Thursday, April 20, 2017

Eating disorders

What are eating disorders?

Well the more I read, the less sure I am that anyone knows a great deal about these. Essentially, eating disorder is a loss of logical control over our intake of food in some way. The physical body or unconscious is in control. Our eating is beyond the control of our free will. The chemistry is in control. Short of locking myself away, I am going to eat when I get like that. I am one who is unable to not eat the marshmallow, unless I physically take myself away. Understand that. If there is food available I will eat it. That is an eating disorder, binge eating disorder likely. The desire to eat is in control.

How does one live life with this problem?

There are many who do not have this problem who are willing to tell me how to do it, but they and I am not the same animal. I am unable to control myself in the presence of food. That is the essential difference. The zucker rat, and the Labrador dog are likewise. 

The solution is not clear. Any system that supposes a god is just wrong as there is no god. There is no physical evidence of a god, and no miracles. We are the result of evolution and other natural processes, some of which we understand, some not so much. There is no purpose in human life beyond reproduction, and after we get well founded comfortable conditions. These are all cultural. We are opportunistic organisms living on a big rock. Some of us develop irrational desires, like myself toward food, or like the gays toward other of there same gender. We have all the *files, alcoholics, drug addicted. Not rational, any of them. Some recover, some die with the issues.

We need to somehow get our desires under control. Somehow. Control of the body is all I could ever do so far, yet after reflection, it is the desire that must go. Now desires should be within our locus of control according to Epictetus, yet perhaps not chemically/physically driven desires. That is likely the difference; some are physically/chemically driven desires, some are psychological driven. We have control of the psychologically, but not the physical. Some, like eating are likely driven by both as eating is required by the body for survival. Some eating is required, some is not.

Those that claim supernatural knowledge and authority over others, aka religious leaders, are total nut cases. Eating disorders are, at the foundation our reactions to our situation, in the presence of food. Our situation includes (included) family, social/cultural collective social behaviors and expectations, even in "unreal" but real situations. I was raised in a irrational religious environment, which I ignored, and later became agnostic for most of my working life. Now that I have time, I have sorted out my thinking in this area of my life and have become completely atheist. The conditions I was raised under caused this food issue, of that I am certain. The family religion/philosophy "don't talk, don't tell" has become "those raving religious lunatics".

So does early learned behavior get encoded into the epigenetic behavior? The simple answer is yes. So how does one undo this? Well, nobody seems to be telling? Go see a psychologist specializing in eating disorders. So I looked around and found one locally- well thirty miles away. So I set up an appointment and went. She was bigger than I was at the time... not much evidence of her ability there. So my search too me to the neighboring providence, where I found a renown psychologist who had found a solution. So I started to make an appointment, but then I recognized the voice, but not the name.  A cousin, who had never been bothered by the eating issue nor reality, she had always been batshit crazy and thin, but with a tremendous memory. So much for that line of help. 



    

Friday, April 7, 2017

C Test

How do we know if something works or not? We need to test it. So what is the criteria? What is truth anyway? Ask any religious person if the is a god, and they will say yes. Ask an atheist and they may say no so what is the truth. The truth is there is no physical evidence of one. The only place a god could hid is in the mind of the believer. So truth is to a large part dependent on the position of the person who is questioning what is truth.

Else where I have stated any group of people who try to subjugate a second group are immoral. This is typical religion subjugating their young. This is government recommending people to should follow the Canada Good Food Guide. This document is wrong for so many people, it is just a crime against humanity to continue to promote it. This week we saw a senator get in shit for stating the truth, that many benefits came from residential schools. How else is the government going to provide advanced education to the north? A town of a few hundred to a few thousand cannot afford to have schools with all subjects after say grade nine. High schools need diversity, and small schools cannot offer the diversity needed in these times. So what is the truth? Children at about age 14 should be ready to leave home and get an education. Oh well, we of European ancestry have been doing this for centuries, or millennium. 
So political correctness is subjugated truth. There was some bad, and some good, but with the current state of political correctness, one cannot speak the truth, or some kind of statistical correctness.    

