You say you want a revolution

[darkemeralds]

I seem to be undergoing some kind of mental revolution. I've changed my mind on things before now--I try to stay flexible--but this feels like it's a different order of magnitude.

Do you have that experience? Where you catch an idea from a book or an article, and it blooms and expands until it takes over your brain, and changes major beliefs, and makes you re-examine tons of stuff you haven't examined in years? And then you start deliberately reading more, and taking new actions based on the new thoughts in your head, and pretty soon you're leading a different life?

I have barely begun to articulate this change to myself, so this post is mostly an attempt to start mapping it, and find out if anyone else is in the territory.



The first big way-marker was Kevin Kelly's What Technology Wants, which I read in October and have been through four times since. Among other things, it made me reconsider my rejectionist stance on certain technologies, notably in medicine (I'm getting my first-ever flu vaccine tomorrow as a result).

Perhaps more importantly, it stripped away--completely and probably forever--my "magical past" or "golden age" thinking, my entirely unexamined assumption that there was some better time in the past when food was pure and people were naturally healthy and in touch with the physical world--and that it would be good or even possible to return to it.

Visiting Kevin Kelly's blog led me to The Quantified Self, whose ideas dovetail well with my natural tendency to log, track, and quantify the things of my life. The idea is that we can see trends and evaluate what is through data.

From TQS I found Joe's Goals, Your Flowing Data, The Happiness Report, and a bunch of other reality-based self-tracking tools to supplement what I was already doing with calorie-counting at Livestrong.

Last Friday I ran across Greta Christina's Blog and in particular her challenging post Skepticism as a Discipline. And that was it, man. The turning point. Suddenly, whatever remained of my own magical thinking about one of the overarching problems of my life (being fat) just crumbled.

And there behind it was this new idea:

Human beings almost certainly evolved to eat ALL THE FOOD in anticipation of winter and drought and bad hunting. We still eat ALL THE FOOD, but thanks to technology, winter and drought never come.

So there are two choices: keep doin' what comes naturally and continue to get bigger and bigger till my joints fail, or exercise discipline, employ technology (I bought a bathroom scale yesterday), believe the science, accept responsibility, and face reality: 1900 calories a day is never going to feel as yummy and "natural" as the 3700 or so I've been eating.

Well, going to work every day doesn't feel that terrific either, but I do it because I accept that it's necessary. Reading, writing and math didn't come naturally either: I had to be carefully taught. Good things have resulted from those "unnatural" disciplines, however, and I'm ready to take on a new one.

I expect I'll be writing more about this subject, and I apologize in advance to my friends who are annoyed or troubled by it. Please feel free to skip.

Comments

[karen_jk]

I appreciate so much how carefully you think about things, and I'll always want to read what you write.

[darkemeralds]

Thank you. I think of myself as a very careless and undisciplined thinker, but I'll give myself credit for doing a lot of it! :D

I honestly feel so different in this new realm of thought that I hardly know myself. I expect great things!

[roxy]

As always, I look forward to seeing where you go--I live vicariously through you.

I thought it was interesting that your "golden magic age" was blown out of the water by science. Whenever I was tempted to think of a certain age as the 'perfect' one, I cured myself of it by imagining me, a little black woman, living in that time and wanting to live the way I do now--you know, not like property. Right, the magic age was certainly never in the past. :) We're doing much better now, thank you.

Looking forward to your poists!

[darkemeralds]

Excellent perspective. And even if you were a little black women in a time and place where all women were little black women, you still wouldn't have had access to antibiotics or birth control or hot running water. Or ice cream.

Actually, I never had a sense of "Gee, I wish I'd been born in 1810 (or 500 BCE or whatever); just kind of a general feeling that "things were more natural back then." Kevin Kelly's book has persuaded me that there has never been a "pre-technological" human moment. We've made things since before we were sapiens, and every car and light bulb and cellphone and ibuprofen tablet rests on a foundation of every single made thing that went before it and gave rise to new ideas and more choices.

