Si ([info]notnotabouthim) wrote,
@ 2008-05-23 15:18:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
the what and why of food cravings
I've been thinking about food cravings a lot recently.

Whenever I talk to people about the raw food thing, they invariably immediately say "Oh, I couldn't live without my pasta/coffee/whatever." It's almost offensive for them to even consider it.

I've always found this pretty interesting. I figured "Well, thank god I'm not like that!" Food's never been more than fuel for me, and that's about it.

How wrong I was. Turns out I'm just like everybody else - quelle surprise! *laugh*


photo by essjay

There are several reasons for food cravings.

Chemical imbalance
A week or two after I first went raw, I got enormous KFC cravings. I figured "Ok, let's see what this is about" and tried some. One bite in I realised two things: 1/ it was disgusting, and 2/ it wasn't the KFC I craved, but salt.

Scientists have been able to directly connect the cravings of pregnant women (pickles & peanut butter?) with specific nutritional lacks in their bodies that would be sated by the foods they desire. Often our bodies make us crave specific foods, because at some level they 'know' that we can get the nutrients we need from those foods - hence the desire for a meat pie after a hard night on the town.


photo by narly

Attachment to the effect
Some foods affect us in obvious ways. Coffee/sugar makes us hyper, alcohol makes us less inhibited, and so on.

Often we don't want the food, so much as the effect. It's common for hard pushing type A personalities to crave pasta or bread, simply because the carbs will slow them down - it's a way to ensure they get a rest they desire, without having to consciously admit that's what they actually need.

Avoidance
"Self medicating" with food is well known.

Caffeine & alcohol are two obvious (legal) ones here. Feeling lethargic? Have a coffee. Sick of your life? Have a beer. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. I've done this pretty much my entire life.


photo by cchristiej

Emotional craving
The commonest form is when the food has a strong emotional attachment for us. Some examples:

For years I associated caffeine with productivity & reward - if I had a coffee it was because I was about to be productive, or had just achieved something (and so rewarded myself with a coffee break).

Fish & chips - although one of the blandest food combinations known to man (basically just salt+fat), was dear to my heart for years. Why? Because as a family that was one of the rare treats growing up. It was about the only time we "ate out" - getting a huge portion for the family to curl up on the floor together & share. In fact, we actually had a photo of us as kids, lying in front of the TV, watching CHiPs & eating chips (the height of sophisticated humour for an 8 year old).

Bread, particularly thick white chunky bread covered in butter and peanut butter.. YUM! Why? After church we always used to drive home past a local dairy (corner store) and buy a couple of loaves of unsliced white bread. Then we'd come home and have Sunday lunch (nick named "bread and..") which consisted of huge slices of bread covered in anything we liked. Another obvious positive association of the entire happy family sharing food together.

Of course, once you find the reason behind these cravings, it's trivial (using eft/releasing/whatever) to break these connection and gain a little more self-control.


So what is the upshot of all this? I like to think of these things as exercises in free will. While we are being dragged along by our impulses, we're losing our ability to choose. If our instinct is telling us we must have this or that food, we are no longer in control of ourselves. We are, in some sense, less than human. Of course, it's up to each individual whether they want to accept this in their lives, or, little by little, step further into the light.
[edit: I understand this paragraph to be offensive to some. It's just my opinion & not something I've expounded on properly yet. Feel free to read the rest of the post and ignore it. cheers]

The key difference, ultimately, isn't what you eat or don't eat. It's whether you consciously choose any given food, or whether it's chosen for you.

(Post a new comment)


[info]galadarling
2008-05-23 05:50 am UTC (link)
I like your brain.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]galadarling
2008-05-23 05:50 am UTC (link)
Other parts too.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-23 06:11 am UTC (link)
*laugh* you flatterer..

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]san_grail
2008-05-23 07:31 am UTC (link)
Hmmmm...
I'm really cautious about viewing eating as primarily or majorly an exercise of will, and tend to worry that it devolves into a dysfunctional exercise.
I think the primary motivation for evaluating food & food cravings, and probably closer to what you were intending, is not control, but what is best for your body and what it actually needs.

From experience living with people with particular dietary quirks, the desire to not have a food is sometimes a form of emotional craving - as you pointed out, for control.