Religions are fraudulent. They promise to save your souls. They are unable to deliver, and there are no souls, no self. So what is truth? 
Until truth can be defined objectively, we are at a loss to say what is right. The ancients used virtue to escape this, for a virtue is always good. Well, until Aristotle realized that virtues were between two extremes, that even virtues can be abusive in excess. So what is the ultimate test. If it benefits us, as individuals, there is no reason to reject it unless it does harm to others. Buddha said something on this: Do not accept anything by mere tradition ... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures ... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions ... But when you know for yourselves—these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness—then do you live acting accordingly.
So we are left with your own evaluation, and what we think is right. Not a straight forward when everything is in flux and change. All we can do is evaluate everything for ourselves, and if we find it immoral to indoctrinate others with wrong information, well then perhaps Buddha had the right idea how to live well. Right intent and knowledge, right action, speech, and livelihood, right concentration, effort and mindfulness, and we are responsible for all our decisions.  
 

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

B Act

Recovery is all about action, action leads to recovery. Right action, right behavior, and who decides what is right action? The person making the action. We live in an overpopulated world. Wrong action may lead to our death, or our suffering. It does not matter. No one knows what is correct anyway.

Religion always tells of great altruism, and great act of self sacrifice, and yet the pope says it is selfish to not have children in this overpopulated world. He says birth control and abortion is wrong, yet is unable and/or unable to step up to take care of the people, yet speaks of his great altruism. Something is wrong here. His conception of what is right and wrong is warped. So who decides what is right and wrong?

The government has laws for now, where they are willing to spend money to prosecute some "crimes" but not others. They are reluctant to prosecute fraud, or even condemn it. Why? Could it be that so many of them are on the take from the proceeds of fraud? What is fraud? Charging for something that you know will never be provided. So is selling good government and providing poor government fraud?

The LDS church says one must tithe, even if your children do not have enough, because they need the money more. Is this right? 

We allow free market of psychic advice, and numerous similar bullshit. Some of it is just entertainment, even for those who cannot afford entertainment. They would be better off going to the library and reading, or spending that money on a reality education. Oh well, some can be fooled all the time. But it is the person making the action that decides on what is right and what is not.

We see vegetarians wailing about the conditions that farm animals are raised in, and I will admit that some of the factory farms are vicious, but the historical and traditional farms are better, but the animals have a choice of produce or go extinct. We all do. The veggies wail about eating meat and suffer from protein deficiency, fat soluble vitamin deficiencies, slow muscle development, slow mental development, high frequency of autism and similar veggie issues. Yet they do not see the problem as nutritional issue. We have to many people on this earth. We can never be satisfied, as it is dissatisfaction that drives the human population forward. More education, more choice, more and better space at home, and all the time we need more work to provide the money for more stuff. Stop the world, I want to get off. Go minimal and see the world.

The whole issue of overeating is about lack of contentment. Physical, mental, and gut satiation. That is what this life is short on. Not activities, money, or social involvement. We can keep ourselves running in circles, or we can sit back and watch the world run by.

Religions are parasitic organization also, and commit fraud ever time they pass around a collection plate. There are no souls to save, the meme parasites reside in all the old books that are used as a foundation for the religion.

Enough.  

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

A Plan

SMART has a plan. Motivation, controlling cravings, managing thoughts, improving lifestyle. With this outline they claim to be able to fix alcohol, drug and food issues. Yet at all the meetings, it is common to push sugar 'treats'. So if one is motivated enough, clear thinking enough, well enough controlled thinking, and living a good lifestyle, on should not have a problem. Yet we look around and 2/3 of the people have issues. So when one looks at the problem, well then all we need to double down and worker harder. Bullshit. There is a problem, and if we did not overeat, we would not have the problem. All well and good, but with food the cravings never leave. As we get older, we will be less active, and need to cut our food further. Then one day we realizes that the experts have missed something. Reality. Genetics. Environment. We are born with a desire to eat, cultured within a society that overeats, live in an environment that food is always on offer, in a society that is all about greed. The population is a mixture of stages of evolution, and there are some have little desire to eat; others the flip side; we are never satisfied; it is these thin people who are driving the discussion, and they do not have the same desire to eat. They do not have the problem, and are not able to solve it.

We see this fixity of ideas in religion also. There is no physical evidence for any sort of god, so the only place left for a god to hide is in the mind of the believers, and having been infected with that parasitic meme, are unable to realize that religions are parasitic memes. They are fixated on these life controlling concepts that are historical cultural group think, and are actually wrong. Overcoming overeating is all about control of behavior, of self behavior. Knowing the correct behavior is one part, and doing the correct behavior is the other part. Unless walking is part of work, or can be made into part of work, weight control is not possible. 15000 steps is three hours. Working 50 to 70 hours a week in our working life tires us out to the point we cannot continue once we become aged. Many of us never took the time required to develop a proper life skills; we were to busy earning a living; those that did or were able to develop adequate life skills do not have the problems, and cannot understand those of us with the problem, and certainly do not have a solution.