We are doing much better now. These are the good old days.

I just want to live long enough to witness the Kurzweil Singularity.

[kis]

I think I don't so much change my mind suddenly as allow ideas layer up in it. The ones with the most connections and reinforcements are the ones I believe most strongly in, although I'm naturally very sceptical, I guess, so it takes a lot to convince me when it comes to big changes. That said, something that's influencing my thinking a lot at the moment is The Wire. It's opening my eyes to why the world is like it is, how hierarchies operated and why. It's both depressing and kind at the same time.

I smiled a bit at your thoughts on discipline after this but I know you're absolutely right about the maths of eating/exercise - dammit! :)

[darkemeralds]

I went and re-commented on the post you linked to and forgot to come back here. I really must have a look at The Wire. Anything you think so very highly of is worth my attention.

It's the numbers, really, that I can't get around. A pound of fat is 3500 calories of energy. Burning one off requires using 3500 calories more than you take in.

It's no more complicated than that. It's harder than that because of emotional eating, habits, the strong evolutionary drive to store fat for the winter, the delicious abundance of wonderful food all around us, etc. But it's not complicated. I can say with a high degree of certainty that while I may have gained weight for a whole range of reasons, from trauma to heredity to survival instincts, I've gained it by one single mechanism, and that's eating more than I burn, steadily, over a long period of time.

[kis]

You might need to spend some time getting your ear in with The Wire. Baltimore accents + drug/police speak = confusing! We had to watch the first episode twice.

In general, I think you're right about the mechanism. However, I do think some calories convert to fat far more easily than others, and that fluid intake and fibre intake play a significant role too.

[darkemeralds]

Most of the sources I'm looking at seem to agree that a lower-fat diet is more effective, but it's not clear whether that's for heart-health reasons or because somehow you actually lose weight more easily that way. In the past, when I've become focused on trimming out the fat calories, I've had a hard time staying away from excessive carbs. (And vice versa--with low-carb schemes, I go overboard on the fats.) Fat is satisfying and delicious! :D

As to fluid intake and fibre: certainly a combination of the two makes a stomach feel nice and full, and keeps stuff moving along. I'm bad about getting enough water, especially in the winter.

[kis]

You know that all fluids (except maybe very strong coffee or alcohol) count towards your total fluids, don't you? It doesn't have to be water.

I've got this lingering belief, gleaned probably from some dreadful magazine, that drinking more fluid helps you lose weight because it prevents fluid retention ...

[darkemeralds]

Since most of what I drink is either coffee or water, I definitely need to up the water. (Though I find a nice pot of tea wonderfully hydrating.)

I've become a bit leery lately of the claims for the miraculous healing powers of drinking lots and lots of pure water, but I do know empirically that abundant hydration improves my voice, my eyesight, and my skin texture. Water is simpler and cheaper than trying to get equivalent moisture from, say, fruit, although fruit must count, I think.

Fluid retention is one of the things menopause has cured for me. On the other hand, it kind of dries a person up generally, so one more argument for getting in plenty of H2O.

Oh, and if I'm low on hydration, I can't ride my bike up a hill as readily. Hydration and respiration seem to be pretty closely tied. Barb and I figured out a very clear hydration schedule when we were "training" for our walking tour, and it was amazing what a good guzzle of water could do for stamina!

[kis]

*nods* I always thought people who took little bottles of water to exercise sessions a bit poncy, but now I realise they were just sensible!

[communicator]

Yeah I have been thinking this about food a lot. The cold weather makes the body-instincts particularly fierce for me. 'Eat all the food! It's winter!'

[darkemeralds]

It's been winter for at least the last 30 years of my life, apparently, and I've accumulated quite a few "coats". I'm thinking shedding some of them may actually be possible.

[verilyvexed.livejournal.com]

I find these posts fascinating, and quite liked the articles you linked to. 8D And I share a similar theory re: why we like to eat so much, and I'm so fond of charting things and finding patterns that I enjoy dieting in some perverse way... but then my natural inclination toward apathy and laziness takes over and I find I can't be bothered. If you come across anything that'll logic that out of a person, do share!