Far more than sometimes actually, but I'm not sure I've known a representative sample of people.
Having a need for external control over their life not being met, it expressed itself in controlling their body, their food intake, or denying their cravings for food full stop.
Count the obvious for this under several anorexics. A stereotype, but yes, it was usually an exercise in will, because at some point, they hadn't been able to express their own will, or were insecure about their ability to express it, or were insecure about the control they had over their own life.
That sucks.
But, I've actually been closer to a lot of people with 'I won't eat...*blah*' food preferences.
I've known someone who wouldn't eat any form of spice - from pepper to cumin. Someone who won't eat any fruit, and most veges, especially not moist (I thought they were joking when they hissed at a piece of mango I was offering them, until they reflexively hit my arm away, sending it flying - they'll only eat 'space-potato').
It originated as a form of control, several of them were aware of that origin, but unfortunately, it seems to control them instead, as initial food limitations often grew, and of course, it severely limited many many choices they had available to them in terms of eating, dining and socialising.

I'm sure we agree in general, but it was just the 'upshot' thing that kind of concerned me, as it seemed to read like the point of controlling your food intake is to deny your instincts, that the main benefit is the exercise in will involved in self-denial.
To me, that's never the benefit, that's merely the sometimes necessary tool in giving your body what it actually needs.
On the otherhand, who am I to talk of willpower? *whistles...*


Anyway, my own less interesting food adventures - apparently both my parents are on gluten free diets, and I especially wouldn't expect that from my father (the Waikato beef farmer...).
If I do have even a slight sensitivity (which would seem unlikely but for the above), as while in a fit of pique at the mere thought I might not be able to have gluten, I went out and bought some in the form of muffins, and I realised I'd had to go out and buy some.
The only readily available gluten I had at home was some pasta I haven't used in a while. No bread, only wheat-free muelis etc, and I usually eat rice, rice noodles or potatoes. Baked beans rather than spaghetti etc. Hmmm, a little suspicious now that I think about it.
I'd do a proper 100% gluten free trial for a bit, then introduce some bread and see how I do.
It's hard if I am feeling a little tired not to latch onto any random medical explanation. I think I do fairly well about not doing so, but boy, the amount of time I spend researching to be 'sure'?
;P

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]san_grail
2008-05-23 07:34 am UTC (link)
Whoops, there was supposed to be a:
" But that might not be so bad, as even..."

Before "if I do have even a slight sensitivity".

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-23 08:06 am UTC (link)
You're absolutely right.

I was talking specifically about cravings.

Controlling intake is the other side of the coin (as opposed to lack of control of intake) - anorexics commonly end up that way starting from a position of "I can't control anything else in my life, but I CAN control my food." However, that's really a whole other conversation :)

There is also a subtle distinction between free will, self-control & 'control' as you discuss it. I believe that with true, unclouded free will, you don't actually need 'control' (in the rationalist sense). Simply because everything naturally flows as it should. It's things like cravings - automatic responses from below our level of consciousness - that then necessitate stronger levels of control in order to override them.

oh, and re your gluten story. You may find you have 'a reaction' to carbs (which would include potatoes, rice, noodles etc), in that they are notorious for slowing the metabolism (takes a lot of energy to process them). Different from a gluten allergy of course, but a reaction nonetheless.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]keptinacan
2008-05-23 10:02 am UTC (link)
I tend to manipulate myself and my mood via what I eat.

Deliberately not eating is invigurating... when hunger kicks in it activates the "hunter/gather get off your ass and do stuff" gene.
When I have a challenging project on my methode of high achivement used to heavily involve diet manipulation. I would stay awake long enough that my mind slowed a little.. I would then stay hungery and keep to the task. The tunnel vision of an adrenilin charged combined with my "Attack the problem like it's gonna it's gonna slap you if you drop your gaze" mindset... battle mode... total focus..

This is the state that martial arts and meditation gurus aim for- but I took the shortcut.

...this of course was complete self delusion.. and I only ever achieved what I had been capable of anyway... it's just I got so drained that I did not have the energy to maintain the walls and restrictions that I had constructed for myself.

...still it was one hell of a ride and I can empathise with the physical charge that one gets from diet restrictions.

It is a high similar to that of over exercise...

