Recently, I posed a question for the proprietress of the Fatshionista blog about whether or not she would accept an offer to wake up at an "appropriate" weight tomorrow should a magic fairy proffer such an offer. Further, I asked if ones level of true fat acceptance would be mirrored in the reply. Her response was thoughtful and considered, and I appreciated that very much. I think it spoke well to her level of body acceptance and the manner in which she regards others. The commenters, on the other hand, ascribed various motivations to me based on their paranoia and anger.
Among the motivations I was ascribed were that of setting a trap for fat acceptance advocates or creating a "litmus test". Some people clearly assumed that a thin person or a person who was a diet fiend of some sort had asked the question. I guess to some people, the fact that I am losing weight would make me an "enemy" of fat-acceptance (I should state that I accept fat on other people, I just can't accept it on myself for many reasons as I've mentioned in past posts). The truth was that I asked it because it was a notion that occurred to me, and felt it was pretty much simply an interesting idea to kick around. Certainly there are many people who would like to wake up tomorrow at their ideal weight, and I think that you can say "yes, I'd like to be my ideal weight tomorrow" and still be an advocate of bodily acceptance. That being said, it would say something about the extent to which you believe society will adopt fat acceptance if you say "yes". If you say, "no", then perhaps it is a reflection of your (lack of authentic) hopefulness that what you are striving for will come to fruition.
At any rate, I understand why the commenters concluded what they did. I have been in the paranoid fat girl seat more than once. Someone says or does something and I get mad and ascribe it to their intolerance of my weight or their anti-fatness agenda. Of course, sometimes (perhaps even often), that is their motivation. However, I have endeavored to be less defensive and angry as the years have gone by. I try to ignore it, or ascribe some other motive, but I have had less than complete success.
I think a big reason why we need fat acceptance and advocates who want the judging to stop is reflected in the low-key hostility that shone through in the commenters' words. They were defensive and went on the offensive in some cases. People don't become like this in a vacuum. It's the result of being fat and being attacked all of the time in a variety of ways. Anti-fat bigotry, doesn't make us thinner, it just makes us madder.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
“Instrumental” Eating
Recently, I read an article about mothers and how they are significantly less happy than childless women. The article noted that most women cited the fact that they were so incredibly busy as the reason for their emotional state. It further went on to say that the problem isn’t that mothers are busy, but that they are spending all or most of their time doing “instrumental” activities. That’s the psychologists' way of saying that these women spent all of their time doing things that they had to do, but didn’t particularly enjoy. Being busy wasn’t the problem so much as the way in which they were busy.
I rolled this idea around in my head for awhile, and thought about how the notion of what is “instrumental” in life plays into success or failure at a task as well as satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a process. Obviously, since this is a blog about weight and weight loss, my thoughts turned to the notion of “instrumental” eating.
I would define “instrumental” eating as food that is consumed for nutritional purposes as opposed to pleasure. Just as a mother may wash dishes, prepare food, vacuum the carpet, etc. because she must, there are some foods that we eat because they should be consumed for proper health. We may not hate them, but we also may not necessarily take great pleasure in consuming them.
Some foods can be “instrumental” for some people, but recreational for others. For example, I love cottage cheese and always have, but a lot of people find it pretty mundane or even offensive fare. If you consider the task of cooking, which can be either instrumental (necessary) or recreational (for enjoyment), you can see that the same task can have different connotations depending on personality type and circumstances. If I am interested in cooking and experimenting with recipes at my own discretion, cooking is fun. If I have to cook a meal in a certain time frame day-in and day-out and to suit the tastes of people other then myself, it becomes a necessary task. Food, similarly, can be seen as having instrumentality or recreational value based on the individual.
Most people who are “on a diet” spend the vast majority of their time focusing on instrumental eating and actively deny themselves recreational eating. They do the former because they have to, and they have to do it day-in and day-out. They avoid the latter, recreational eating, because they often don’t trust themselves or out of the notion that to be fit and thin, they have to be “good”.
