How long were the "unnatural innate eaters" allowed to feed ad lib? It is understandable that for a period of time they won't know how to eat (and will gorge). When people stop dieting they also gorge temproarily, too. However, does this go away with time? I know with dieters, when people do stop dieting, eventually they stop over feeding and weight stabilizes.

Long enough to establish it as a WOL (i.e. numerous months, year(s))

From what I remember of the lecture and from what I've seen in nature (I'm an ex-farmer and rancher, as well as pet owner) to a great extent it lasts a lifetime.

I have to respectfully disagree with this part of your statement. It would be far too easy to go through the posts of the last 2 days here and pull up numerous stories of people 'falling off the wagon' and putting on 50, 80, 100+ lbs before screaming 'enough!'.

During the previously mentioned class we were taught there are only 3 self-limiting feed ingredients - fat, sugar and salt. Personally, I have overcome the limiting effects of the first 2 and at one time in my life I would have gladly endured excessive amounts of the last to get at something with enough of the first two.

Do you have any links to back this claim up?
Not being a jerk, I don't want it to be true... that's all

Just because someone stops dieting doesn't mean they aren't a dieter.

If you stop atkins, or weight watchers, or grape fruit diet, or whatever retarded structure you were on ... but never drop that "guilt" thing, that complete and total lack of synchronicity between your mind and body with food... then yea, you never will normalize. But assuming you DO allow eating to become a natural processes FREE of guilt and guided ONLY by food intake impulse, eventually it evens out.
(this is assuming one does not have metabolic disease, which is an irrelevant extraneous circumstance that breaks metabolism, causes/contributes to over eating and weight gain)

In fat acceptance literature I have heard many women who've dieted their way up to super morbid obesity, were able to stop the gain cycle by STOPPING dieting and liberating themselves from the mind-prison of guilt, hatred, rules.

Yea, that's disordered eating, compulsive eating... often triggered by dieting, or experiences where you perceived food to be irrationally in short supply for whatever reason.

Doesn't mean it is permanent though, does it? I don't see how learned behavior (and it is LEARNED behavior) can so completely and permanently override the natural eating patterns all of us were born with.

(In truth I believe it is impossible as you do... but I am arguing the other side just to prevent extinguishing the candle of hope)

I think the most important point here is this is referring to animals. We are reasoning beings, thus we have the opportunity to see the effects of our behavior and then take steps to change it. My further take on this - this possible mechinism only serves to make the road "harder to hoe" for us, not impossible "to hoe".

As for my compulsive eating - I was diagnosed in '91 with Hashimoto's thyroiditis and then thyroid cancer in '95. With me all the 'normal' rules of compulsive eating didn't apply. I did though work a 12 Step program on sugar for the 2 years prior to the first diagnoses and, although abstaining from sugar, honey, corn syrup, molasses, etc did nothing to help my weight, the difference it made in my moods was nothing short of miraculous. I only wish I had known about the effects of flour, rice, potatoes, etc at the time, as well...

And, finally, I'm afraid I have no 'links' or anything else to 'back up my claim'. I took that particular class 20+ years ago and have only kept up with my text book from the class. (I used it for years to balance rations and as a reference for feed stocks.) Unfortunately the 'theory' of which I wrote was from a lecture and thus has no links. Sorry.

Ah, yes, the “unbridgeable difference between man and animal”… even when it comes to basic biological needs. Interesting experimental evidence, indeed; you’d think that only man would have the ability to degenerate towards irrational behavior.

That was exactly what I thought.

The Intuitive Eater shows up yesterday morning on the front page of the food section of my local paper -- a huge picture of him behind boxes of Cheerios, Nilla Wafers, and a honey bear (bet it's not sugar free, either!) -- the caption reads "When Hawks sees a tasty item at the store, he buys it and keeps it around. He says having an overabundance of what's taboo helps him lose his desire to gorge."