There was no point I was trying to make... just in case you thought this was going to go somewhere..

Have a happy.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-23 12:28 pm UTC (link)
ha ha. Actually, you manipulate yourself and your mood via what you don't eat :)

It's a pretty interesting approach to take. Fasting has been used for thousands of years for lots of purposes. As long as you're drinking lots of water (and, I'd suggest taking a decent multivitamin) you can go up to 40 days without food without too much ill effect. Not great for you perhaps, but definitely doable (just ask Jesus).

It's also interesting that humans are the only mammals that keep eating when we get sick. Particularly since digestion requires so much energy, most mammals preserve their energy for getting better.

As a general rule though (and particularly given exposure to anorexicia) I'd strongly advise against doing that sort of thing on a regular basis.... but then, you'd already figured that out :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]keptinacan
2008-05-25 02:11 am UTC (link)
Fasting is a HUGE topic.

I did it quite a bit in my teen years. When you go full on with a water only fast your body has a tranision after about four days. You get a metalic taste in your mouth as your body starts to convert muscle tissue to energy.
I think that minimal food, or fuit juice only, is better if you plan for long fasts to be a regular part of your life.

Back to the cravings though... a few days ago the maid braught me breakfast.
This started with a glass of mango juice. She then returned downstairs and, a little while later, came back with A bowl of musili with pinaple and a ramicin of yogurt. There was also coffee on the tray.
As feast like as this was... I sent her downstairs again to open a can of rasberies to add to the musili because I *blush* wanted to eat something that was dark in colour.

My crockery is all white, the bedtray is white with a pale wooden surround. It was pale food on a pale plate and all got a bit much.

I don't usually get hungery for colours.. but it does happen now and then.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-25 03:49 am UTC (link)
yeah, I understand the best approach with water fasts is to plan to spend the entire time in bed - since you'll have no energy.

I totally understand the desire for colours.. our entire house is white, if we didn't have vegetables in the house, we'd be screwed! :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]wildilocks
2008-05-23 12:16 pm UTC (link)
If our instinct is telling us we must have this or that food, we are no longer in control of ourselves. We are, in some sense, less than human. Of course, it's up to each individual whether they want to accept this in their lives, or, little by little, step further into the light.

While on one hand, I do agree with your opinion on this, on the other hand, it's one of those areas I have little warning bells going off, the kind of warning I have to give myself when I'm ranting and have to do a quick "holier than thou" check. You have to stop and think for a moment if telling people they are behaving in a less-than-human way when they are following the instincts that are a big part of what keeps us alive and allows us the luxury of self-reflective thought and other human qualities we prize, is actually helpful. It's something I've said in the past about issues like morality, but not about basic physical survival.

All the different reasons for cravings you mention above exist, but I think at the root of them all, the major problem, is simply that our profit-driven agricultural system has stripped out an alarming percentage of the trace elements and nutrients in most of the staple foods we, and our parents, were raised on, so even in cases where our body is genuinely craving something on a purely physical level of need as opposed to mental or emotional, we just don't get what we evolutionarily are designed to expect and *should* be getting from the foods we crave, and the cravings snowball into vicious cycles which become harder and harder to escape. We have so few tools to fix the basic nutritional deficiencies that most of us were *born* with. It's not just a case of being "in control of ourselves" because it's really quite an effort to get food which will nourish us to the levels we used to have even a generation or two ago, let alone millenia ago - our food systems are now verging on collapse, our medical establishment hopelessly ill-equipped to advise people helpfully on the causes of their sickness, and in most parts of the world, nutritional deficiences are epidemic. Organic food really is crucial and contains significantly higher levels of nutrients and while it's getting easier to find, it's still nowhere near reasonably available unless you live in the right areas in some countries and/or cities, and even then you're lucky if it's 5% of the available food for you to purchase out of what's available in a supermarket, and even less likely for any form of restaurant food.