The situation with dieters is further complicated because there’s little latitude for many people who are trying to lose weight in terms of incorporating recreational eating. Calorie restriction leaves little wiggle room for “fun” eating, especially certain types of enjoyable foods which are energy-dense like ice cream, chocolate, and fried foods. That’s not to say that there are no healthy foods which some people can view as something they eat for enjoyment, but most people have to train themselves to view such foods with a similar enthusiasm to that they have for less healthy treats. Besides, even if you enjoy a nice, ripe peach as a treat, it’s not going to be the same as a rich slice of cheesecake or even something like eggs Benedict.
It’s my feeling that the fact that weight loss focuses entirely on “instrumental” eating is one of the reasons people ultimately fail or regain weight. Like the mothers who are unhappy with nothing but instrumental activities, dieters are going to be unhappy if all they ever eat are “instrumental” foods. Despite the fact that many people repeat the mantra that “food is fuel”, it is simply not true. Food is something humans consume for pleasure. It has been the case for thousands of years and is a part of civilization and culture. It can’t be stripped of its connection to pleasure simply because we wish to neutralize the seductive allure of food.
I think if we want to deal with obesity as a problem, we have to start acknowledging the truth about our relationship with food and stop trying to force some sort of sterile relationship on people. Focusing forever on eating instrumentally will only result in people feeling deprived and unhappy which will in turn cause them to go back to the ways which caused them to gain weight.
I rolled this idea around in my head for awhile, and thought about how the notion of what is “instrumental” in life plays into success or failure at a task as well as satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a process. Obviously, since this is a blog about weight and weight loss, my thoughts turned to the notion of “instrumental” eating.
I would define “instrumental” eating as food that is consumed for nutritional purposes as opposed to pleasure. Just as a mother may wash dishes, prepare food, vacuum the carpet, etc. because she must, there are some foods that we eat because they should be consumed for proper health. We may not hate them, but we also may not necessarily take great pleasure in consuming them.
Some foods can be “instrumental” for some people, but recreational for others. For example, I love cottage cheese and always have, but a lot of people find it pretty mundane or even offensive fare. If you consider the task of cooking, which can be either instrumental (necessary) or recreational (for enjoyment), you can see that the same task can have different connotations depending on personality type and circumstances. If I am interested in cooking and experimenting with recipes at my own discretion, cooking is fun. If I have to cook a meal in a certain time frame day-in and day-out and to suit the tastes of people other then myself, it becomes a necessary task. Food, similarly, can be seen as having instrumentality or recreational value based on the individual.
Most people who are “on a diet” spend the vast majority of their time focusing on instrumental eating and actively deny themselves recreational eating. They do the former because they have to, and they have to do it day-in and day-out. They avoid the latter, recreational eating, because they often don’t trust themselves or out of the notion that to be fit and thin, they have to be “good”.
The situation with dieters is further complicated because there’s little latitude for many people who are trying to lose weight in terms of incorporating recreational eating. Calorie restriction leaves little wiggle room for “fun” eating, especially certain types of enjoyable foods which are energy-dense like ice cream, chocolate, and fried foods. That’s not to say that there are no healthy foods which some people can view as something they eat for enjoyment, but most people have to train themselves to view such foods with a similar enthusiasm to that they have for less healthy treats. Besides, even if you enjoy a nice, ripe peach as a treat, it’s not going to be the same as a rich slice of cheesecake or even something like eggs Benedict.
It’s my feeling that the fact that weight loss focuses entirely on “instrumental” eating is one of the reasons people ultimately fail or regain weight. Like the mothers who are unhappy with nothing but instrumental activities, dieters are going to be unhappy if all they ever eat are “instrumental” foods. Despite the fact that many people repeat the mantra that “food is fuel”, it is simply not true. Food is something humans consume for pleasure. It has been the case for thousands of years and is a part of civilization and culture. It can’t be stripped of its connection to pleasure simply because we wish to neutralize the seductive allure of food.