There may be a tiny amount of truth to what he's preaching, but as usual, the media takes the rest and runs with it. The first 2 paragraphs of the article: "When Steven Hawks is tempted by ice cream bars, M&Ms and toffee-covered almonds at the grocery store, he doesn't pass them by. He fills up his shopping cart. It's the no-diet diet, an approach the Brigham Young University health science professor used to lose 50 pounds and to keep it off for more than five years." So what's the average carb-addicted Joe Reader supposed to think? At no point in the article does the writer point out that Prof. Hawks is probably eating a fairly healthy diet -- he just implies that by eating M&Ms and ice-cream bars to our heart's content, we can all lose weight, too.

An interesting side note: the column next to the article, a regular feature where a local nutritionist answers questions, deals with the question "I am finding that I am craving sweets all the time. Any advice?" and her answer is to eat "a balanced diet with fruit, vegetables, whole grains, lowfat dairy and enough protein to keep our energy up" and to "get a proper balance of carbohydrate, protein and fat to keep your energy level even." Again, a modicum of truth, but definitely not the whole truth!

I read a book years ago about just this. (I tried to find it so I could give you the exact title, but I couldn't find it. The author was even on TV at the time it came out. More about that later.) Anyway, that was the philosophy. Have all you want, and more. Keep it around, and after a while, you won't want to binge any more because you will have overcome the feelings of deprivation.

I agree with all that has been said before on this thread, and that is why I never took the book's advice. I really didn't feel like balooning to an extreme weight while I indulged every whim. If I am carb-senstive/addicted, eating carbs day and night is not intuitive eating. It is suicide!

As for the TV show - it was Leeza, with Leeza Gibbons, you may or may not know her. She was model thin, obviously never had to lose more than 2 pounds in her life, and she boasted about how she kept a giant bag of M&M's for herself in her pantry, so she could have them whenever she wanted.

Well, she's an intuitive eater, because obviously the bag was still there. In my house, if we were not 'watching what we ate', the bag would be gone in 2 days!

as Wooo said:


Deep inside, I too have the candle of hope. But at age 51, after many times of losing and regaining weight, my candle is burning rather low!

All of the periods of 'not dieting', albeit which included , I have yet to overcome the learned behavior, and become an intuitive eater.

I guess by now, my intuitive eater mechanism is broken beyond repair.

I used to dislike the fact that Overeaters Anonymous said that this is something we will never be rid of. I thought, why not?

Obviously, I am not (yet) rid of it, so maybe I shoud just accept the fact that I will never be an intuitive eater, unless you call using my intuition to chose an eating plan that works for me, intuitive eating.

Interesting thread.

When I was in my early twenties, before marriage and babies, I could and did eat like this. During my second pregnancy something changed. I put on a huge amount of weight during that pregnancy and have had problems ever since. Obviously the good professor has never had to contend with the hormonal changes caused by carrying a baby.

I struggled with my weight for years after that, varying from 20 to 40 pounds overweight. Then in my late thirties I was living overseas in a country in the middle east where women are not allowed to drive. I dropped 45 pounds and kept them off for three years. During that time I walked several miles every day as part of my normal routine, and I did indeed eat anything I wanted, whenever I wanted to.

Then I moved back to the states, picked up my car keys, and started to pack on the weight again. And the rest, as they say, is history.

I did try the professor's plan just a few years ago. In order to get myself to quit smoking I struck a bargain with myself, where I could eat anything I wanted, anytime I wanted, but I could NOT have a cigarette. It worked. I succeeded in quitting the cancer sticks, but my, oh my, did I ever pack on the weight.

I don't think the professor's plan is the right one for me. Maybe I should move back to somewhere where I can't use a car. That might work.

P.S. locarbbarb. I wonder if that book you mentioned was 'Diets Don't Work'? Had just about the same message.

Pregnancy often is the catalyst for metabolic syndrome. If like you were on the "tip of the cliff" so to speak, that will surely push you over. People who tend to develop it will become very heavy in pregnancy unless they know in advance to be mindful of carbs.
It doesn't stop after pregnancy, either, because even though hormonally your body has stopped increasing insulin resistance... the weight gain that resulted decreases sensitivity to insulin. Obesity encourages metabolic syndrome too, which is why obesity/eating/IR is like a cycle thats hardt o get out of.