There is no physical evidence of a soul, so when we die, it is all over. And in the end we all just die anyway. Death is none of my concern, as when death has arrives, I am no more, but as long as I am, there is no death. These are not so common of beliefs but the correct one. More evidence that many of the collective concepts are just wrong.

Back quite a number of years, John Powell, a disreputed Jesuit, suggested that we should review all our beliefs and throw out those that cause us problems, are wrong, or do not help us function. I started then, and got rid of many "beliefs of youth". Since then occasionally I have used that testing philosophy to clean up more beliefs, replacing with understand, and concepts of no god, no soul, no self, virtue as I define it, and much more. I realized that many people have a wrong understanding of what is right for me, what good virtues are, and what many disabilities really are. We only need to allow others to prosper, there is no obligation to help them more than we help ourselves. Religions are just group opinions, it does not make them right, and in many cases they are just wrong.

The food and diet science is just about as bad. Shortage of carbohydrate can also cause cravings. So what we need is a plan that can work, and if it works stick to it but evaluate and adjust in a never ending feedback loop.

So what is the solution? next day.

      

Sunday, April 2, 2017

Genetic / Plastic brain / Epigenetics

So working my way through Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained, I realized the amount of bullshit that is written and sold as facts, when so much is speculation, and then something else comes along that does not fit, and we start back around again. So much of life is like Dennetts multiple  drafts, around and around we go in a infinite braided feed back loop, that changes as we learn more. At some point we need to do something so we do it, with incomplete information, with partial awareness, and we get something out of it...maybe. Much without purpose, without results or not. Awareness is the last thing that came and we may only be aware, after the fact, but if it is a rational level decision, and not pressed into service before the concept has reached maturity... well then, but it does not matter, for time rushes on and in the end we all just die anyway.

We all just swim upstream or stand still, or drift with the current of time. We make minor decisions, and perhaps we change a bit or not. Time keeps rushing by. Nap and an afternoon can be gone.

The other night, in the middle of the night, I realized that I was conscious, but not awake. I was aware of my thoughts, but not awake. It is like the sensation in meditation the first time I felt sound, not heard it. It is surreal, but real. It is the split between unconsciousness and sleep. It is dream like but not a dream, paralyzed, but aware of self, of my thoughts, and the goings on about the sleeping mass of self. The consciousness was unable to awake the self. Not out of body but locked in the body, unable to break free. Fear instantly arose, but subsided enough to realize what was happening or subsided as I realized what had happened. So what does this have to do with anything and can I repeat this experience? Perhaps it is a way to rest my aged self and keep my mind active.

So how would one induce this experience again. Well, perhaps like mediating myself to sleep by using a root consciousness as the point of return when the mind wanders. Well the first test resulted in a quiet a few returns to consciousness, good nap, quick to drift off.

Back to Dennett and Plastic brain concepts. Some brains are predisposed to being better at some function than others, and have some benefit to those that have those talents, hence survive better within there closed environment. In five thousand years we see the Indus valley developing mathematics, and it spread. Some areas developed an aptitude for mathematics, while the test cases, the fringe population of the Americas did not. As a result today, the frequency of occupations requiring high drive and heavily mathematic dependent are rare among there members. Yet the visual arts has a high numbers of native members.

So do the farmer based populations and their decedents have high numbers of heavy people?

We were frequently driven home with the concept of not wasting food. The plate must be cleaned. Nothing was permitted to be wasted. A life time of not wasting food is now a fixed characteristic which we cannot overcome. If food lands on the plate, it will be eaten, so it must be kept off the plate. Is this habit, cultural, familial, or genetic or epigenetic? We certinally learned this as children, and parents do not want to leave children hungry. So overeating can be learned as children, carried on ever after, except for those few that do not overeat, and often leave food on there plates.

I was out at a self serve country diner theater last night, and I noted that the a few 'normal" sized people left food on there plate. I doubt that any overeating disordered person would do that. So is their enough plasticity in the brain of a senior to change? There has not been much evidence of that over here yet.    





Sunday, March 26, 2017

Receptors in pairs

This is a reminder to self. Back a few years ago, Lustig stated a important item, the receptor for insulin and leptin occur in pairs close together, so a cell can be either open to glucose or closed and not hungry if it weights a few days to receive a leptin.  It is an or switch for each cell. That gut hunger occurs at the time the liver switches between glycogen and fat production to gluconeogenesis, and thus to glucose regulation.