I think if we want to deal with obesity as a problem, we have to start acknowledging the truth about our relationship with food and stop trying to force some sort of sterile relationship on people. Focusing forever on eating instrumentally will only result in people feeling deprived and unhappy which will in turn cause them to go back to the ways which caused them to gain weight.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
The Percentages
Recently, my husband has been losing a little weight because he had some blood test results which were cause for some small concern. It's nothing incredibly serious, at least not yet, but even someone who is not greatly overweight can have health issues related to body fat. In particular, visceral fat, or fat around your organs which you can't necessarily see easily by looking at a person's body can cause Type 2 diabetes because this type of fat causes more issues with insulin resistance. This is likely the reason he needs to lose a little weight.
It's actually a little ironic that my husband, who has always weighed less than me by a wide margin, has had troubling blood test results while I seem to be okay. It does seem that my fat on the outside is less damaging than his fat on the inside. At any rate, my point is not to compare my fat to his fat, but rather to talk about his weight loss and mine.
As is so often the case with men, he is losing weight relatively rapidly and without much of a struggle. He has cut back on portions and cut out obvious things like sweets (and the donuts that he loves so well) and has lost 10 lbs. in about 3 weeks. He has always exercised for about 40-60 minutes on a regular basis, though he has made an effort to do so 5 days a week instead of 3 or 4 as he was doing. All in all, his changes have not been what anyone could consider radical and he hasn't chafed mentally against them much. The fact that he is not a food addict (like me) is evident in the relative emotional ease with which he has made the changes.
My husband told me that one of his work acquaintances remarked that he looked different and asked if he had lost weight. He has lost only 10 lbs. and someone has noticed already. It took me about 50 lbs. before any appreciable change was noticeable by others. I noticed in my wrists about 30 lbs. in. These differences remind me of the fact that every pound is more meaningful the smaller you become. As a percentage of his starting weight (and of the weight he needs to lose), each pound is more meaningful to him. Each pound for him is perhaps 1/30th of what he needs to lose. Even after all of my losses, each pound is 1/130th of what I still need to lose.
I try to keep in mind that when I started all of this, each pound was about 1/230th of what I needed to lose and every pound I lose makes the next one more meaningful. The percentages keep getting better and more impressive the longer I keep at this. Since I don't look much "better" in my opinion (just different - smaller fat as opposed to bigger fat), this is one more thing that can motivate me to continue when I start to feel like my success is relatively unimpressive or inconsequential.
It's actually a little ironic that my husband, who has always weighed less than me by a wide margin, has had troubling blood test results while I seem to be okay. It does seem that my fat on the outside is less damaging than his fat on the inside. At any rate, my point is not to compare my fat to his fat, but rather to talk about his weight loss and mine.
As is so often the case with men, he is losing weight relatively rapidly and without much of a struggle. He has cut back on portions and cut out obvious things like sweets (and the donuts that he loves so well) and has lost 10 lbs. in about 3 weeks. He has always exercised for about 40-60 minutes on a regular basis, though he has made an effort to do so 5 days a week instead of 3 or 4 as he was doing. All in all, his changes have not been what anyone could consider radical and he hasn't chafed mentally against them much. The fact that he is not a food addict (like me) is evident in the relative emotional ease with which he has made the changes.
My husband told me that one of his work acquaintances remarked that he looked different and asked if he had lost weight. He has lost only 10 lbs. and someone has noticed already. It took me about 50 lbs. before any appreciable change was noticeable by others. I noticed in my wrists about 30 lbs. in. These differences remind me of the fact that every pound is more meaningful the smaller you become. As a percentage of his starting weight (and of the weight he needs to lose), each pound is more meaningful to him. Each pound for him is perhaps 1/30th of what he needs to lose. Even after all of my losses, each pound is 1/130th of what I still need to lose.