Unless one knows NOT to eat a lot of carbs in pregnancy, if they are predisposed to this affliction they will have metabolic problems.

I think the professor is on to something. Certainly a lot of our eating is because of broken food relationships encouraged by diets and lack of self acceptance and emotional problems. But, quite simply, metabolic syndrome is a REAL disease, as real as any food allergy... part of it includes being hungry all the time, wanting to eat all the time, and gaining weight easily. If one has metabolic syndrome, the diet as written in his book will never, ever, ever work. I can guarantee if I did his diet exactly as advised I would become very heavy in short order. Not just no longer "slim" - but I am certain I would become well over 200 pounds. Imagine, eating anything - that includes sugar! Oh god I could just imagine the heart ache of trying to "eat intuitively" while drinking fruit juice and cereal (!). God I can literally feel the shaking of hypos, the manic confusion, the chronic severe panic hunger... it's actually humorous to think that it would be possible for me to eat as a natural process a normal amount in such a state (meaning eat small amounts without consciously forcing my body to submit).

On the other hand, if I did ATKINS as written, i.e. an ad lib diet... I am certain my weight would at worst reach a higher, but relatively normal size. Atkins, like the intuitive diet, also advises to eat until "satisfied" but not stuffed, remember that (it is not an "eat as much as you want" plan either). The difference is this would be possible on Atkins, as Atkins keeps my metabolism functioning. It would be NOT possible on a diet that did NOT control my carbohydrate sensitivity.


The professor is saying we can eat to achieve non-hunger only. He is not saying to eat whatever you want whenever you want. If you no longer feel any physical hunger at all you are not permitted to eat. Actually thats the wrong way to phrase it as it sounds like this diet has "rules", when the diet is based in eliminating mind-control and listening only to what your body is saying. So it is more appropriate to say you are not intuitively eating unless you are truly physically hungry, and eating only until your body physically is comfortably satisfied. This doesn't mean that nice "Roll over and unbutton your pants" thanksgiving thing, but a boring lack of the presence of hunger.

I may be misinterpreting what you wrote (sounds like you basically turned to eating to get over cig addiction) but what you did is not intuitive eating, but rather, compulsive eating. Every time you wanted to smoke, you ate, right? That is not at all intuitive eating but replacing one addiction with another.

I DO agree with you fundamentally but I think it helps to clarify what it is we are talking about here. A lot of people don't realize there is a difference between WANTING to eat, and NEEDING to satisfy hunger. I think all people should severely restrict their intake for a couple of weeks just so they can understand what real hunger feels like - you start to appreciate every bit of food you can eat. In some ways, dieting so long has helped me break my food addiction. I no longer look at food as "for granted" - I look at it as precious and valuable. I hate wasting food. Now I kind of feel like eating when you aren't really really hungry is a waste so it has helped me in some respects. In other respects it's made food addiction worse but that's another issue.

Walking is so important.
I didn't realize it but I really DID do a LOT of exercise before. I always said I never exercised to lose but that wasn't true. It was true in that it wasn't formal exercise, but I was pretty active in that I would often walk all around my city several days per week. At one point I was walking 60 blocks almost every day. I find it much harder to control weight now without that walking. When I kick up the walks it becomes a lot easier.

An interesting thing happened to me today, and I thought of this thread as it happened.

I went out to lunch today, and ordered everything low carb (veggie omelet w/ cheese, lettuce and tomato slices instead of the french fries, and it came with a bagel, so I got the low carb bagel and ate only 1/4 of it with a little butter. It was 2.5 g carb per ounce, so it was ok.)

I could have stopped eating at 1/2 the omelet. I could feel that it would have been ok. But something inside me could not let me do it! I felt like I should try to have some more. I felt like I might get hungry before my next snack or meal time, and that concerned me, somehow. So I had a few more bites. I was getting full.
I gave some to my son, then there were 2 bites left. I felt like I absolutley could not leave them on my plate! (I don't know what would have happened if I did - maybe the whole restaurant would be swallowed up by the earth in one fell swoop!)