I have become sick the last couple of days [headaches, bloatiness] partly because my body is under stress being away from home and the weather has got cold and chilly, but I'm expecting also significantly because I'm eating hardly any organic food - even the organic cafe I used to go to in Perth has changed hands since I was here last and is no longer organic :( I can't wait to be back in Melbourne and settled into my cosy routine with our nice organic box delivered each week :)

But I would really prefer to live in a world where organic wasn't this hippie weirdo crap that is fringe or popular amongst certain in-the-know hipsters and movie stars [and I've said as such in the past even when interviewed]: I want the average person out there in the burbs to be eating food that was good for them, because society succeeds or fails by the level of happiness of the lowest common denominator. It's wonderful that you are talking about ways to do it, but I think you might get more people on side by accepting that many of these behaviours we all exhibit aren't less than human: it's the systems we've developed in the last 100 years that treat us all as less-than-human that are overwhelmingly hard to fight, for the average human.

Edited at 2008-05-23 12:22 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-23 12:25 pm UTC (link)
Yes, I agree with you - for the specific case of chemical imbalance - "If you get a gut feeling to eat something, then do it".

I wasn't delineating enough with that end bit - that was referring primarily to the other forms of cravings, not those brought on by nutritional deficiency. I believe the emotional cravings are far more prevalent than the other forms (although avoidance/self-medicating is pretty common - particularly with coffee/alcohol).

And you're bang on the money re organic too.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]wildilocks
2008-05-23 01:41 pm UTC (link)
"If you get a gut feeling to eat something, then do it".

But the point is that, 95% of the time now, that isn't going to actually *help* with the cravings, for the reasons I've outlined above. And I also think, as stated above, that many of the emotional cravings would be diminished if we had a baseline of generally nutrient-rich food, instead of a baseline of generally nutrient-deficient food. So I still disagree with your core argument: it's not about people making poor choices [or even no choices at all]: it's that the good choices are ridiculously difficult to make, and that in a world not very long ago, we *didn't need to make those choices at all*. It's essentially a moot question. People are behaving the way people essentially should be behaving, if everything were balanced. Choosing food shouldn't have to be hard, it *should* be effortless, we *should* be able to sleepwalk through it! It's not an essential human trait to be able to recognise that we are out of balance - it's a rare and unique talent. You're one of the rare and unique ones, but it doesn't make others less-than-human.

Tha's all :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-23 02:27 pm UTC (link)
no, true. Gut feelings are really only going to help with chemical imbalance (the special case where cravings are helpful).

I don't agree that better baseline nutrition would change emotional cravings (unless you're talking going raw, but that's a healing thing, so slightly different) - simply because emotional cravings come from our emotions, not from what physical state our body is in.. but that's ok, we're allowed to have different opinions about this :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]wildilocks
2008-05-23 02:59 pm UTC (link)
Okay, now I am really having trouble understanding where you are coming from.

How can a raw food diet affect your body on a different level than any other kind of diet? Raw food is good for you, processed food is not: but it's nothing any more mysterious than the balance of nutrients and sheer numbers of calories, and some nutrients are more available when cooked [though it is the exception rather than the rule ;)]. I don't understand how you can separate raw food out as a special case in parentheses, and then in the next sentance, state that our emotions have no relationship to our body's physical state [which is of course very heavily influenced by diet, as you must know from personal experience]? This goes counter to just about every experiential, let alone scientific, understanding I have of how the body and mind interact.

Please, do explain how your understanding of this has come about, because I'm completely stumped as to how you could make the above statements!



(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-23 03:03 pm UTC (link)
because a raw food diet is the only one I've seen (there may be others) where many, many people find that it HEALS them - & particularly of their emotional food cravings.

The detox & healing process can be intense, but it works.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]wildilocks
2008-05-25 12:13 pm UTC (link)
Yes, I realise you believe that. What I'm asking is, how can you say that the inverse is *not* true, ie: a diet lacking raw foods that consists of many heavily processed foods and animal protein and just plain food that is lacking in nutrient content, how can you say that *that* diet is not the *cause* of emotional as well as physical dysfunction, if you believe that eating just raw food will *solve* those problems? If a raw food diet fixes the emotional as well as physical issues, it's because the emotional as well as physical issues were diet related from the beginning.