That is the key, hunger dissipates after the second or third day... not true for some of us... we who behave like the zucker rats. We are always ready to eat more. But on the second day, the hunger lessens, from gnawing lower liver region to just hunger.

Zucker rats have either low leptin or a leptin receiver issue. It is not clear, and both are suggested as a issue that causes the Zucker Rat. Too much insulin is one obvious factors, with this is directly related to glucose intake, except that fructose causes the liver to make fat fast. Fructose of any amount slows weight loss as fructose stimulates insulin release but is not needed in the process, but generates hunger. Fructose stimulates hunger.

Of course, insulin injected into the brains of rats kills appetite, but anything injected in the brain does that. Dopamine may be evolved, but the whole problem is desire to eat and available food, but the reward circuits do not help in the control anyway, nor is that explanation helpful. There is more than one driving circuit, and those are not the ones that are typically the problem. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

12 step and OA approach is useless as the is no physical evidence for the existence of any god, so the only space is in the mind of the believer. There is no return from atheistism reality to a believer to utilize those methods. These methods are displacement of reality methods.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Dennettion Zombie

Dan Dennett talks about philosophical zombies who are exactly like people except for one item, usually consciousness, so how can anyone tell the difference?

When I am in one of those eating stages, his description is almost exactly what it is like, I am doing it but I am not in control; I cannot stop; it is a form of mental dysfunction. All I can do is distract myself, perhaps delay, escape, of use alternative activity where food is not available. There does not seem to be any available help offered beyond drawing in a concept of something more powerful myself and using that to control the self. One fictional mental object to control the wild mind of uncontrol. Do some portion of the population have a portion of the mind that is beyond our control, and I am part of that portion of the population?

We have control over part of our consciousness, only part. But is there part also that we have no control over, and the short answer is yes, most of it. So what causes this vacillation between that part of eating in which we have control and that part which we have no control? I do not understand. 

What pushes me over the edge? Available food is one item, if not the main item. Once started, I do not stop until all food is gone. That is a problem. I cannot go with no food. but it must be metered, doled out in small quantities... more later

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

So what drives eating?

In the past I have looked at what drives eating: addiction, chemical food issues, emotional issues, habit, cultural and environmental, genetic, epigenetic, instinct or over driven instinct, etc. Now I am headed internally to choice vs free will, choice is free will, but with a triune brain what gives? It is also possible that we do not think the same; there is variation in process, and what we can control, and on what we put priority on. We can modify what is within our control by changing our beliefs and values, desires, aversion, delusions, expectations, our direction from history based to forward looking. It is a process.

Free will is a concept that originally came from religion, that force responsibility onto we, the people. It is not necessarily true, give it cannot be measured nor displayed. Given the obesity epidemic we currently live in; the epidemic that the rich have lived in at least since Roman time, with some evidence of the problem going back much further; we get fat when surplus food is available, unless we resisted the contemplation to overeat. Free will, what little we have is not much deference against the problem. Do we really have any free will with respect to food? My short answer is no, for most of us, but we do not need to hang around where food is available or where eating is promoted.

Free will is more of a concept than an actual reality. We have free will to make decisions, but not to carry out the actions as planned, as we become dependent on our bodies and/or others. Our beliefs and values get in the way, of which we adopted under the guise of free will, or we adopted them at our parents insistence. Clean that plate up. We do not want you to be hungry. One should never be hungry. If we accept that hungry is the natural state we should live in, we would not have a obesity issue. So now we can stay that our overeating is the direct result of our beliefs, and that we accepted our beliefs of our own free will, well we can as adults, unload those problem-matic beliefs, and take on new problem free beliefs as our own. Our beliefs are under indirect control of our free will, that condition where we can accept of reject a proposition. We can reevaluate and reject any entrenched proposition; we can retrain ourselves to almost anything that is not limited by our skill set. A simple bowl of soup can be lunch and or supper; nothing more is required for most of us.

The amount that is under the indirect control of our free will is vast compared to that under our direct free will to choose. It is this automatic testing against our beliefs that makes us rational... sort of. Yet we must also reexamine our beliefs that we test against, and drag those beliefs, which we have difficulty actually expressing, and recalling, out into the light of today, where we can continue to maintain, reject, or modify, to suit out current needs.

