It may work if you over do it. When I was 18, I had a bad experience with gin and in the 41 years since, I have not been able to stand the smell fo gin.

His method isn't eating so much that you don't want it anymore. Its eating until your satisfied and then stopping and that foods that you have been depriving yourself of will stop being binge foods when you psychology know you could have it anytime you crave it. That's its dieting and deprivation of particular foods that leads to bingeing behaviors.

I think that's it, exactly. But isn't it true though, that we really know we could have any food any time we want it? It's just that we choose what we eat (for whatever reason - true hunger, psychological, etc). Unless it's during childhood, when parents control the food, as adults we are in control, whether it's binging (after all, is anyone else forcing us to overeat?), or following "recommendations" i.e. low-carb.

It's just the mental realization that food is in abundance that is supposed to 'magically' overcome the feelings of perceived deprivation.
People who have been deprived as children carry this into adulthood (even the animals in the experiment do!). I guess a person would have to be willing to give in to the ravenous gluttony when they allow themselves to "dig in" to the desired food, and accept the accompanying weight gain (only to have to/want to lose it again) to go along with this plan. Even if they stopped when they were comfortably full, the carbs might send their blood sugar way off, and well, that would be the end of that!


That, we know!

I think most of us have binged enough in our lifetimes to know that, for whatever reason, we'd best not let ouselves be let loose in the candy store!

I think we summed it up best earlier - we can use our analytical minds to choose our foods, and our intuitive eating to know when and how much to eat.

For carb-sensitve people, having overwhelming quantities of carb around would be impossible to resist for long, and we'd be back where we started.

Originally posted by Lisa N

If you saw any individual eating 50,000 calories it might be a reasonable assumption that they're hungry.

Why would a bear become insatiably ravenous?



What if it's not instinctive, or learned. What if they're just reacting to changes in their environment?

Why would a squirrel become insatiably ravenous?





Maybe you don't have to rely on your instincts to survive the winter. But your ancestors did.

What makes you insatiably ravenous?


People and squirrels and bears are designed to become insatiably ravenous when their diet contains too many carbs. It gives them a survival advantage, it fattens them up for the winter. All critters go out of their way to find and eat all those berries, nuts, seeds and fruits. As many as they can find.

Mother Nature cleverly designed the earth to provide carbs for all her children exactly when they need them, in the fall, in preparation for the winter.

But our culture's civilization, agriculure, transportation, and refrigeration weren't on her original blueprint. This is what happens when you mess with Mother Nature.

Hmm, I read somewhere that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. In any case, although it is highly unlikely that the squirrel and the bear feel a moral obligation towards self-preservation, I don’t see why their specific reactions to environmental changes cannot be classified as instinctive. And let me just add, that a distinction between the conscious desire to be thin and fit (in accordance with established stereotypes) and the natural desire to eat and be healthy, may be necessary in order to apply and understand the underlying fundamentals of intuitive eating. (I may retract any or all parts of this statement tomorrow…)

Those views are all interesting but I always eat until I am satisfied, yet, occasionally, shortly afterwards I realise that I have over-eaten, which was not apparent at the time of the meal. Furthermore, whenever carbs are part of the meal then soon afterwards I again feel hungry while this does not happen with a fat and protein meal. Intuition does not appear to have any part to play in this arena while self-control does.

Actually, in the case of the bears, the majority of those 50,000 calories were coming from salmon, not berries, seeds and nuts which sort of proves the point that it's possible to gain weight even on a ketogenic diet if one consumes 50,000 calories per day. Since it's not in response to carb cravings, at least in the case of the bear, it's safe to assume some other force is driving them to consume huge quantities of food; probably instinct. Do humans also have this instinct? Possibly, but humans have something else that the bear doesn't have; rational thought to realize that we no longer live in caves and have to hunt for our food so 'stocking up for the winter' isn't necessary anymore. Personally, there have been posts (I recall making one myself) that commented on noticing that for a week or two in the fall, carb cravings become more frequent and intense and wondering if that isn't a throwback to the days when we had to endure harsher conditions during the winter months but having the cravings doesn't dictate that I must bow them, right?
Anyway, the whole point of my original post on the topic wasn't that humans or animals never get ravenously hungry but was in respose to someone who commented that she'd never seen a fat animal in nature or on a Nature show (ie living in the wild and not being fed crazy things in crazy amounts by humans) by providing a couple of examples of animals that do indeed get fat and do so every year.