So I ate the last 2 bites. Of course, all I could think was, ugh, I should have stopped at half!

So what is intuitive eating? It's stopping at half without any second thoughts or mental torment about what's left on the plate, and feeling perfectly fine and happy about it.

I tried this once when I went out to eat with my mother, as an experiment. It is so unique an experience that I still remember it, even though it was...over 20 years ago!!! The funny thing is, nothing unusual happened when I stopped when I had enough. I was concerned she'd say something, but she didn't. I was relieved about that. (and the restaurant was not swallowed up by the earth!)

So, maybe by telling you this story, and remembering my experiment, I can try this again. I feel like it will take some sort of 'strength' on my part. A strength to overcome the habit of being a compulsive overeater. But I hope, by your kind patience with all my ramblings, maybe I can rekindle my candle of hope. As Wooo said,

Thanks for being here.

I'm learning, I'm learning! I've been practicing portion control and waiting for hunger, not eating by the clock. Anyway, I often get hungry in the afternoon so I take a snack to work. However, it sat in the fridge at work for 3 days uneaten. Today it had to come home with me. I thought about eating it while I was at work but I knew I wasn't hungry. It really bugged me not to eat it because I was afraid I'd forget it and leave it at work over the weekend and it would get thrown away. But I fought the urge to cram something down when I really didn't need it.

Yay!

Nancy, I applaud you. I think many people are not only carb-addicted, but overeating-addicted. Obviously, I know I am.

You are well on your way to overcoming both!

Sometimes I really feel like I am over my food addiction. I feel like if all foods made me feel the way protein and fat do (no hypos, no carb problems) that I could eat whatever I wanted without problem. Certainly I have no problem controlling myself around "mock foods" these days.

Other times I feel like it's all an illusion because I binge and totally feel out of control. Being in a binge space is the worst feeling in the world - by binge space I mean those moments before and after binging when you are no longer "dazed and confused" in the moment of the act, but when you are feeling the debilitating guilt and shame of what has transpired. It is like being lost in a cold forest or floating free in chaos. You feel such a profound disconnect between yourself and everything else.

I have decided the truth is somewhere in the middle. I have definitely made progress with food addiction, without a doubt. On the other hand, I am most definitely not over it, as I am prone to feeling like "JUST SHOVE IT ALL IN AS FAST AS YOU CAN WHILE YOU CAN" for those moments when I give myself "permission" to eat whatever I want. On yet a third hand I wonder if maybe this is not food addiction, but the natural repressed response to so strictly controlling my intake for a long period of time. It is expressed when I "drop my guard" of restriction, and would go away in time assuming I continued to control carbohydrate sensitivity and continue making an effort to really eat only when hungry. Like, at first I would binge every day and gain 30 pounds ... but eventually I would stop doing that and maintain weight. Know what I mean?

:therethere:

One glimmer of hope is perhaps the dim possibility that those periods when you were "not dieting", you were actually just a dieter NOT on a diet, NOT an intuitive eater... know what I mean?

For example when I give myself permission to enjoy holidays, I AM most definitely a dieter "not on a diet". As much as I tell myself to not be that way, I cannot help it, as dieting is a fundamental part of who I am. Quite simply, my body does NOT make me eat, I make IT eat 9 times out of 10.
By this I mean I am programmed to eat only "certain things". "Certain things" is a variable which is subject to manipulation by my mind and it's goals. Certain things might be, for example, just one slice of bread with half serving fat free cream cheese. Certain things might be 1200 calories. Certain things might be nothing substantial and then a normal dinner with post meal snacks. Whatever it is, "certain things" always has a definition. Always.