I would also say that the reason the raw diet is particularly helpful for people *right now* is still the root of lack of nutrients. I don't think you'd see the same level of OMFGAMAZINGTRANSFORMATION if people had grown up eating a standard diet of 200 [or maybe 2000] years ago, for example. They'd be getting enough micronutrients even with cooked food to not have the dramatic changes you've seen in people today. It really helps to look at the facts behind things, not just the evangelical hype, as I've spent a lot of time doing. Raw food is a great healing/detox diet, absolutely in agreement with you there - but it's not a maintenance diet. It's balancing something that was broken, but it's imbalanced by nature, at least, for the state of our bodies as they are currently evolved [ie our jaws are too small to cope with the amount of raw foods we'd need to eat to survive healthily in the long term].

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-25 04:39 pm UTC (link)
hmm.. you may be right.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
holier than thou
[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-23 12:48 pm UTC (link)
If our instinct is telling us we must have this or that food, we are no longer in control of ourselves. We are, in some sense, less than human. Of course, it's up to each individual whether they want to accept this in their lives, or, little by little, step further into the light.
While on one hand, I do agree with your opinion on this, on the other hand, it's one of those areas I have little warning bells going off, the kind of warning I have to give myself when I'm ranting and have to do a quick "holier than thou" check. You have to stop and think for a moment if telling people they are behaving in a less-than-human way when they are following the instincts that are a big part of what keeps us alive and allows us the luxury of self-reflective thought and other human qualities we prize, is actually helpful. It's something I've said in the past about issues like morality, but not about basic physical survival.

This is another important point that is worth addressing (if we side step the chemical imbalance issue raised). That of the "holier than thou" check.

It's a good check.

There is, however, a VERY good reason I precede comments like that with "It's up to each individual."

We're all on different paths (big duh there). Personally, I'm pushing very, VERY aggressively toward the light. The intent being, since I feel I have the tools (or at least, some very good ones, and seem to be getting introduced to better ones all the time) to make giant steps in this direction. This includes:

* Removing all negative thought
* Converting my feelings towards everyone to those of unconditional love
* Removing all self-medication
* Removing every negative interaction (however slight) that I have with anyone
* Moving to a place of complete peace & stillness

Yes, I fully realise how nutty & extreme this is. There is no way in hell I would suggest this for anyone else. However, it's what I've chosen to do with (at least this part of) my life. It's definitely an outlier, but for me, I feel it's the right direction to be going in.

But everyone has their own life to lead, and people are here for an infinite number of reasons. Very, very few people are on a path this extreme, in this area - which is good, how boring would that be? However, it is right for me (I believe).

So, it's up to each individual to choose, and choosing, I believe, is the single most important thing an individual can do.

Want to drink beer every night, smoke, do drugs, watch TV all day and work a job you hate? Go right ahead, but CHOOSE IT, don't just drift along mindlessly. I honestly believe the greatest evil we can do to ourselves is to forget that we have the freedom to choose, in every aspect of our lives.

That's what many of these automatic eating habits take away from us, and that is what I'm railing against, not the specific path (or not) that someone is on. There is absolutely zero judgement attached to any person's choices, just concern that they might not be making them at all.

So perhaps, in this case, it needs to be a "choosier than thou" check? :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: holier than thou
[info]wildilocks
2008-05-23 01:30 pm UTC (link)
I guess to me it's about the semantics, how you will be coming across to your audience - if you're writing just for you, then it wouldn't be a public post, would it? So while I can see your point of view, the words you use perhaps won't come across the way you intend to some people, the majority who do find it harder to make changes.

Trust me, the only reason I have come to be following the path I'm following right now, is that I had a serious scare, which forced me to make a choice. I'm a strong person, and I question almost everything, and I made the choice the majority probably would not have. You are also a strong person. The world does need people like us to educate about choices we make - it benefits everyone to have more information about those choices. But if people feel they are being judged even if you say you are not, eg that you consider what you are doing far beyond what a "normal" person would be capable of [which is what you've pretty much said above] then they might be less inclined even to try parts of what you're suggesting, and might not even want to emulate that sort of attitude, as it's separatist and elitist. You may say you aren't suggesting others try what you are trying, but then I have to ask you - why are you posting it publically? What is your agenda, why share it?