Many of our beliefs are cultural, religious, environmental, and from our parents and/or similar old people. But their beliefs, we must either own or discard. It is holding onto wrong ideas that is so damaging, and must be overcome through education and examination of those ideas. Maintaining wrong ideas as true is bad, not examining those ideas is foolish, or religious.

So what is the test of a idea? Define the idea, and list down all the factor pointing to the truth and or falsity of the idea. But there is an order that questions must be tested in, in order that the test is based on truth. This is the problem of religion, the first belief must be what is the primary virtue, the primary good, and that must occur somewhere above I think, therefore I am, and what is real, and what is conceptual, and the like. The stoic had the right idea, start with philosophy, reason, logic, physics and build from there. Learn hypothesis and evaluation, what is truth, and what is not, what is hypothesis to be held with a bit of doubt, the best explanation we have yet found, and go from there.

Yes, I am getting a bit slippery, perhaps off course, but then no one is providing sound advice that is follow-ible so what can one do? Find our own path. So how does this help overeating? We will see in the future.

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Concepts, a Group of Abstract Nouns

Formally, it seams that concepts are know as abstract nouns. I have not given these much though, for until recently, there we not a concern of mine. Now it is occurring to me how many there really are. Yes, a sentence ending in a proposition, no a verb. Oh well. English is something I have difficulty with. It is the dyslexia and an attitude of just not caring to conform or not.

Now the point of all this is why would one confuse a abstract noun and a proper noun? But in reality, it was the community that was/is confused, not I any longer. We learn from the collective culture around us. So what about when they are wrong? At most, any culture is no more that 80% right, so what about all those errors? That is a interesting thought that Socrates would approve of. Another proposition.

So if god is an abstract noun, a bloody concept, an idea in the mind of the believer, how does one convince others of that concept. Religions are a bloody meme, similar to a chain letter, do this and all will be good, fail to do this, and the wrath falls.

Damn, I did not mean to publish this yet. When I left this last, I intended to save it. Oh well.

Overeating may be the result of some concept that rubbed of onto us, and we accepted. I need to root out any automatic thoughts of eating. Or perhaps it is more along the line of free will vs time and instinct. Instinct over time will always win. We have some free will, but how much? Consider the marshmallow test, and how few actually leave the marshmallows. So if they had free will, they could leave it indefinitely. It is my contention that we have about as much free will as we have absolute control over. opinions, and not much more. Something like Epictetus said. Or between the decisions, the assent to a concept and an output decision. But nothing beyond the output decision, we have only influence. Oh well, that is for another day of thinking.   

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

is the desire to eat a mind parasite?

Looking at just the desire to eat, it could be composed of two parts, one a instinct and secondly, a mind parasite that sits there saying eat, eat.

Religions are mind parasites, and could this eat eat thought in the mind be something similar? Abandoning any concept of god, god is just a concept other people have, type of thinking is freeing, at we ratchet toward truth, is freeing and truth seeking. Stoic philosophy is good, as far as it goes, but it stops short of solving the problems of the world. Some problems just have no solution though.

We can believe wrong concepts, and these concepts take up residence in our mind. There is nothing we can do until we recognize these as wrong concepts, mind parasites. Then we can root them out. Perhaps it is as simple as liking food too much, over driven reward, or the only reward we like. Perhaps is is the desire for more energy, that has twisted us to eat. But perhaps it is just a mind parasite of the conceptual class. 

Monday, February 27, 2017

Opinion Masquerading as Stoic Philosophy

I will remind everyone that we live in a world of rising carbon dioxide levels and we humans are having lung/breathing issues and human energy production (common overeating) already. This suggests that the world is over populated unless we cut our production of carbon dioxide considerable. This means a throttling of live style, or returning to a population where the carbon dioxide level near level or less that 300 ppm. aka 1960 level of population.    

Opinion Masquerading as Stoic Philosophy

So there is this old philosophy which was created within a less evolved culture, some 2300 or is it 2700 or 2000 years ago. It had some guidelines on how to live, and different sages and authors had different guidelines, some of which are mutually exclusive. So a modern professor can pick from the various translation and documents and come up with a list that he likes, and say it is stoic doctrine, yet the belief may also be found elsewhere. So is it Stoic, if the Stoics copied it from elsewhere?  

https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/02/27/the-stoic-pledge/

I think it is wonderful that someone would take the time to document what they actually believe. I do hope that this is what they actually do, not just what they would like to do. 

