Dr. Collins shares Dieting and Weight-Loss Information
Dr. Collins makes Brief Positive Statements for Inspiration and Motivation.
Healthy Home Cooking by Dr. Collins for a Low-Calorie Lifestyle.
A place for Grandbabies to visit with their online Grandma.
Eating Toward Immortality - POSTED ON: Feb 12, 2017
I find the article below intriguing as well as appealing. Throughout my lifetime of dieting, I’ve seen a great deal of evidence supporting many of the statements it contains, such as:
“The desire for more life … grew into an obsession with transforming the self into a perfected object.”
When we make the choice to follow the rules of any “recommended” diet, we do this because we want to make our bodies conform to cultural standards of “beauty” and/or “health”. Which means, of course, our goal is … to transform our bodies into a more “perfected object”.
Another such statement is:
“People willingly, happily, hand over their freedom in exchange for the bondage of a diet that forbids their most cherished foods, all for the promise of relief from choice.”
Every voluntary action we make, or don’t make, is a choice. When we choose one action, … it eliminates the ability to choose an alternative action …. at least for that present time. So, when we choose to follow any specific outside dieting rules, our choice is also to give up making our own ongoing individual food choices.
My current choice is to read, think about, and share the concepts contained within this following article.
Eating Toward Immortality
Diet culture is just another way of dealing with the fear of death.
by MICHELLE ALLISON posted in The Atlantic in 2/2017
Knowing a thing means you don’t need to believe in it. Whatever can be known, or proven by logic or evidence, doesn’t need to be taken on faith.
Certain details of nutrition and the physiology of eating are known and knowable: the fact that humans require certain nutrients; the fact that our bodies convert food into energy and then into new flesh (and back to energy again when needed).
But there are bigger questions that don’t have definitive answers, like what is the best diet for all people? For me?
Nutrition is a young science that lies at the intersection of several complex disciplines—chemistry, biochemistry, physiology, microbiology, psychology—and though we are far from having figured it all out, we still have to eat to survive. When there are no guarantees or easy answers, every act of eating is something like a leap of faith.
Eating is the first magic ritual, an act that transmits life energy from one object to another, according to cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker in his posthumously published book Escape From Evil. All animals must feed on other life to sustain themselves, whether in the form of breastmilk, plants, or the corpses of other animals. The act of incorporation, of taking a once-living thing into your own body, is necessary for all animals’ existence. It is also disturbing and unsavory to think about, since it draws a direct connection between eating and death.
Human self-awareness means that, from a relatively early age, we are also aware of death. In his Pulitzer prize-winning book, The Denial of Death, Becker hypothesized that the fear of death–and the need to suppress that fear—is what drives much of human behavior. This idea went on, in social psychology, to the form the basis of Terror Management Theory.
Ancient humans must have decided, once their bellies were full, that there was more to life than mere survival and staring mortality in the face. They went on to build things in which they could find distraction, comfort, recreation, and meaning. They built cultures in which death became another rite of passage, not the end of everything. They made structures to live in, wrote songs to sing to each other, and added spices to their food, which they cooked in different styles. Humans are supported by a self-created system of meanings, symbols, rituals, and etiquette.
Food and eating are part of this. The act of ingestion is embroidered with so much cultural meaning that, for most people, its roots in spare, brutal survival are entirely hidden.
Even for people in extreme poverty, for whom survival is a more immediate concern, the cultural meanings of food remain critical. Wealthy or poor, we eat to celebrate, we eat to mourn, we eat because it’s mealtime, we eat as a way to bond with others, we eat for entertainment and pleasure. It is not a coincidence that the survival function of food is buried beneath all of this—who wants to think about staving off death each time they tuck into a bowl of cereal? Forgetting about death is the entire point of food culture.
When it comes to food, Becker said that humans “quickly saw beyond mere physical nourishment,” and that the desire for more life—not just delaying death today, but clearing the bar of mortality entirely—grew into an obsession with transforming the self into a perfected object that might achieve a sort of immorality. Diet culture and its variations, such as clean eating, are cultural structures we have built to attempt to transcend our animality.