Lisa, if you will pardon my impertinence, but, surely we continue to live in caves? The difference today, in relation to our forbearers, is that we build our caves and call them houses or homes. Furthermore, another slight difference between our 'hunter and gatherer' roots, and today, is that we have learned to harness nature by taking advantage of the herding instincts of animals. As we no longer require to hunt for food then we create other methods in expending energy like competitive events such as sport, social-climbing, and possibly war.

The late Professor C Northcote Parkinson noted that people find work (activity) to occupy the time available! To take his observation a tad out of context but where it also equally applies is, the space in time between birth and death. Sorry, if I am likely to burst your bubble but humanity continues to be emotionally knee-deep in the primordial mud! Our perceptive ability at being able to harness nature has provided us only with the technological-edge over our genesis and we are still trying to understand why.

The difference between our tribal witch-doctors of our ancestry, and today's medics, is one only of technology. Another manifest problem of this technically-advanced era is that of self-discipline in the management of the abundance of food that we have created? When it comes to instinctual self-preservation we are not quite as clever in separating the 'chaff from the grain'.

I hope you are not offended.

Lisa,

Not all bears have access to salmon. I found this summary of what the brown bears in Yellowstone eat by seasons. Flesh seems to become less of their diet as the seasons change.

Actually, I'd say that goes more hand in hand with social attitudes which include the notion that denying yourself anything you desire or crave is bad and self-abusive and that indulging your every whim is good and desired. In other words, self-discipline is not currently a popular moral characteristic and has been replaced by self-gratification.
One only needs to consider the level of consumption in general, not just of food, in affluent countries to see this.
BTW, I'm not offended at all, DuParc; I just don't happen to agree that it's an unavoidable necessity that humans allow themselves to be governed by their emotions and desires instead of logical thought just because so many choose to live that way.



Mike, I realize this but the fact that any bears do and will gorge on it whenever they can shows that the phenomenon is not all 'carb craving' driven.
As I said before, my whole point with that post was not the feeding habits of bears and squirrels but to show that there are animals in the wild that get fat on a cyclical basis. I presume that the Yellowstone bears are equally successful with putting on large amounts of fat to survive their winter hibernation since the bear population has increased in that location to the point of consideration of removing them from the endangered species list.

Here are more thoughts based on the "squirrels get fat during fall months" idea:

** When we eat meat, our bodies see no reason to store fat because meat is available all year long.

** When we eat green vegetables, our bodies see no reason to store fat because it means that we are in the early summer so winter is still far away.

** When we eat dry vegetables like grains or beans, our bodies assume that we are in the fall, so we should store more fat.

** When we eat sugar, our bodies also assume that it is fall because extra sweet fruits are only found during fall months.

No matter how you think about it, the low carb diet always makes sense!

Oh Gosh! I never meant to stir up such a controversy over fat animals in nature!

I only meant that, if you ever saw a pack of lions, or a herd of elepants, or a pack of wolves, or anything like that, I never saw like one fat one which stood out from the crowd. They all seem to be pretty fit as a group, or whatever health they were in, it was as a group. The only ones that might stand out were the ones that were injured and couldn't keep up. (I don't think we need to go on to say that we are somehow injured (physiologically or psychologically) and so we have developed a weight problem which makes us stand out from the crowd.)

Of course some animals put on weight before the winter, or whatever biological event (pregnancy, maybe). I just mentioned it because I felt it seemed like a human condition, where, if you took a random group of humans (especially now-a-days ) you'd find at least one overweight one. And according to statistics, when it comes to adults, isn't it something like 50% ?!

So that's all I meant about the animals in nature, although it was an interesting point that some do put on weight seasonally (and maybe we have that inclination, still, too.) And it was interesting about the animal experiments, as well.

I still don't think animals put on weight because of carb-sensitivity in nature (well, maybe they do - I don't know any more after all this!) and I really don't believe they overeat because of childhood issues!