I think I do something similar, but perhaps in reverse: I change, then seem to have a light-bulb epiphany sort of moment and recognise it, then get to go back and deduce what prompted the actions. Being oblivious is its own reward, really. XD

[darkemeralds]

What I'm coming to realize is that it's not perverse to enjoy dieting. What a revelation. I could wish for a better word for it, but the process--the discipline, the tracking, the charting (and the real change they bring) are really engaging and game-like.

I suspect laziness and apathy will rear their heads again in my life--they always have in the past--but every time I've ridden a wave like this one, it has dropped me off on a new shore, and if some of my old habits reassert themselves, it's in a new environment and not quite the same as a total reversion.

I think I tend to be pretty inductive most of the time. Sherlock, I definitely am not!

[ranunculus]

Sometimes I forget that my somewhat unorthodox childhood had benefits (I grew up part time in Central Mexico, amongst a people who still used axes to carve out yokes for the oxen who plowed the fields). We are absolutely definitely living in an easier world! And no that world, with the pigs running free on the streets, and the four water faucets for the whole village (our village was rich, we didn't have to walk a mile to the well...), and elderly women selling bundles of kindling on the corner of the street to keep from starving to death - no that world is not cleaner, or purer.

One thought about behavior modification. I once read an article about neural pathways. The author likened learning taking a path. It is easy to jog along a path, or road that you always take. You could do it when half asleap. Learning a new way is like hacking your way through the jungle, blindly on no route you have ever seen. Then treading that path again, pushing aside vegetation and peering forward to find your way, and again till the ground packs into a track. And more, and more till the path is wide and well used, and finally it is wider and more inviting than any other way...

[darkemeralds]

I think that "golden age" and "pure" thinking is really only possible to someone who has lived all their life in a highly technological urban world. I'm not conscious of ever having thought that poor Mexican villagers (to use your example) were better off than I was: merely that they were somehow "closer to nature," particularly with regard to food. I know better now, but that correction to my thinking has been very recent.

I love the analogy of carving a path. It makes perfect sense to me. Reading your description, I thought: and what if there are better tools than a machete? What if today's world gives us some bulldozers and chainsaws in the form of methods, techniques, groups, communication, maybe even drugs or devices that can speed up the process of building new neural pathways?

That's how I'm viewing these cool tools like Joe's Goals and Livestrong, and even the bathroom scale, and other people's blogs and testimonials like this very metaphor you've provided, and the National Weight Control Registry--literally, mind-changing technologies.

It's an exciting time to be alive. Thanks for a great comment!

[ranunculus]

There -are- better tools to use than a machete, but despite all the bulldozers waiting sleepily in their parking places, YOU still have to forge that first path, and YOU still have to keep using it. Using the bulldozer to widen it is a wonderful idea, as long as you keep waking along that roughly carved road. Keeping the gasoline (or diesel) flowing to the dozer is your responsibility!!!

On the other hand, if you fall off the path, and chose to take an alternative route for a day or two, then you can ALWAYS come back to the one less traveled (or more traveled for that matter) whenever you chose. After all you carved it in the first place.

[darkemeralds]

You're absolutely right, and I strayed a little off the central metaphor there. The key thing is that the individual has to make the decision to go where there's no current brain-path, and the individual has to pick up the tools and start the trail-blazing in her own brain.

I was thinking more that various forms of moral support, evidence, and information make doing it day after day more likely, easier, and probably more effective.

[ranunculus]

Better feedback mechanism is a very helpful thing!

I think I was stuck in the "oxen plowing" portion. But even with that metaphor time wrought wonderful changes.

[tehomet]

Even when we disagree as profoundly as we do on this topic, I'll always be interested to read what you write, and wishing you well with whatever you choose to do.

[darkemeralds]

I'd be very interested in getting a better understanding of the basis of the disagreement, not only because your thoughts and ideas are always of value to me, but generally in the name of open-minded inquiry. I don't imagine that I've come to any final truth on the issue, and I have a long history of falling headfirst into exciting new (to me) ideas without examining all the arguments.

