It's the real thing, baby

One of the first lessons I learned in intuitive eating was that substitutions are unsatisfying. That is, if what I really, really want to eat is a baked potato with butter on it, then a baked potato with margarine or olive oil probably isn't going to cut it. Neither is a pretzel. Or an eclair. Or air-popped popcorn. When you're tuned in to your appetite, you can't pretend you want something else.

That holds true whether what you want is a hot fudge sundae or a bowl of kale with sesame seeds, both of which I find delicious at various times. And if you give me the sundae when I want the kale, I'm probably going to keep on eating until I'm either overly full or I find a bowlful of kale.

Now a new study done by Susan Swithers and Terry Davidson at Purdue University now supports the notion that certain kinds of substitutions just make you eat more. (Scroll down the link page for a free PDF of the study.) They found that rats given yogurt sweetened with saccharin ate more, gained more weight, and developed more body fat than rats who ate yogurt with sugar.

In other words, you can trick your mind, but you can't trick your body. Any food is unsatisfying when it's not what you really want, and fake crap like saccharin, aspartame, etc. is especially unsatisfying. Unless what you really want is a mouthful of chemical aftertaste.

I'm sticking with sugar, myself.

For God's sake, repeat after me: There are no bad foods

That's what I feel like saying to the idiots who now want to "salvage" the ridiculous Mississippi bill that would prohibit restaurants from serving food to people considered obese.

Who will be labeled obese, and by whom? Let's not even go there. For now, let's stick with a higher power of absurdity, worthy of Beckett, and talk about the latest twist on this bill: Use it to Save the Children.

Forget about saving the adult fatties, according to this latest spin; let's stick to saving the innocent children. Under the new provisions, children would not be allowed to eat in certain fast food restaurants without a parent present. (Sounds like the concept behind R-rated movies, doesn't it? Do you know the danger you child is able to be exposed to?)

According to John Banzhaf, the idiot behind this new spin,

obese children would still be permitted to order most of the items on a fast food menu. "For example, at McDonald's, even a Double Cheeseburger and Quarterpounder, or a Filet-O-Fish or McChicken, has fewer than 500 calories. Those food items the child should not be served include: the Double Quarter Pounder With Cheese (740 calories), Premium Crispy Chicken Club Sandwich (660 calories), several deserts [sic], etc.

What's the cutoff here? 500 calories = OK, 600 calories = instant obesity?

Banzhaf, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University, needs a lesson in psychology. Actually he needs lessons in a whole lot of other fields, but let's start with psychology. Does the term forbidden fruit hold any meaning? How about banned books? See, we humans are constructed to always want what we cannot have.

And when it comes to food, that goes double. The biggest reason why 95% of diets do not work is that depriving yourself leads to later cycles of binging. You tell your body it can't have chocolate, and watch your chocolate cravings soar. Whereas if you tell your body, Chocolate's fine, no big deal, work it into your day if you really want it, well, your chocolate consumption will over the long term drop. A lot.

Do we really want a double quarter pounder with cheese to become the Holy Grail of a generation of children? Cause that's what will happen should your ridiculous plan come to fruition.

Here's another pearl of wisdom: The more we try to micromanage our metabolisms, the more badly we fuck them up. Dieting leads to eating disorders and even more weight gain. How about, instead of banning foods like they were chapters of Lady Chatterley's Lover, we invest in teaching children the joys of intuitive eating?

Oh, yeah, that would take a complete cultural paradigm shift. And it wouldn't make for such a great sound byte.


P.S. I don't eat at McDonald's; I don't like their food. My kids have never eaten there. I'm not a shill for the fast-food industry. I'm a reasonable human being who believes that people come in all shapes and sizes, that you can be fat and healthy, and that discriminating against and humiliating fat people seems to be the new national sport. Whatever happened to baseball?

Why intuitive eating works

This just in from an article published in today's edition of the Journal of Physiology: ". . . during a reduction in energy stores or circulating nutrients, the brain initiates responses to restore and maintain energy and glucose homeostasis. In contrast, in times of nutrient abundance and excess energy storage, the brain promotes reduced food intake and increased energy expenditure."

In other words, deprivation makes your brain and body store fat. But having access to plenty of food can lead to eating less and moving around more.

This has always been my experience. When I give myself permission to eat what I'm truly hungry for--and stop eating when I'm satisfied--I eat less than when I go into deprivation mode.

It's interesting to know that there's neurobiology at work. The human body is a wonderful thing.