I have to fight myself a whole lot at the moment from being a tedious broken record about food choices. It's SO hard not to proselytise, when you see people so unhappy, and you are really sure if they tried a few of the changes you have, they would be happier, but you just *can't* get through to them, because they're stuck in a bad cycle. It's like the black books yoga episode come to life for me, and it's funny and tragic at the same time... I guess the question I ask myself more than anything is how to get through to people, so they can take those first steps - because most of the time, if you come across as an extreme nutter, then they will just carefully sidle away from you, and nobody benefits from all the sound and fury.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: holier than thou
[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-23 02:24 pm UTC (link)
Ahh. Some clarification is required.

I don't think what I'm doing is far beyond what a normal person is capable of. I do think it's beyond what a normal person would choose to do.

There's nothing special about me or what I've done, particularly, except perhaps a little stubbornness and some extreme choices.

I've given up "trying to get through to people" - as you've discovered, it's basically a waste of time - you can't really tell anyone anything. All I can do is put stuff out there, and maybe the information will help someone. If so, great. If not, no major loss.

I agree with needing to watch out for coming across sounding like I'm judging people. It's not helpful, it just upsets people. It's why I use phrases like "It's up to each individual".. I figured that would be enough, but I guess I need to use more words :) so noted. Thank you.

One of the hardest things I've had to learn is just to let people make their own mistakes. Watch people I love in pain, particularly when (as you point out) such small changes could have such huge effects. It has caused me a lot of pain, watching this, but ultimately, it's their life. How can I love them and not respect their right to their own choices, however misguided I may think they are? After all, it's only my opinion versus theirs, and they're the boss of them, not me :)

I'm less concerned with creating a water tight, convincing argument - simply because I'm not trying to convince anyone. If people think "Oh, that makes sense, I find that helpful", well, great. If not, no biggie.

Also, a lot of times I think people read (or hear) stuff, then often years later, when it's right for them, they make a decision about it. Never exactly the same path as anyone else, of course, but it IS useful to hear stuff, even if someone has zero interest in it immediately.

Sometimes things just take a while to gel. I know I'm like that. Hell, just yesterday I had a realisation based on something I read (and didn't really grok) almost 20 years ago. Dear god I wish I'd figured it out before now, but I just wasn't ready.

If I come across as an extreme nutter, well, it easily could be argued that I am *laugh*. If people sidle away, ultimately that's their choice. I couldn't be encouraging people to make choices if I was going to get upset about that particular one, now could I? :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: holier than thou
[info]wildilocks
2008-05-23 02:43 pm UTC (link)
Ah, I see! So from your point of view, there is a quintessential difference between capability, and choice, and you consider choice about these things to be something to be striven for, for yourself. But for the rest of the folks out there, you believe any of them are capable of the same choices as you, but that most of them would not choose the same path, and that's totally okay for them, but you'd like to let them know about your choices, because that may eeeeeeeeventually influence them, maybe after years, to make some choices that might bring them a little bit closer to "the light". Is that kinda it? Cos I have to say that still smacks of elitism - not that I don't have trouble catching myself doing the same thing, which I think is why I'm sensitive to it.

I think I probably never would have reacted as strongly if it hadn't been for the "less than human" thing, really. Sorry to have filled so much screen real estate there :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: holier than thou
[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-23 02:54 pm UTC (link)
Close but not quite. I believe that choice is essential. I believe that anyone is capable of DOING what I've done, IF they choose to.

I put the information out there in case other people want to (do similar things) - but (and I really can't stress this enough), it's THEIR CHOICE. If they want to, it might help. If they don't want to, that's fine too. If they decide to in 20 years time, that's also fine.

*phew*

and the human thing? Ahh, well, I believe that we're all an expression of God (the universe, whatever). So, frankly, most of the time, all of us are "less than human". Being fully human means fully realising our potential. I'm certainly not there yet :) That's also what I mean about moving towards the light - simply taking steps towards more fully realising that potential. That's all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: holier than thou
[info]wildilocks
2008-05-23 03:07 pm UTC (link)
Myeah, once again - your semantic choices are possibly alienating. Calling anyone "less than human" [especially when in the same breath you are putting yourself further up the path to "being fully human" as you put it] is potentially more likely to alienate than to assist. It's of course your choice to use these terms instead of other less loaded ones, but as you've got to the point of mentioning god, I'm going to give up here, the evangelical tone just became overt rather than covert :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: holier than thou
[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-23 03:13 pm UTC (link)
*shrug* I just know I'm "more human" than I used to be. That's good enough for me. Neither know nor care how I compare to anyone else, that's their business.