I try to keep in mind that when I started all of this, each pound was about 1/230th of what I needed to lose and every pound I lose makes the next one more meaningful. The percentages keep getting better and more impressive the longer I keep at this. Since I don't look much "better" in my opinion (just different - smaller fat as opposed to bigger fat), this is one more thing that can motivate me to continue when I start to feel like my success is relatively unimpressive or inconsequential.
Friday, May 7, 2010
"No Diet Day"
I read a lot of fat acceptance blogs because I'm on board with body acceptance and people being allowed to live their lives (and deal with the consequences) in any way they choose. That being said, I wish that the fat acceptance advocates would separate their anti-diet agenda from their fat acceptance agenda. It is possible to accept your body as is, but not be against weight loss as an idea. Many people would want to lose weight even without the social stigma attached to being fat because it generally makes movement easier, reduces stress on joints and bones, and improves energy.
Apparently, "no diet day" was several days ago and a lot of the fat acceptance blogs took this as an opportunity to offer up "evidence" and opinions that dieting (as in calorie restriction or food control) is bad for you. There was everything from the idea that dieting will cause cancer and heart disease to the notion that it will make you gain weight. All of these conclusions are correlation and causation errors, but they are pointed at nonetheless as a means of supporting a "pro-fat" agenda. Restricting your eating doesn't cause you to gain weight, but many people do regain the weight they lose and more. That is a correlation, not a causation. Also, being overweight and changing your eating habits to lose weight causes stress which leads to a variety of illnesses like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, but the dieting does not cause these diseases.
At any rate, I didn't observe "no diet day", because I think the idea is silly and frankly I have no urge to abandon my eating plan for a day. I don't need or want permission to overeat by some made-up international holiday. I'm not a diet and exercise zealot by any stretch of the imagination, and I think people's eating habits are their own business and their body size isn't the concern of anyone but themselves. That being said, I think that fat acceptance advocates aren't doing themselves or anyone else any favors by asserting the equivalent of "dieting kills."
Apparently, "no diet day" was several days ago and a lot of the fat acceptance blogs took this as an opportunity to offer up "evidence" and opinions that dieting (as in calorie restriction or food control) is bad for you. There was everything from the idea that dieting will cause cancer and heart disease to the notion that it will make you gain weight. All of these conclusions are correlation and causation errors, but they are pointed at nonetheless as a means of supporting a "pro-fat" agenda. Restricting your eating doesn't cause you to gain weight, but many people do regain the weight they lose and more. That is a correlation, not a causation. Also, being overweight and changing your eating habits to lose weight causes stress which leads to a variety of illnesses like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, but the dieting does not cause these diseases.
At any rate, I didn't observe "no diet day", because I think the idea is silly and frankly I have no urge to abandon my eating plan for a day. I don't need or want permission to overeat by some made-up international holiday. I'm not a diet and exercise zealot by any stretch of the imagination, and I think people's eating habits are their own business and their body size isn't the concern of anyone but themselves. That being said, I think that fat acceptance advocates aren't doing themselves or anyone else any favors by asserting the equivalent of "dieting kills."
Thursday, May 6, 2010
No Gyroscope
A few days ago, I was doing an online chat with a long-time friend of mine. She is a lovely person both inside and out. She once dreamed of modeling and has always had the figure for it. Food has never been an issue for her, though she eats abysmally. What I mean by that is that she eats fast food, instant food, and frozen prepared meals. She never cooks, and eats two meals per day. Much of the time, she selects from the 99 cent menus of various fast food places.
The thing that my friend does not do is overeat. She eats enough to be satisfied, and then she has no interest in food. In fact, the reason she doesn't cook is that the effort simply isn't worth it for her. She loves certain kinds of food, but she has an internal mechanism which tells her to stop well short of ingesting enough to put on weight.
She and I were chatting about addiction and I told her that I believe that I am a food addict and forever would be. She is a (recovered) alcoholic and former smoker, so she understands my situation well and has empathy for me. In fact, she's the most compassionate thin woman I have ever known and has never judged me or her other overweight friends for their problems with food.