To live by virtue is all fine and good, but until the total list of virtues is listed and explored, and each virtue is defined well enough to live by, it is just talk. These people had the habit and the regulation of exposing all deformed children, and any ungifted when the ungifted was recognized, even against the mothers wishes. Men did not dare challenge the City state. Exile or death was often the other choice. How do we rationalize this with Stoicism unless Stoicism was but a minor philosophy? Now, I think that living by virtue is a good thing, but it is the selection of the virtues that becomes the real issue.

Second issue is vegetarianism. No culture has had success as vegetarian, although many adult individuals do survive at strict vegetarians. Modern vegetarian mothers produce a high frequency of autistic children. As some autism relates to short neuron column spacing, it may be related to the protein and fat supply during early growth, conception to two or three years. I coach archery, and some are very slow or never do develop muscles. These people have always turned out to be either vegetarians or dietetics. The senors are frequently on stations also that dis troy muscle growth. For these reasons I have doubt that vegetarianism is good for active people, but I do not care what others actually do. I do not have the right to push my views onto others, but I do have the right to express my views, and if you get huffy or are offended, it is your problem.

"V. I will reject nationalism and any other kind of parochial view of humanity. My creed is that of cosmopolitanism."

and Paul "Examples include adherence to in-group doctrine, hostility to and claims of superiority over out-groups, and seeking out evidence (and company) that reinforces rather than challenges our existing beliefs."

We may need to make substantial change in our lives if we grew up and worked under tyrants until we obtained logical independence. Our views, beliefs, values may need to be adjusted multiple times in our lives for our survival. In some professions, that take guidance or direction from government, rejecting nationalism is just not an option. What I am getting at is some rules cannot be rationally applied for some people. That is not saying that these are not good rules in theory.

So I guess what I am trying to say is that some guidelines are just not applicable to some lives, and some realities. It is apparent we humans are due a major die off, and that decision, or the decision to live, will be made by each individual, group, Provence, Country.

Trump is trying to shut down immigration. Is that so bad to stabilize the US population, even if the expressed political reason is wrong? How much political following would he get if he said, "the Co2 is rising. We need to stabilize or cut our population, but we do not want to cut our lifestyle, which produces half of the Co2. So we could let those refugees die overseas, and we need to increase our defense systems to be able to prevent the brown hoards from taking over and we need to block them from coming in. Let them die off elsewhere." 

But I live in Canada, and am old. It is the younger generations problem now. As the philosophy professors become increasingly irrelevant to society, all we need do is ask how irrelevant is what they say to my life?   



       

Friday, February 24, 2017

Free Will and Eating

Free will and eating are not necessarily incompatible even when they seem to be. For the most part, the amount we eat, when we get hungry, are beyond our normal control. It is only when we are trying to "lose weight" that how much we eat and when becomes an issue and we try to bring this instinct under our direct control that we experience this difficulty, long term. The regulation of eating is an instinct, always has been and likely always will be. It is outside of our control, outside of free will, and in that zone that we can only influence. There in lies the problem. And yet we may think we can control it, yet few with a weight issue can control it. Many people say we should be able to control it, but that is a fiction, a collective fiction.

Is there any doubt about the human's inability to control our intake of food?  Just look around at all the overweight people. I doubt that anyone wants to be overweight. They are eating beyond there needs, but do not have the ability to control their eating. This can occur by desiring a specific food, or enjoy the feeling that sugar, insulin, or something else brings, just as the alcoholic enjoys the feeling that alcohol brings, at least in the early days of drinking. There was something in our early days of overeating that we liked about overeating. We may no longer enjoy it the same way, or we do, but the weight is a problem. Many of us still enjoy the food, it may be our only enjoyment left, but we need to give up the food for health reasons. We may just enjoy food.  In fact, it may be our only enjoyment.

So we have arrived at this point in time, and need to understand that we have pull toward food as it does something for us physiologically that we like psychologically, that we want, and at the same time adds weight to us. So now what about that free will? we have one factor pulling us toward the food, and reason against. Instinct vs reason, which is going to win long term? This instinct lies outside of our free will zone, outside of our absolute control and only in the zone that we have influence. Our epigenetic switch has been flicked to eating to much. We need to learn to live with that.

For some of us, food is and was our only pleasure. Movement is just not comfortable, and we do not enjoy movement. The exercise fanatics think that it will become enjoyable, but that may happen to them but not to all. They may not get the pleasure from food that we do, they get pleasure from exercise, which I (we) do not. Is it that simple. Was the source of pleasure trained in, in our youth? I expect so.

