I've told you before that I have long been anti-diet, but on the other hand, it seems that every winter I gain a few pounds, and unless I want to buy all new clothes, I have to figure out how to get rid of the fluff.
So a few years ago, when several of my friends were all excited about the Whole 30 diet, I decided to read the book to see if it might be useful for me. Researching it turned out to be the wrong thing to do-- if you read the rationale behind it, it makes, uh, no sense.
But that got me curious about other eating plans, and I started reading. And reading. I checked out keto, paleo, vegetarian, and vegan, to name a few. (Enneagram fives-- we do research! and if we can keep researching and put off actually doing something, so much the better!)
If you've ever read a diet book, you know they all follow the same basic outline. They start with all the reasons why the way you are currently eating is bad--maybe it's even killing you-- and all the reasons, frequently backed up by data and research and studies, that their way of eating is going to be the ultimate solution, not just for losing weight but for vibrant health, overflowing energy, better skin, hair, and nails.
Then there will be anecdotes about people who stopped eating the SAD diet (Standard American Diet), started eating the (insert diet name here) diet, and now they've lost 50 pounds and they bounce out of bed in the morning and have clear eyes and good skin.
If you just read one, it's super convincing. If you read a bunch in a row, it starts sounding like propaganda. Really, they're sales people. They're selling you a better life, and all you have to do is a) buy the book(s) and b) do the thing, and you will be saved.
And weirdly, even though they use pseudo-scientific language and what seems to be irrefutable logic, they frequently make directly opposite claims. Don't eat meat or any animal products, says one book. You can only eat meat and tubers, says another book. Only eat these specific foods, says another. You can eat anything, just don't eat very much of it, says yet another. Did you know that fasting and restricting your calorie intake might help you live longer? Why would you want to live longer if you can't eat good food?
I'm no expert, so I'm not going to give you any diet advice, and if I did, you shouldn't take it because I am not thin. I'm just telling you what I observed from reading too many diet books. Unfortunately, as with so many things, you just have to figure it out for yourself. For myself, I keep coming back to something I read online somewhere-- if you don't want to diet, you can at least starting eating the way you would if you'd already lost the weight (to use the language of the diet books, skip ahead to the maintenance phase).
Or whatever works for you. People are different, which is what makes life so damn complicated. One of my sisters and one of my dear friends can tell within a couple of hours if they've eaten gluten. I've tried being gluten-free a couple of times and it didn't make any difference at all to me. What works for someone else may not work for you, and vice versa. The friends I mentioned above still think Whole 30 is great.
I just deleted a whole bunch more on that topic, you're welcome.
Here is another, slightly related, hypothetical thing to think about, though, another half-formed idea that probably isn't worth a full post.
The whole rationale behind the so-called paleo diet is that our digestive systems developed over millennia while our ancestors were hunter-gatherers. After our ancestors began to farm (relatively recently), we added grains, dairy products, sugar, etc. The theory is that our digestive systems have not evolved as quickly as our diets have changed. So we will feel healthier if we go back to the hunter-gatherer diet: heavy on meat, with fruits and vegetables on the side; no grain, no sugar.
Because I think too much, I wonder if there's a similar situation with our spiritual selves. Human beings weren't capable of a scientific outlook until a few centuries ago. Before that, belief in a god or goddess or deities of some kind was assumed, because there had to be some way to explain the weather and the movement of the stars and the way the world is.
What if the human psyche evolved to center around belief in god(s)? What if stripping gods/goddesses out of the center of our psyche leaves us with unstable mental health? Sure there are people who have left religion behind and never missed it, and of course religion can be its own source of psychosis, but I think there are a solid percentage of people, maybe even a majority of people, who need to believe in God, or at least in a stable higher order, in order to function in a healthy way in the world. It would explain a lot.
Maybe the intellectual basis for religious belief isn't proof of the existence of a divine being, but a matter of pragmatism: I will function better if I find a belief system I can use as a structure, a support system, for life in this crazy world.
Maybe. I have exactly no credentials to make a statement like that, but I think about it quite a bit.
p.s. I accidentally published this early, apologies if you saw that early, unedited version. We will be out of town next week so probably no post from me.
No comments:
Post a Comment