While talking to her, I told her that I think that I will have to spend the rest of my life weighing, measuring, and counting calories for food that I eat because I have no internal gyroscope that serves to stop me from overeating. I don't know if I never had the type of mechanism that she and many other thin people have, or if it was destroyed over the years by my eating habits and psychological situation. Either way, it's a bit like a disability that I have to compensate for. I don't know how much I need to eat to survive and I can't properly read my body's cues (or my body cues me incorrectly because its tuned improperly or "broken" in this regard).
I think that this is the case for a lot of people who end up morbidly obese. Our GPS when it comes to food simply does not work correctly. We're like people who can't hear who cope by reading lips. They can't hear, but they can communicate and understand, so they cope. We can't know how much to eat, but we can monitor and regulate. Of course, it's no where in the vicinity of "easy", but there's not much choice if you want to feel better about yourself. I'm guessing no "disability" is easy to work around, and not knowing when to stop eating and therefore having to work hard to control your behavior is no different than any other problem in this regard.
The thing that my friend does not do is overeat. She eats enough to be satisfied, and then she has no interest in food. In fact, the reason she doesn't cook is that the effort simply isn't worth it for her. She loves certain kinds of food, but she has an internal mechanism which tells her to stop well short of ingesting enough to put on weight.
She and I were chatting about addiction and I told her that I believe that I am a food addict and forever would be. She is a (recovered) alcoholic and former smoker, so she understands my situation well and has empathy for me. In fact, she's the most compassionate thin woman I have ever known and has never judged me or her other overweight friends for their problems with food.
While talking to her, I told her that I think that I will have to spend the rest of my life weighing, measuring, and counting calories for food that I eat because I have no internal gyroscope that serves to stop me from overeating. I don't know if I never had the type of mechanism that she and many other thin people have, or if it was destroyed over the years by my eating habits and psychological situation. Either way, it's a bit like a disability that I have to compensate for. I don't know how much I need to eat to survive and I can't properly read my body's cues (or my body cues me incorrectly because its tuned improperly or "broken" in this regard).
I think that this is the case for a lot of people who end up morbidly obese. Our GPS when it comes to food simply does not work correctly. We're like people who can't hear who cope by reading lips. They can't hear, but they can communicate and understand, so they cope. We can't know how much to eat, but we can monitor and regulate. Of course, it's no where in the vicinity of "easy", but there's not much choice if you want to feel better about yourself. I'm guessing no "disability" is easy to work around, and not knowing when to stop eating and therefore having to work hard to control your behavior is no different than any other problem in this regard.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
One down, one to go
Recently my husband noted another "jump" in the change of my appearance. It really does seem that a month or so goes by and nothing has really happened, but then suddenly there's some noticeable change. Yesterday, he told me that my breasts "stuck out" more than my stomach, and noted that it has been quite some time since that was the case. Of course, they only do this when I stand. When I sit, my belly apron still remains the victor by a mile at this point. He said that my stomach also seems to look "flatter". What he means by that is the bulgy rings have had some of the air let out of their tires and aren't protruding as much, not that my stomach is in any way flat.
I also noticed that the little double bumps of fat on the inside of my upper arms (just behind the elbow) have started to disappear. I've also noticed that I can rest both arms on the arm rests near the back of the only chair with arms in our home whereas before I could rest one arm by turning sideways or both arms near the front of the armrests. I can also reach my arms around behind my back more easily.
Also, I have found that I can feel my hip bones much better when I'm lying on my side in bed, and a few days ago I could actually feel my ribs under my breasts (this is the smallest part of my body - within 4-5 inches of being within the range of what people would consider "normal" chest size for someone with my bone structure). I've also noticed that the 44 D bras that I bought are starting to become rather loose. They keep riding up because they don't fit snugly enough around my chest and the bra straps are at their smallest extension. I'm still hoping to stick with these bras for another several months. Frankly, I was hoping they'd do the job until I reached the long-neglected 38C that I have in my closet, but I'm thinking that may be too big a leap.