The bottom line is my eating is something I must define with my logical mind to give it any coherent rational structure. So when I define "certain things" as "everything with no hard rules" (this is to say, fail to define it), obviously I will proceed to do just that. I will eat and eat and eat and there will be nothing to stop me. I do not know to stop eating when my body says so, and I do not have a "program" to follow in my head, either, so basically I will just eat until I cannot physically fit in more food. I have done this virtually every time I have completely and totally given up all control of intake.

If I were not programmed (i.e. a dieter), then I would find it possible to eat normally because then I would be more accustomed to listening to my body to tell me when to or not to eat.

It's like if you have a a little toy car, if you take it off its track it will just keep driving into the wall aimlessly... put it back on its track and yes, it can move just like a real car - it looks like a real car, seems to have a destination like one too. We dieters also, at times, seem like normal eaters in that we are normal weight and eat relatively normal portions for that. However the difference between them and us is that we are following an artificial structure and this process is by no means the natural and logical one it is for a regular person. We are a little toy car on a pre-programmed track.
Take it off its track and it loses it's direction, and just keeps going and going and going. When we take away our diets, we too will just eat and eat and eat with no limit.

On the other hand, a person driving a REAL car will never do that because the driving is intelligent and purposeful, not artificial. Does this make sense? Being a dieter off a diet is like taking that "fake" toy car off its tracks. Yea you will eat ridiculously and never learn to eat right until you take the keys in your own hands and start driving with a real logic. By this, that means resigning total and complete control over to your body for food - which means eating as much as possible when your body says its hungry, and as little as possible for any other reason.

I think a major obstacle is people tend to confuse hunger pain with other pain (it is a bad feeling you want to go away) so they eat even when body doesn't need food. But I think, with time, one can learn to tell the difference if one is mindful to look for it.



I refuse to give up hope that it might be possible.

However, I have come to the conclusion that it will be like "recovering" from an addiction or disorder. This is implicit with making changes that have the net effect of profoundly changing who we are as people. For me, I know the following two road blocks are what is primarily preventing me from being an intuitive eater:

1) I know it is not possible to be an intuitive eater if you hold weight of high importance. Viewing the state/shape/size of your body as significant implies that it is something that says something about you as a person. This implies it is your fault, the result of something you can control, which would then further imply that it is something you can change. This is false, and it is at the root of us being non intuitive eaters. Trying to control/change our bodies is the same as refusing to validate them, and thus, eating non-intuitively.

2) I also know it is not possible to be an intuitive eater if I maintain the conviction that controlling my food intake (quantity) is something I can do without forcing my body into a state of non-expression in regards to regulating food intake. It's one of the few things in life that IS black and white. There is no "grey area". In other words, either I'M telling my body when it's going to eat, or it's telling ME. You can't just "some of the time" suppress/ignore your hunger signals, it doesn't work like that. Once you validate the notion that it is okay to not listen to your body for one purpose, you validate the notion that your body is not an ally (and an authority figure when it comes to food) at all. You have now reduced your body to this foreign, alien, impersonal state of being this inconvenience, this nuisance, this enemy that wishes to make you miserable and fat and unhappy and steal your dreams from you.
I must embrace it as a law of the universe that what my body says about food is always always always as valid and as worthy of being shown respect as the sincere wishes of my soul mate. I must either fully accept I cannot do anything about my hunger EXCEPT accept it, respect it, validate, and eat healthfully in response... or I will continue to be a non-intuitive eating dieter. Period.

So you see, at this point in my life I cannot be an intuitive eater. My identity is to profoundly wrapped up in those contradictory ideas (of dieting, "controlling" weight, "making myself" thin) and I cannot fathom not believing them. It would be like erasing a big part of my identity, a sort of suicide.

However I can consciously recognize WHY I cannot be an intuitive eater, and that is most definitely progress. With understanding comes hope. If one day I really do want to get along with my body more than I want to control it, I have the seeds of power in my head to facilitate this...

I say screw intuitive eating. The analytical portion of my brain is pretty danged good and I would rather having it controlling my eating rather than the portion of my brain that says things like "fire bad", "fruit loops good".

Most of us got into trouble relying on our intuition rather than thinking through our food choices, double checking our impulses with what we really need.