And God? Yeah, took me until about 3 months back before I could use that word without cringing too. It's just short hand. Feel free to replace it with any word of your preference (universe, zero point field, energy, universal consciousness, love, whatever works). Nothing evangelical about it, I think religion is a massive pile of destructive hokum.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: holier than thou
[info]_fustian
2008-05-26 03:48 am UTC (link)
And God? [...] It's just short hand. [...] I think religion is a massive pile of destructive hokum.

Hmm. So (at the risk of Godwin's Law) it'd be OK if I dropped the occasional Völkisch or Lebensraum into my posts, because I was choosing to use them to signify other things? You can overload an operator all you like, but you inherit its original function regardless.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: holier than thou
[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-26 04:00 am UTC (link)
Not overloading, just abbreviating.

It's quicker to use those 3 letters than it is to write, say, "universal order", or "quantum interconnectedness of all things", or "energy", although, in my view, they're all exactly the same thing.

It's just unfortunate that the same 3 letters are used by various religions to peddle their own misguided-but-scarily-effective societal control mechanisms.

Of course, as with anything bordering on anything even vaguely religious (or political), it's a highly invective topic, and everyone has their own opinion on it (as they rightly should).


ps. extra points for getting umlauts into your comment :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: holier than thou
[info]_fustian
2008-05-26 06:48 am UTC (link)
It's just unfortunate that the same 3 letters are used by various religions

Not "unfortunate", rather what they actually mean. Using words for other than their dictionary-definition, commonly-understood meanings is not really communication. Perhaps you could try to distinguish your idiosyncrastic usage by writing the word uncapitalised?

ps. extra points for getting umlauts into your comment :)

Thanks. I managed to use a stressed i latina in the title of my most recent post. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: holier than thou
[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-23 03:00 pm UTC (link)
oh, and it's probably ALSO worth pointing out (although, frankly, this whole subject is a whole other post), that there are many, many, MANY ways "towards the light." As Buddha said:

"There are many fingers pointing at the moon, but there is only one moon."

Frankly, I get a huge kick out of meeting people (as I seem to do increasingly these days) who have discovered completely different ways to move forward. It's all awesome. Anything that helps people is just great by me. I really don't care whether people do what I'm doing, or something utterly different, as long as they feel it's helping.. oh, and they're making personal choices.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: holier than thou
[info]fringekitty
2008-05-24 12:53 pm UTC (link)
This thread has contained many insightful observations on all sides. I think what may be difficult for folks to sort out is, on the one hand, you clearly indicate that you are making these very conscious choices for yourself because you are experimenting and experiencing benefits and have a particular direction in attitude that you want to engage; while on the other hand, it can also seem that you might be assuming this experiment, experience and direction might be the best place for everyone else to be--if only they would just choose to be there. This line of reasoning also appears to assume everyone else has the same resources; access; energy; etc. to make these kinds of changes. I'm only suggesting how this might be inferred, not what you implied.

Wildilocks makes a good point regarding food quality and cravings. I know as a matter of experience the higher the quality of the food, the more efficiently I process it, the less I need of it, and the fewer my overall cravings. It becomes so much easier to savor ;) the experience, and doing that actually does improve digestion. However, we don't always have access to enough organic food, it can be very, sometimes too expensive, and sometimes the selection simply isn't fresh. When we are able, we garden, but we can no longer use the little bit of land around our place due to toxins.

I was very fortunate to have worked with some gifted and forward-thinking nutritionists. One, a vegan, and another, an omnivore--both stressed the importance of individuals testing their own systems to find out what really worked best for them in terms of overall well-being. Both worked with raw fooders, vegans, vegetarians and omnivores to help them achieve optimum health. Both emphasized the adage that one person's food is another's poison--what optimizes well-being for one person might destroy the next.

So it really is up to each person to construct his/her own experiments, reviewing choices consciously, to find out what's best for that person's system. And, as important as it is to emphasize the different needs of different people, it is as important to realize that individual needs can vary from time to time as well. This--and here I am assuming--is what I think you're trying to demonstrate for others: your own experiment.