One thing I realized a few weeks ago is that I have been carrying around the weight of 3 women for quite some time. My poor body has been burdened with the equivalent of carrying two more people on my back for many years. Now, at around 270, it's carrying only two people's weight and it is much easier to move around than before. If I think of it like having someone riding piggyback on me at all times, it feels devastatingly hard to live life like that. It's no wonder I have had such terrible back pain.
At this point in time, I've lost about 1/3 of my total body weight since starting and I have lost about 1/2 of the weight that I need to lose (with a goal weight of 150). The weight of one person is down, and there is one to go.
••••••••••••••
In order to make sure that my progress remains on track, I've tightened up my eating habits a bit. I used to have a goal of 1600 calories, but I knew I'd nibble here and there and add in another 100 calories. Mainly, this "nibbling" was a hard candy here and there (about 10 calories per candy), particularly the odd throat drop as I tend to have a sore throat because I talk a lot in my work. I'd also have a little milk in my tea, the odd lone pretzel or cracker, etc. It wasn't much, but I'm thinking as I edge closer to 250 lbs., I should try to top out at 1600 rather than 1700-1800. To that end, I've capped my calories at 1500 so that these nibbles (which I am not prepared to surrender) will take the number up to 1600 at most. I am always aware of the cumulative nature of these small indulgences, and never go too far or have too many of them.
The reason I'm not prepared to give them up is that I will not live without some sort of spontaneity in my eating or life. If I crave a sweet, or a cup of tea, I'm not going to deprive myself over a few calories here and there. I think that these are actually "release valves" that help me not feel as though I'm trapped by my style of eating. Without the chance to have a quick sweet, a milky cup of tea, etc., I think I start to feel as if I were doing little but toe the line and possibly feel like I was "suffering".
I also noticed that the little double bumps of fat on the inside of my upper arms (just behind the elbow) have started to disappear. I've also noticed that I can rest both arms on the arm rests near the back of the only chair with arms in our home whereas before I could rest one arm by turning sideways or both arms near the front of the armrests. I can also reach my arms around behind my back more easily.
Also, I have found that I can feel my hip bones much better when I'm lying on my side in bed, and a few days ago I could actually feel my ribs under my breasts (this is the smallest part of my body - within 4-5 inches of being within the range of what people would consider "normal" chest size for someone with my bone structure). I've also noticed that the 44 D bras that I bought are starting to become rather loose. They keep riding up because they don't fit snugly enough around my chest and the bra straps are at their smallest extension. I'm still hoping to stick with these bras for another several months. Frankly, I was hoping they'd do the job until I reached the long-neglected 38C that I have in my closet, but I'm thinking that may be too big a leap.
One thing I realized a few weeks ago is that I have been carrying around the weight of 3 women for quite some time. My poor body has been burdened with the equivalent of carrying two more people on my back for many years. Now, at around 270, it's carrying only two people's weight and it is much easier to move around than before. If I think of it like having someone riding piggyback on me at all times, it feels devastatingly hard to live life like that. It's no wonder I have had such terrible back pain.
At this point in time, I've lost about 1/3 of my total body weight since starting and I have lost about 1/2 of the weight that I need to lose (with a goal weight of 150). The weight of one person is down, and there is one to go.
••••••••••••••
In order to make sure that my progress remains on track, I've tightened up my eating habits a bit. I used to have a goal of 1600 calories, but I knew I'd nibble here and there and add in another 100 calories. Mainly, this "nibbling" was a hard candy here and there (about 10 calories per candy), particularly the odd throat drop as I tend to have a sore throat because I talk a lot in my work. I'd also have a little milk in my tea, the odd lone pretzel or cracker, etc. It wasn't much, but I'm thinking as I edge closer to 250 lbs., I should try to top out at 1600 rather than 1700-1800. To that end, I've capped my calories at 1500 so that these nibbles (which I am not prepared to surrender) will take the number up to 1600 at most. I am always aware of the cumulative nature of these small indulgences, and never go too far or have too many of them.