I'm trying to be a better skeptic, really. If you'd care to point out the main areas of disagreement, I'd be sincerely interested.

[tehomet]

In a nutshell, I disapprove of so-called weight loss dieting and of so-called weight loss surgery on many grounds. I'm a feminist, so I disapprove of the beauty standard, on the grounds that we are all of equal value, regardless of our appearance (or our state of health, come to that). As Naomi Wolf wrote, "Dieting is the most potent political sedative in women's history; a quietly mad population is a tractable one." I'm a fat acceptance activist, with all that implies in terms of accepting that fat is a normal part of the human body's diversity, as well as challenging the political and social injustice issue that is fat oppression. I have extensively reviewed the science, and I do not think that fat is necessarily bad for one's health, provided one eats well and exercises; (in fact, it may have a protective effect). (Please note that of course I think fat people who are unhealthy for any reason are entitled to the same respect as any other human being.) And finally, I practice Health At Every Size, which is to say, I eat healthily and take regular exercise with a view to enjoying life and being as healthy as possible (but not necessarily thin). I think diets and WLS are, to one degree or another, designed to hurt us and keep us in our place, under a cover of being good for our health, all while servicing the patriarchy and making a profit for the companies involved.

With regards to your plan of restricting your calorie intake in order to lose weight, I note from the research, as does Greta Christina, that the majority of diets fail. What she fails to mention is that, having reviewed the scientific evidence regarding dieting, I wouldn't see the point of someone going on a diet unless he or she actually wanted to get fatter.

Fat acceptance activists look at the research on dieters five years after they have initially attained their goal weight. The vast majority have regained all the weight, plus some. If Greta Christina wants to lose weight because her knee hurts, dieting will almost certainly make her fatter five years down the line, and her knee will hurt more. This is why FA activists have been recommending anything other than weight loss to her, to remedy her knee problem. It's not "denialism," it's practicality. Despite being 400lbs plus, I've never had joint problems, thankfully, but just off the top of my head, instead of dieting, she might be better advised to look at strength work to support her knee, and low or no impact exercise options to prevent damaging it further, as well as conventional medical treatments for joint problems, such as osteopathy. And, of course, I'd recommend that she practice HAES for her health!

Weight loss sustained over a shorter period than five years after attainment of goal weight isn't of significance. The situation after five years is the medical 'survival' or 'success' rate for other treatments, so it is the standard yardstick used by medical researchers and obesity experts: you're probably pretty familiar with the 'five year survival rate' being quoted for various cancer treatment options, for example. Anyone can spend a year on a strict diet, lose two pounds a week as recommended, and regain it all and more - that's pretty typical behaviour, in fact. A year is nothing. So, keep the five year rule in mind when you look at NWCR. If, as they say, "Registry members have lost an average of 66 lbs and kept it off for 5.5 years.", then even my limited understanding of statistics would indicate that the average length of time that the weight loss is sustained is considerably shorter than five years from attainment of goal weight.

It would be interesting to look at the NWCR's data if the five year rule were applied.

There's also bias to deal with, not to mention commercial interest. Greta Christina provides this link as evidence of a so-called "mountain of research" that being fat is bad for one's health. I would question whether a surgeon who makes his living from carrying out bariatric surgery is really unbiased as regards the evidence for fat's effect on health, in the same way that I don't ask the company running the nuclear reactor if radiation is bad for humans, I don't ask the butcher if she thinks vegetarianism is the way of the future, and I don't ask men or white people what the definition of sexism or racism is. :D I will not get into discussing how incredibly bad bariatric surgery is for one's long-term health or how ineffective it is right now, but I don't understand why a blogger whose headline is 'Skepticism as a discipline,' (or even a ten year old child) could fail to see the conflict of interest there, just as I don't understand why a blogger who claims to value evidence would disregard the five year rule or the many published studies, such as the UCLA paper linked here. Society says that weight loss diets work, but that's society, not science. In the face of the actual evidence, thinking that going on a diet will make one thin is practically the definition of magical thinking.