I still believe they eat intuitively, and has been pointed out before, they only drift from that when there is human intervention (experiments, overfeeding).

The case of the feral cat, though, does prove a point. (by Bat Spit)
It is obviously the nature of animals (and we know, humans) to fear deprivation once we've experienced it, and that, too, will lead to a certain stress about food. Even then though, Bat said her cat paced heself with her eating (not binging).

So, I think it's all mixed together, If a person develops carb-sensitivty, their intuition tells them to eat more carbs (because that is what the body is signalling to the brain). We apparently always respond to our body's signals, except when we are not eating intuitively - when we know we've had enough, yet still go on. Or when we eat out of boredom or some other emotional issue (not true hunger). This is what I meant that animals didn't do.(or at least I didn't think they do). Ugh! This is exhausting!

No worries, Barb, it's all friendly! Differing opinions don't always have to result in a war, you know. In fact, I see it as a great way to learn; you throw out different ideas, kick them around (metaphorically, of course ) and see what comes out the other side of the discussion.

What I'm getting out of this is that if you have a human raised under ideal circumstances who was never deprived of any food or treat that they desired and was trained to listen to their body's cues and who was introspective enough to recognize those cues accurately and didn't develop carb sensitivity in the process, you'd probably have a person who eats intuitively. I'd submit that such a person is a rare bird, indeed.
Does that mean that learning to recognize your body's cues of hunger and thirst (and being able to differentiate between the two) and learning to eat when hungry, stop when full isn't possible? Of course not! That's a big part of what Atkins advocated (eat when hungry, stop when no longer hungry) but for those of us whose signals are screwed up by carb sensitivity, it takes conscious thought and guidelines for food consumption to achieve this. In other words, a lot of us now need rules (gasp!) for how to eat. Following Dr. Atkins' guideline is a lot easier when you aren't having to fight blood sugar spikes and crashes and the resulting cravings constantly and clears the static from the air, so to speak, so that we can better hear what our bodies are telling us as far as hunger and satiation.
What I don't get is why it seems that so many seem to think that this [having rules and guidelines] is a horrible thing.

Hi Lisa!

Thanks for the kind words. It's surprising to me, so many times, how people pick up on a sentence that has so little meaning to me, and can build a whole discussion on it! (This isn't the first time). I guess I'm a student of human nature, and I find it fascinating!

I agree totally with your whole post.


It's just human nature. It's what we've been saying all along. People want what they can't have. (or think they can't). That's my whole point. What some people don't realize is that when they choose to follow rules and guidelines, it is a choice! They can have whatever they want, but they just don't realize it. They get bogged down in semantics (and the resulting feelings). They feel they are being told what to do, what they can and can't have, and that's what they feel is horrible.

Of course, I have felt that way too. I'm much older and wiser now!

It's always a choice. To choose to follow rules and guidelines that help you achieve your goals is never horrible. Sometimes my rebellious nature rears up, or even my DH and I lament on being in a human body, where there are consequences for what one eats, or the need for exercise, and even the deterioration of the body over time - but that's what being human is all about!
We just have to live with it!

If this thread helps anyone, I hope they can learn sooner than I ever did that following a food plan is not deprivation. It's a method of learning what foods to choose to promote health and weight loss. It's always a choice!

At the very least, one can always think that Atkins food plan (or any plan for that matter) is not rules and guidelines. They are suggestions. The only "diet police" are in one's head (unless they live with an overbearing person that watches whatever they eat! And even then, they still have a choice!) They can choose what they want to eat, based on suggestions that have been proven to work. It's as simple as that.

It reminds me of a recipe. If you add this, this and that, you get your finished product. Do we hate the recipe, or do we follow it? We follow it, or adjust it to our taste. It's the same thing as a food plan and our body. We add this, this and that, adjusting to taste - and we get a finished product - "better" body, hopefully !

I would think that any fat gazelle or other prey animal would quickly become a meal for a thin lion. A fat lion couldn't catch many gazelles, so would probally lose weight until it was fir again. The 'survival of the fittest' rule seems to fit.