By creating and following diets, humans not only eat to stay alive, but they fit themselves into a cultural edifice that is larger, and more permanent, than their bodies. It is a sort of immortality ritual, and rituals must be performed socially. Clean eating rarely, if ever, occurs in secret. If you haven’t evangelized about it, joined a movement around it, or been praised publicly for it, have you truly cleansed?
As humans, we are possibly the most promiscuous omnivores ever to wander the earth. We dine on animals, insects, plants, marine life, and occasionally non-food: dirt, clay, and chalk.
We are not pandas, chastely satisfied with munching through a square mile of bamboo. We seek variety and novelty, and at the same time, we carry an innate fear of food. This is described by the famous omnivore’s paradox, which (Michael Pollan notwithstanding) is not mere confusion about choosing what to eat in a cluttered food marketplace.
The omnivore’s paradox was originally defined by psychological researcher Paul Rozin as the anxiety that arises from our desire to try new foods (neophilia) paired with our inherited fear of unknown foods (neophobia) that could turn out to be toxic.
All omnivores feel these twin pressures, but none more acutely than humans. If it weren’t for the small chance of death lurking behind every food choice and every dietary ideology, choosing what to eat from a crowded marketplace wouldn’t be considered a dilemma. Instead, we would call it “the omnivore’s fun time at the supermarket,” and people wouldn’t repost so many Facebook memes about the necessity of drinking a gallon of water daily, or the magical properties of apple cider vinegar and coconut oil. Everyone would be just a little bit calmer about food.
Humans do not have a single, definitive rulebook to direct our eating, despite the many attempts nutrition scientists, dietitians, chefs, and celebrities have made to write one. Each of us has to negotiate the desire for food and fear of the unknown when we are still too young to read, calculate calories, or understand abstract ideas about nutrition. Almost all children go through a phase of pickiness with eating. It seems to be an evolved survival mechanism that prevents us—once we are mobile enough to put things in our mouths, but not experienced enough to know the difference between safe and dangerous foods—from eating something toxic. We have all been children trying to shove the world in our mouths, even while we spit out our strained peas.
Our omnivorousness gives us an exhilarating and terrifying amount of freedom. As social creatures, we seek safety from that freedom in our culture, and in a certain amount of conformity. We prefer to follow leaders we’ve invested with authority to blaze a path to safety.
The heroes of contemporary diet culture are wellness gurus who claim to have cured themselves of fatness, disease, and meaninglessness through the unimpeachable purity of cold-pressed vegetable juice.
Many traditional heroes earn their status by confronting and defeating death, like Hercules, who was granted immortality after a lifetime of capturing or killing a menagerie of dangerous beasts, including the three-headed dog of Hades himself. Wellness gurus are the glamorously clean eaters whose triumph over sad, dirty animality is evidenced by fresh, thoughtfully-lit photographs of green smoothies in wholesome Mason jars, and by their own bodies, beautifully rendered.
There are no such heroes to be found in a peer-reviewed paper with a large, anonymous sample, and small effect sizes, written in impenetrable statistician-ese, and hedged with disclosures about limitations. But the image of a person you can relate to on a human level, smiling out at you from the screen, standing in a before-and-after, shoulder-to-shoulder with their former, lesser, processed-food-eating self, is something else altogether. Their creation myth and redemption—how they were lost but now are found—is undeniably compelling.
There are twin motives underlying human behavior, according to Becker—the urge for heroism and the desire for atonement. At a fundamental level, people may feel a twinge of guilty for having a body, taking up space, and having appetites that devour the living things around us. They may crave expiation of this guilt, and culture provides not only the means to achieve plentiful material comfort, but also ways to sacrifice part of that comfort to achieve redemption. It is not enough for wellness gurus to simply amass the riches of health, beauty, and status—they must also deny themselves sugar, grains, and flesh. They must pay.
Only those with status and resources to spare can afford the most impressive gestures of renunciation. Look at all they have! The steel-and-granite kitchen! The Le Creuset collection! The Vitamix! The otherworldly glow! They could afford to eat cake, should the bread run out, but they quit sugar. They’re only eating twigs and moss now. What more glamorous way to triumph over dirt and animality and death? And you can, too. That is, if you have the time and money to spend juicing all that moss and boiling the twigs until they’re soft enough to eat.