So now we obese and overweight inclined people need to give up food as a source of pleasure, and get some exercise, and hopefully find a new source of pleasure within our control. Knowing that the rational mind is all we control, and we have an instinct to learn, perhaps we can utilize this as a source of pleasure. Our free will and that which we have absolute control over seam to be the same zones. Very small, and very specific. But not as big as many think, nor as sure of control. If we have no control, we can have no free will, for these two are directly related. Once we get beyond making the decision to move, we progress beyond the area that we have free will over, beyond the are that we have control over.

Three frogs are sitting on a log. One frog decides to jump off. How many frogs are left on the log? 3 Decision is not action. We have free will to the decision, not of the action of jumping. That depends on the body cooperating with our will to jump. With food we may not get that cooperation, the body instinct want what it wants. All we can do is take ourselves away from any source of food. But that too requires the cooperation of the body; if we are tired, have pains, or what ever, we may not get that cooperation.

Now we need to swim upstream, against the wrong "collective beliefs" of our culture, namely, that we should be able to use willpower to control our eating. If it were that simple. Eating is instinct/epigenetically driven. It is the collective belief that is wrong. What we can control is the opportunity to eat, not the desire. This must be learned and understood for recovery. Removal of one more mind parasite.

What do I know? no joy there. In the end we all just die anyway.   

Thursday, February 9, 2017

The cause of obesity & T2D


Peter describes the process:


Once the elevated glucose from insulin resistance kills off enough beta cells then insulin levels drop, glucose levels rise, HSL is disinhibited so FFAs rise. You might even get ketoacidosis. This is type 2 diabetes. ATGL might even take a break.      The first approach to correcting it is carbohydrate restriction, so dropping hyperinsulinaemia and minimising the vicious cycle. Doing something about the kilos of linoleic acid stored in an obese person's adipocytes is an altogether longer term project.

So the second part is to stay on the diet. Keep in mind that any diet in which we consume less calories than we burn will cause weight loss and fat to come out of the fat cells to make up the difference. Also not that for the obese, a large cut is easier than a small cut. So it is about attitude, emotional control, environment, stress, and motivation to stay on the diet. Cut carbs as much as is practical, adequate protein, and as little fat as is possible to make the food taste. To the body, a major cut is a high fat diet to the body, as the fat coming from the fat cells makes up the remainder.

Motivation is mostly emotional. Logic provides the direction and emotion flicks the switch that drives us forward. It is the thought that flicks the switch that makes the difference.

Atkins had everyone on broth, and that may be the low calorie-big volume that feeds the top of the stomach. I am just not sure.


Tuesday, February 7, 2017

SMARTish.

After we develop the knowledge to live well, then we need the motivation to continue doing what we find difficult for the remainder of our lives, what ever that may be. Self management and recovery training is a group who works with addicted peoples to aid in recovery. The program as defined by SMART Recovery has its limitations, when dealing with food addicts mixed in with other addicts. We food addict like people have many different issues. Most other type of addicts do not accept food addicts, for they do not see food as a addictive substance, but as a simple behavior.

We are addicted to a behavior, as well as a few low dose chemicals, often those chemicals are produced inside the body from multiple food inputs. Opioid peptides are the digestion product of dairy, wheat, potatoes, gliadin proteins, and if we happen to have the enzyme to produce it. Serotonin is produced in the gut, and is displaced in with quantifies with sugar. These are the two typical methods of causing humans to "like" specific foods, and we either like it too much or are unable to produce the will power to not eat those products. Given the will power it takes to haul our obese selves around, it is not a shortage of will power issue.

The smart tools are fine, as far as they go. But those tools are not sufficient for the more severely addicted. We need more, and chemical addiction is only part of the addiction process: there is also the behavioral addiction, which is even stronger and requires different approaches. In the end, we always need to follow a thin diet, both quality and quantity. It is our thinking that gives us the ability to follow, and that is where society fails us.

The Smart algorithm needs a extension for food issues.        

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Obesity Epidemic

Hypothesis: obesity epidemic has a causal link to the rise in carbon dioxide level.

There is a parallel in the shape of the curve in the last fifty years roughly. Since 1960, the carbon dioxide level has been climbing. This is not the only cause, but only an environment change which we pre-1960 models were not born into, hence we did not adapt to in childhood. This reduced oxygen transfer may have reduced our energy level, and therefore our desire to be active. Food gives us a short term boost in energy and the first few ATP from sugar are easy to obtain oxygen free.

