Sane Eating

[wosnes]

I just got Mark Bittman's new book: Food Matters: A Guide to Conscious Eating.

This particular part seems to apply to No-s:

The goal of eating sanely is not to cut calories, that will happen naturally, and you probably won't notice it. The goal is not to cut fat, either; in fact, it is possible that you will eat more fat than you do now, although different fat. The same is true of carbohydrates -- again, you may wind up eating more, but different kinds. And the goal is not to save money, though you will.

No -- the goal is simply to eat less of certain foods, specifically animal products, refined carbs and junk food; and more of others, specifically plants, in close to their natural state.

If you make those your goals, you'd change your life. You'd probably weigh less, you'd have lowered your chance of heart disease and other lifestyle diseases, and you'd make a contribution to slowing global warming.

For a variety of reasons -- it's not temporary, no foods are strictly forbidden, and there's no calorie counting -- this is not what's popularly called "a diet," as in "I'm on a diet." Rather, it's a shift in perspective or style, an approach.

In any case, the principles are simple: deny nothing, enjoy everything, but eat plants first and most. There's no gimmick, no dogma, no guilt and no food police.

I want to stress, too, that this is not a new way to eat, but one that's quite old-fashioned; you could even say it's ancient. Among our ancestors, there were few people who did not struggle to get enough calories; it was only in the late twentieth century that people could and did begin to overeat regularly. Until then, most people considered themselves lucky to eat one good meal every day; many people spent half the year eating poorly, and the other half eating decently, though certainly not lavishly, except on certain feast days and holidays. Think of Lent and Mardi Gras, meatless Fridays and Sunday dinners, festivals in autumn and spring, and more. These were all formalized acknowledgments that food was and is something to be celebrated and enjoyed, but overdone only occasionally. Food Matters is no more than a way to look at this from a contemporary perspective.

[Happy Cooker]

I like what he said. These days we eat feast foods around the clock and in all seasons.
I recently spent an evening with a group that included a native Romanian woman. When the subject came up of why Europeans don't have the weight problems Americans do, some people floated their theories about the Mediterranean diet and smaller portions. She said, "In my country, we eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner. We don't snack." She is in her late 40s and fairly slender despite a sedentary job in a cold climate.

[wosnes]

The book is interesting -- I recommend it. Also, easy to read.

[resident0063]

Wosnes. Thanks for the heads up on the book. I had read about it months ago but had forgotten it was due to be released. Bittman is an entertaining and great cook. I have his books. I will certainly buy this one. His diet is not NoS but his philosophy is the same. We eat too much. We eat too much crap. Here is a link to an article in Reader's Digest. I think this can be incorporated into a NoS plan. Eat your three meals. Two of those meals no crap. One meal crap within reason. I have always liked a Pollan/Reinhard philosophy. Eat plants, mostly, eat less by having three meals a day with no sugar and no seconds. Exemptions on feast days.

http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/simple ... 09150.html

[wosnes]

I don't think there's any reason Bittman's ideas can't be incorporated into No-S. Throughout the book, he says how he did it is just that: how HE did it. You can take the ideas and make them work for you.

I just found what he says about hunger:

There's a basic truth here: there are stages of hunger, and we -- Americans in general -- have become accustomed to feeding ourselves at the first sign. This is the equivalent of taking a nap every time you get tired, which hardly anyone does.

There are levels of hunger, and there is a very real difference between hunger and starvation. Starvation is a physical state; your body is deprived of essential nutrients or calories for a long period of time. Probably no one reading this book has ever been truly starving -- though we all think we know what starving feels like.

Hunger is a hard-wired early-warning system. At first, your brain says, "Think about eating something soon." In later stages it says, "Eat as soon as you can; make eating a priority." At no point does your brain say, "Eat now or you will do permanent damage," though at times it may feel as if this is true. But "Eat when hungry" has become a habit. We get hungry. We eat. We get hungry again. We eat again. And so on.

I'm not saying, "Don't eat when you're hungry." I"m saying that if losing or maintaining weight is important to you, think twice before you eat from simple hunger, or from other reasons, like emotion. And when you do eat, choose a piece of fruit, a carrot, a handful of nuts. If you're still hungry, have more. And more. Eat a pint of blueberries, or cherry tomatoes, have a mango, or a banana and an apple. Have a lightly dressed salad. You would be hard-pressed to gain weight eating this way.

You can also embrace hunger, strange as that may sound, just as you might embrace the delicious anticipation of a nap, or sexual craving. Your hunger will, after all, be satisfied. Why not wait an hour? (You're not dying, after all!) You might also stop eating before you're full (three-quarters full is probably about right). And if you eat slowly, taking your time, you'll give the food time to reach your stomach and give you a sense of satisfaction before you have seconds or thirds.

If you embrace moderation, eat whole foods instead of junk, live within your physical, monetary, and environmental budget rather than constantly exceeding it, as so many of us do, you will lose weight, tread more lightly on the planet, and gain satisfaction from these things.