What you said, that you plan to 'exercise discipline... believe the science, accept responsibility, and face reality' seems to indicate fairly clearly that you (consciously or unconsciously) think that fat people like me are undisciplined, don't believe the science, don't accept responsibility for our bodies, and refuse to face reality. I don't agree. I have read the studies and accepted reality, I behave in a disciplined way, and I do accept responsibility for my body. If I had a wand to wave, I would like to be thin for social reasons, such as never getting assaulted again for walking in public while committing the crime of being visibly fat. I just don't think that weight loss diets are likely to work for me (or the vast majority of humans), I think dieting itself is unhealthy, and I don't see why I should conform to the social conventions. I'd rather accept myself and honour my body by eating healthily with an emphasis on reasonable amounts of good quality nutritious, delicious and unprocessed foods (rather than calorie restriction), and getting some daily exercise with an emphasis on fresh air, the fun of movement, and feeling the wind in my hair (rather than calorie burning).

I respect your right to do what you choose with your own body, of course, and considering fat oppression, like every other oppression, is undeniably unpleasant to deal with, I think that it's entirely understandable that you want to lose weight, so although I don't advocate dieting, I wish you the best with it. There are many social advantages to being thin in this society - for as long as that thinness lasts. There are even social advantages to being fat and complying with the social convention of being unhappy with it, i.e. doctors will be nicer to you if you are fat but on a diet, even if you're still just as fat! But I don't think I would personally choose to collaborate with my oppressors by dieting, since dieting is going to hurt my body. And I don't think that it's "extremist" or "crazy," despite what Greta Christina may claim, to say that diets don't work, since anyone who actually looked at the studies, rather than the social conventions (even when those social conventions are enforced by the medical profession) would say the same. I think with me doing HAES and you doing what you're doing, we are probably going to eating similar amounts of similar foods and taking similar exercise, with totally different motivations and aims. Isn't it funny? But there you go! I'll stick with HAES. That's my choice. I respectfully wish you good luck with yours, and of course I will always look forward to your posts. :D

[darkemeralds]

I really appreciate your taking the time to detail all these points for me. I've clicked through to some of your links, and will be reading carefully when I have a little more time, but I wanted to thank you for all this thoughtful information.

I don't feel prepared to answer all your points--nor do I think you were looking for my less well-informed point of view--but I did want to say that I don't imagine I'll ever consider bariatric surgery seriously. I looked at lap-band very closely, and decided against it on several grounds, not the least of which was that I could see very little evidence of it succeeding in the long run, and plenty of evidence that it's just surgically-reinforced malnutrition.

I also want to be very clear about the health aspects: I'm quite healthy the way I am, and my motivation for wanting to lose weight has never been about my health. It's always been about the other things. I'm the first to admit it, and the last person to make a judgment about anyone else's health (or the healthiness of their habits) based on what I can observe of their size.

And it's really important to me to clear up this point: that when I say I've decided to believe the science and accept responsibility, I really am talking about myself. I'm way too self-involved and selfish to be talking about anyone else. I do apologize for any generalities that have crept into my writing about the subject. The coup de foudre that illuminated my own faulty thinking about my own personal habits and choices has felt life-altering and important, and it's possible that I'm a bit giddy with it, and therefore careless.

Finally, thank you in particular for mentioning how important it is to consider the source when looking even at peer-reviewed studies--especially in these fraught areas. Studies have shown all kinds of bullshit, it's true, and why would a study of acupuncture funded by pharmaceutical interests (for a totally made-up example) even start by asking the right questions? If there's money to be made, or market share to be protected, or power to be maintained, a grain of good healthy sea-salt is definitely in order when reviewing the "science."

So, again, thank you, and I'll make an effort to put these sorts of topics behind a handy cut, as it's not my intention to generate controversy or imply judgment--only to blog my life.