This is how the omnivore’s paradox breeds diet culture: Overwhelmed by choice, by the dim threat of mortality that lurks beneath any wrong choice, people crave rules from outside themselves, and successful heroes to guide them to safety. People willingly, happily, hand over their freedom in exchange for the bondage of a diet that forbids their most cherished foods, that forces them to rely on the unfamiliar, unpalatable, or inaccessible, all for the promise of relief from choice and the attendant responsibility. If you are free to choose, you can be blamed for anything that happens to you: weight gain, illness, aging—in short, your share in the human condition, including the random whims of luck and your own inescapable mortality.
Humans are the only animals aware of our mortality, and we all want to be the person whose death comes as a surprise rather than a pathetic inevitability. We want to be the one of whom people say, “But she did everything right.” If we cannot escape death, maybe we can find a way to be declared innocent and undeserving of it.
But diet culture is constantly shifting. Today’s token foods of health may seem tainted or passé tomorrow, and within diet culture, there are contradictory ideologies: what is safe and clean to one is filth and decadence to another. Legumes and grains are wholesome, life-giving staples to many vegan eaters, while they represent the corrupting influences of agriculture on the state of nature to those who prefer a meat-heavy, grain-free Paleo diet.
Nutrition science itself is a self-correcting series of refutations. There is no certain path to purity and blamelessness through food. The only common thread between competing dietary ideologies is the belief that by adhering to them, one can escape the human condition, and become a purer, less animal, kind of being.
This is why arguments about diet get so vicious, so quickly. You are not merely disputing facts, you are pitting your wild gamble to avoid death against someone else’s. You are poking at their life raft. But if their diet proves to be the One True Diet, yours must not be. If they are right, you are wrong. This is why diet culture seems so religious. People adhere to a dietary faith in the hope they will be saved. That if they’re good enough, pure enough in their eating, they can keep illness and mortality at bay. And the pursuit of life everlasting always requires a leap of faith.
To eat without restriction, on the other hand, is to risk being unclean, and to beat your own uncertain path. It is admitting your mortality, your limitations and messiness as a biological creature, while accepting the freedoms and pleasures of eating, and taking responsibility for choosing them.
Unclean, agnostic eating means taking your best stab in the dark, accepting that there is much we don’t know. But we do know that there is no One True Diet. There may be as many right ways to eat as there are people—none of whom can live forever, — all of whom must make of eating and their lives some personal, temporary meaning.
The author of the above article, Michelle Allison, is a registered dietitian based in Toronto who blogs at TheFatNutritionist. com.
Trust Yourself - Words of Wisdom - POSTED ON: Feb 11, 2017
See Video Below
DietHobby has more of these short videos under the heading: Words of Wisdom
The Hard Road - POSTED ON: Feb 10, 2017
Freedom in Maintenance - POSTED ON: Feb 08, 2017
I am now in my 11th year of working to maintain my body inside my normal BMI range, after successfully losing more than 57% of my total body weight. At my highest weight I had a 52.9 BMI, and at my lowest weight in Maintenance I had a 20.3 BMI.
Here in Maintenance I do lots of personal experimenting with different types of diets and ways-of-eating. I recently began a new diet experiment which I call “Freedom in Maintenance”.
This current Plan Directly Restricts the total daily AMOUNT of food that I eat, (has a maximum daily calorie number), but does not restrict the KINDS of food eaten, nor restrict the FREQUENCY of eating.
The consistent repetition of actions is what establishes a habit, and most diet plans are designed to help create specific eating habits. These diets set forth specific eating behaviors, and the dieter’s goal is to regularly follow those specific eating behavior patterns until doing so becomes almost involuntary.
This current plan is very different than almost all other diet plans in that it does not rely primarily on the “Habit” concept. Its successful implementation requires very little repetitious conduct, promotes ongoing individual variability and allows spontaneous eating decisions. This, however, is a calorie restricted diet, not an “intuitive eating” plan.
Here is a graphic
At this time, I’m choosing not to discuss the specifics of HOW I came up with this particular diet plan, nor WHY I am currently choosing to do this particular diet experiment, but I probably will do so at some future point.
The daily maximum 900 calorie number was established because that is very close to the amount of calories that my body uses to maintain my body at my current weight. ... which is currently near the top of my Weight Range Maintenance Plan. DietHobby has many articles discussing that issue, for one of these SEE: Projections About the Rate of Weight-Loss.
