point where it starts to provide a "hit" to the pleasure centers.

PPEs can come from painting, writing, being in nature, meditating, conversing on meaningful topics and an endless host of other activities. Easier and more dangerous hits to the pleasure centers can be obtained through cooking, watching the Food Network, playing video games, signing up for world beer tours, and eating for fun.

It's your agenda and your life. Pick your drug.
http://refusetoregain.com/refusetor...experience.html
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:58.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.