The reason I'm not prepared to give them up is that I will not live without some sort of spontaneity in my eating or life. If I crave a sweet, or a cup of tea, I'm not going to deprive myself over a few calories here and there. I think that these are actually "release valves" that help me not feel as though I'm trapped by my style of eating. Without the chance to have a quick sweet, a milky cup of tea, etc., I think I start to feel as if I were doing little but toe the line and possibly feel like I was "suffering".
Saturday, May 1, 2010
“Let Myself Go”
There are certain terms associated with weight gain and loss that I detest. One of them is “willpower”, as I have mentioned before. I view it as a simplistic term that has been created to make people feel there is a character quality that they lack when they cannot make some sort of behavioral change. People think they have willpower if they can resist something that you can't. Thinking that makes them feel smugly stronger and like they are better than you.
The truth is that resistance to temptation is highly individualized. I can resist a great many things, including alcohol, opening gifts that I am given until a specified time or date, spending money, and having sex with attractive people. I can resist these things effortlessly. Does that mean I have a better character than those who cannot? Since there is no way to acquire (or quantify) “willpower”, talking about it is absolutely useless. If you want to talk about something of value, talk about “delayed gratification”, not “willpower”. Delaying gratification can be learned; willpower cannot.
At any rate, one of the other things that people say that I loathe is “(someone) let themselves go.” Often, this is prefaced with “I can’t believe…” The statement implies that a person could have done something to prevent herself from gaining weight, but behaved in a willfully neglectful fashion. It carries the idea that one could have slammed on the brakes at some point, but just kept shoveling in the food and sitting on her ass.
The idea that one is in rational control during a period of weight gain is one that people hold because it allows them to judge overweight people and view them as lazy and indifferent to their appearance and health rather than incapable of stopping the process. No one gains weight if they have the capacity to stop it. Most people gain weight because something is wrong and out of their control. Sometimes it’s taking some medication. Sometimes it’s depression. Sometimes it’s simply being overwhelmed by stress. And sometimes it’s simply lifelong patterns of behavior that are so deeply ingrained that they can’t find the mental purchase to successfully change.
No one “let’s themselves go”. They are taken for an emotional or physical (or both) ride that they can’t get off of. Trying not to gain weight is like trying to disembark in the middle of a rollercoaster ride. There are only two ways to escape and that’s to step off in the middle and die or to wait until the ride is complete and you have control over the direction of your life once again.
The truth is that resistance to temptation is highly individualized. I can resist a great many things, including alcohol, opening gifts that I am given until a specified time or date, spending money, and having sex with attractive people. I can resist these things effortlessly. Does that mean I have a better character than those who cannot? Since there is no way to acquire (or quantify) “willpower”, talking about it is absolutely useless. If you want to talk about something of value, talk about “delayed gratification”, not “willpower”. Delaying gratification can be learned; willpower cannot.
At any rate, one of the other things that people say that I loathe is “(someone) let themselves go.” Often, this is prefaced with “I can’t believe…” The statement implies that a person could have done something to prevent herself from gaining weight, but behaved in a willfully neglectful fashion. It carries the idea that one could have slammed on the brakes at some point, but just kept shoveling in the food and sitting on her ass.
The idea that one is in rational control during a period of weight gain is one that people hold because it allows them to judge overweight people and view them as lazy and indifferent to their appearance and health rather than incapable of stopping the process. No one gains weight if they have the capacity to stop it. Most people gain weight because something is wrong and out of their control. Sometimes it’s taking some medication. Sometimes it’s depression. Sometimes it’s simply being overwhelmed by stress. And sometimes it’s simply lifelong patterns of behavior that are so deeply ingrained that they can’t find the mental purchase to successfully change.
No one “let’s themselves go”. They are taken for an emotional or physical (or both) ride that they can’t get off of. Trying not to gain weight is like trying to disembark in the middle of a rollercoaster ride. There are only two ways to escape and that’s to step off in the middle and die or to wait until the ride is complete and you have control over the direction of your life once again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)