The graphic at the bottom of this page shows the basics of the Freedom in Maintenance diet plan.
I will be recording pictures of some of my various Freedom in Maintenance meals in the Photo Gallery section of DietHobby (look under the heading RESOURCES) Most of these food photos will be specific to size and measurement and also show a calorie count for that portion size.
Portion Size & Measurements - POSTED ON: Feb 07, 2017
During my lifetime of weight-loss and maintenance efforts, I’ve experimented with almost every diet.
All weight-loss diets necessarily involve some type of food restriction. This is because every weight-loss “Diet”, “way-of-eating” or “lifestyle” requires eating less food than one’s individual body uses so that the body will make up the difference by eating itself for nourishment, i.e. consume its own stored fat for energy.
(See The Essence of Diets - Part One and The Essence of Diets - Part Two).
While many Diets limit the Amount of food eaten by focusing on Indirect Restrictions such as limiting the Kinds of foods eaten and/or limiting the Frequency of eating, my own Diet preference is to Directly Restrict the Amount of food that I eat.
I do this by working to figure out how many calories are in every bit of food that I eat, all the time, every day, AND immediately recording that information in an ongoing computer food journal. I’ve now been doing this successfully every day for more than 12 consecutive years. See ABOUT ME for my weight-loss and maintenance information.
When working to count calories, the task of weighing and measuring food accurately is very important. While the calorie numbers obtained will never be perfectly exact, consistently paying close attention to careful measurements will provide calorie numbers accurate enough to bring weight-loss and maintenance success.
There are many computer programs available that will help with calorie counting.
For example: My Fitness Pal offers a basic free online program with a food diary and an excellent food database.
Successful calorie counting involves the issue of Portion Control. Most of the time the best way to determine the amount of food in One Serving is to look at the Nutrition Facts label and measure it.
A rough way to figure out how much food is in one serving is to fill a measuring cup with the suggested size portion of food and then empty it onto a plate. That will help you learn what these serving sizes look like.
I also find it helpful to frequently use very small plates and very small bowls.
Measurement essentials are:
measuring spoons, measuring cups, and a small kitchen counter food scale.
When following measurement directions, remember that 1 teaspoon or 1 tablespoon means LEVEL, not mounded or heaping.
Also ¼ of a cup is a level measurement in some measuring cups, but a distance below the brim for other measuring cups, however it is also never mounded or heaping.
There can be a great deal of calorie difference between 1 level teaspoon and 1 level tablespoon.
For example: butter or peanut butter. 1 level teaspoon is about 33 calories; 1 level tablespoon is about 100 calories…
BUT 1 heaping teaspoon is actually about 1 tablespoon (100 calories), and 1 heaping tablespoon is about 2 tablespoons. (200 calories).
There can also be a great deal of calorie difference between ¼ of a cup; ½ of a cup; and 1 cup.
¼ of a level cup of mixed nuts is about 225 calories. ½ level cup is about 450 calories.
1 level cup is about 900 calories. One heaping cup is about 1125 calories.
This past year or so I started recording pictures of some of my various meals in the Photo Gallery section of DietHobby (look under the heading RESOURCES) to record various meals that I’ve actually eaten as part of various experiments-of-one. Most of these foods are specific to size and measurement and also show a calorie count for that portion size.
I've also made quite a few Recipe Videos that demonstrate measurements and portion sizes. You can find these under the header RECIPES. Below is one of my Recipe Videos which demonstrates the Measurements of Peanut Butter.
Jun 15, 2017 DietHobby: A Digital Scrapbook. 1500+ articles and 300+ videos in DietHobby reflect my personal experience in weight-loss and maintenance. One-size-doesn't-fit-all, and I address many ways of eating whenever they become interesting or applicable to me.
May 01, 2017 DietHobby is now more Mobile-Friendly. Technical changes! It is now easier to view DietHobby on iPhones and other mobile devices.
Jan 01, 2017 DietHobby is my Personal Blog Website. DietHobby sells nothing; posts no advertisements; accepts no contributions. It does not recommend or endorse any specific diets, ways-of-eating, lifestyles, supplements, foods, products, activities, or memberships.