|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 9 new of 49 responses total. |
jadecat
|
|
response 41 of 49:
| 
Jan 29 16:16 UTC 2007 |
resp:39 I'll echo Mary and say that your 'one step at a time' approach
is great. :) And- "they" say that kind of approach means you're much
more likely to succeed.
|
denise
|
|
response 42 of 49:
|
Jan 29 22:19 UTC 2007 |
Thanks for the feedback and I do hope this will continue to be successful.
Though I do know it'll take a long time to lose the weight I should do to be
more healthy. However, it IS hard sometimes not to eat as I should during
times of stress, depression, or other rough times. Then I go into a not-caring
mode.
|
slynne
|
|
response 43 of 49:
|
Jan 29 23:48 UTC 2007 |
Denise, you might wish to look into the "Health at Every Size"
philosophy. It is kinder because it doesnt put a huge focus on what,
for many, is an unobtainable goal: weight loss. The HAES approach is
that if you get your body moving and eat a healthy diet, you will gain
pretty significant health benefits even if you dont happen to lose
weight. I know that when I am eating well and moving around, I feel a
lot better anyways :)
|
denise
|
|
response 44 of 49:
|
Jan 30 18:17 UTC 2007 |
Thanks for the suggestion, Lynne. I went and looked at a website that had a
lot of this information--and I plan on going back to read more of it when I
have a bit more time.
I do now that just food and exercise play a role in what someone weighs. I'll
have to enter a separate item about this sometime soon so that this item can
stay on track with 'Food' and not just about what a healthy size and/or
dieting is. :-)
|
denise
|
|
response 45 of 49:
|
Feb 1 02:55 UTC 2007 |
[I was planning on entering an item sometime about health/diet/weight stuff
especially/including stuff on obesity and other overweight related issues.
But for now I'm going to hold off while the discussion that's going on in the
current Agora conference. I might still post something in the future; though
if anyone else wants to go ahead and post something on this topic here and/or
in the health conference-and I can link it here- please feel free to do so.
I'd still participate.]
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 46 of 49:
|
Feb 1 13:57 UTC 2007 |
I read an article in the NYT last weekend which distinguished between
eating and "nutritionism". Essentially, the author claimed that nutrition
had become an "ism", a belief system that focused on such small elements of
eating that believers had unbalanced behaviors around eating.
I'll try to find the article and do a better summary.
|
remmers
|
|
response 47 of 49:
|
Feb 1 16:57 UTC 2007 |
You're thinking of the article "Unhappy Meals" by Michael Pollan (author
of the books _The Omnivore's Dilemma_ and _The Botany of Desire_).
Pollan views nutrition trends like "low fat" and "low carb", and crazes
for particular nutrients like "oat bran" and "omega-3 fatty acids", as
fads that miss the big picture and do little or nothing to promote
health. His article begins:
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
The rest of the article elaborates on this theme. By "food" he means
things that your great-great-grandmother would have recognized as food,
which rules out a lot of the things that people stuff in their mouths
these days.
Full article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html
|
jadecat
|
|
response 48 of 49:
|
Feb 1 20:05 UTC 2007 |
Sounds similar to the 'if you can't pronounce the ingredients don't eat
it' kind of meal planning.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 49 of 49:
|
Feb 2 13:55 UTC 2007 |
Yes, remmers, that was the one. Thanks for the url and great summary.
One of the things I liked in his article is that meal times are important
parts of human interaction, and that those interactions themselves have health
impacts.
|