P.S.   Just a note of caution about fasting and raw foods. While I personally feel better after cleansing or fasting, be very cautious about it, for if a person has been exposed to too many toxins, the fasting process can cause the body to become overwhelmed by the toxins being drawn out from the tissues, causing damage and, in some cases, death due to complications. A multivitamin won't necessarily help here and might actually be a burden to process. What the body needs in these cases is easily digestible bulk to help remove the toxins. And while raw food may be the ideal diet for some, others cannot process it or may not be able to uptake the nutrients from certain essential foods. If someone has a severely compromised immune system, raw food may worsen digestion or predispose the body to pathogens. This is the reason travelers who are not robust are cautioned against eating too many raw foods or drinks, particularly when traveling in regions exotic to them. The same problems with water quality affect any raw food sources. (In these cases, I think it is more ability for a diet rather than choice that more directly influences workability.)


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: holier than thou
[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-24 02:37 pm UTC (link)
You're as insightful as ever :)

I think I'm going to need to put some kind of 14 point disclaimer at the top of my posts in future - no, I can't presume to claim that I know what is the right place, path or action for anyone else to take.

I do repeatedly stress this, but it appears my tone is swamping my text :/

I know what's worked for me - but only through trial and error - and only so far (I'm sure I'll find better things in time). I put the info out there specifically so, ONLY IF PEOPLE WANT TO, they can get their own data points, do their own experiments, and find out what's right for them (as you point out).

Also, frankly, most stuff I put up here not because I personally have a large audience - but rather so google can pick it up, and if people are searching, they might find answers that will help them (or give them things to experiment with further).

There are many types of cravings, I only believe that some of these (specifically chemical imbalance) will be lessened by better quality food. I don't believe that emotional cravings will be lessened by more nutritious food. I fully admit this is just my opinion though :)

You make a very good point re toxins. There are a couple of things I'm doing which will take care of this - which I won't go into in detail in public due to general squeamishness (but you're welcome to mail me about if you're curious).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fringekitty
2008-05-25 01:58 pm UTC (link)
I think it can be difficult sometimes to balance what is a perfectly natural enthusiasm with objective, distanced rhetoric. I mean, if you were not enthused, this would read like some stale and dusty journal article, which few people would be interested in reading. Unfortunately, enthusiasm for one's own process can seem to others like preaching, even when it's not intended. Why am I so aware of this? A--because I tend to do this myself and have to reel myself back in before I drive family and friends a bit bonkers. B--because I live on the Bible Belt, was reared as a Southern Baptist, and boy, do I know preaching when I hear it!

However, your journal invites challenge and inquiry. People are clearly comfortable asking what you mean, and, even if it gets to be a hassle sometimes, you seem eager to be understood. That communication process is worth so much more than a disclaimer would be. : )

Oh, and I very much agree about the emotional cravings comment above; certainly not every craving is about nutrition. Holiday eating, munching at the movie theatre....hmmm...hot, buttery popcorn....you can see I'm getting distracted. ; )




(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]lynnivere
2008-05-23 05:23 pm UTC (link)
With scent being so integral to food & taste, it makes perfect sense that we have this incredible memory recall & sentimentality over food.

Frankly, I think this is why so many people *love* McDonalds. *shrugs* No matter where they go they will most consistently get the same thing.. even if the same thing is crap. Can you say "Comfort Zone." Unfortunately, as our friend Morgan Spurlock has so eloquently (tongues cheek) pointed out.. ;) Supersized Fast Food is harsh for your mind & body.

That being said.. looking at this pic of Fish & Chips immediately catapulted me back to a time where some of Maori friends from Rotorua came to live with me for a while. On the weekends we'd have big parties & they'd go all out makin' heaps of fish & chips for everyone.

Just the site of those chippies.. makes my mouth water & my arteries prepare themselves for the fat onslaught! LOL

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]notnotabouthim
2008-05-23 05:48 pm UTC (link)
Well exactly! See how it's the emotional charge off it, rather than anything about the actual food itself that is the motivator?

You make an interesting point about scent and how powerful it is in terms of memory recall.

The really interesting thing I've found is - once I tapped out the emotional association to fish & chips, now I can look at those and really get very little if any kickback or desire from them at all.. and I used to eat them 3-4 times a week, religiously!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…