CPAP machines are often recommended for heavy people at night, and that helps many a great deal. This would drive more oxygen into those people. I was once in a weight wise group, and everyone except me was on a CPAP machine of some kind.

What kind of test could be devised to act as a proof of concept test? How about deep breathing exercise, on the hour and half hour, or as needed, about five or ten deep breaths, aka forced oxygenation?

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Yes, No, Well that depends

http://www.weightymatters.ca/2017/01/first-mood-then-weight-bellletstalk.html

Yoni made a pronouncement, but it is only sometimes correct. I am operation under a hypothesis that there are multiple causes of overeating, and that mood is not one of the major driving factors; that depends on how we define mood. I define mood as a medium term temperament, that is day, days, perhaps weeks in length. It is the long term temperament of months, years, to life that is the problem. Occasional overeating is not the problem, occasional overeating creates overweight people, not obese people. But he is right that psychological, philosophical, emotional, cultural, physical, environmental, and especially addiction to food issues must be addressed before recovery from obesity issue can be overcome completely.

Is it a true addictive substance, or is it just behavior as obsessive compulsive behavior? Does it matter? 

But Yoni is wrong in that diet must be corrected in order to remove the self mediating effect of food in order that the underlying mind problem, the non physical drive to overeat can be exposed. Food addiction is a bitch of a problem, and if one happens to live in a situation where one has little control over the food available, food addiction may impossible to recover from in that environment. Food addiction is necessarily the first thing that must be beat down before recovery can occur.

Before food addiction recovery can occur, acceptance of food addiction must occur. If a human has the willpower to only eat small amounts of the addictive substance, it would not be addiction. Some of us are highly sensitive to odd things, wheat being a prime example. Some of us cannot handle any wheat, and but like the taste of wheat. It is in many prepared foods also. For those of us who cannot handle it, absence is the only logical choice.

Now what if our addiction is a physical problem like insulin overproduction?  Perhaps we need to live on no starch, no sugar diet? Yet we like, even crave, and want starches, may even require a few, which are ever present and economical? Now we have a real problem. Even worse when we have unresolved personality problems. Sleep, work, do something or eat: those are my choices. But I get tired to quickly, oh well, sleep. But I do not need to do anything, and do not want to do anything? That does not matter if I want to avoid eating. Rest, at home, will result in eating. Now what are those choice: sleep, work, do something or eat. 

Developing the skill to sit in front of food that we like, and not eat it, is not a skill I have. As I do not live alone, but with a french yettie, this is a problem. (yettie, after the polish cry "yets, yets") This is an environmental problem or the environment I inhabit. There is no point in talking about this problem further, there is just no cooperation coming. I do cook meals, but I cannot prevent more crap being bought and left out.   

       

Friday, January 20, 2017

Understanding weight loss failure

The problem is not the diet, but the inability to follow the damn diet. Hunger, cravings, desires, emotions, un-named pressures, all push us off the diet, food program, prescribed restrictions. Until we understand and treat these issues, obesity will remain long term.

For some of us, this started in childhood. It is a issue that we do not clearly know the cause, perhaps the cause is absence of emotional support, or absence of physical support, we were placed in a no win situation, and we ate to resolve the feelings, (high BG helps reducing feeling) or just to survive. This habit, behavior became "burned in" - epigenetically, and now we live with this problem.

When we read Jonice Webb, Running on Empty, it becomes apparent that this is likely the problem, but it is an unknown unknown that is driving our decisions. Now it is necessary to use a shotgun approach to identify the problem or rather the solution that works. Total reloading of the operating system. Reboot with a corrected program. But where are we to get the new "corrected" program from? Not from religion, not from the philosophers, not from the government, or psychologists? So where? Well, nobody has figured that one out yet, but many preach bits and pieces, and to every one preaching, there is much opposition, often more than are advocating any position. So the solution is reloading piecemeal, one belief, one emotional response at a time and we are soully responsible for our choice or decision.

But which unknown unknown? And we live in an environment which is beyond our control and then when the obvious solution does not depend on us? Now what? It is the unknown unknown that must be identified and relieved. Or does the obvious solution destroy all that we have built up to this point in our life? Or we need a change of environment. Or do we not have the required energy to implement and carry out the solution? Money always has the veto also. So there is no solution.