An Analogy

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:09 pm

Last week I was at a gathering and noticed a man smoking. He had taken the cigarette out of a cigarette case, which is pretty unusual. So I asked him about it. He told me that he had recently started to buy his cigarettes from a tobacco shop because they were about half the price of cigarettes he could purchase elsewhere. They come loose, rather than in packages. The tobacco used at this shop was free of the added chemicals now found in all brand-name cigarettes. Prior to changing to these cigarettes, he noticed that he'd smoke a cigarette and immediately want another one, because there was little satisfaction from the cigarette. The cigarette manufacturers add these chemicals to increase the consumption of cigarettes. They make more money. So, not only is he now paying less for cigarettes, he's also smoking less because the cigarettes aren't designed to make him want more.

I started to think about this in terms of food. The food industry has developed foods to make us want more. Not only have they made foods stripped of nutrients, they add substances that make us want more. You eat their food products, you're not satisfied, and you eat more of them. You might feel stuffed, but still hungry. You're hungry shortly after eating or sooner than you "should" be. But if you get away from them and eat real food, you're satisfied. Almost without thinking about it, not only do you require food less often, you often also eat less food. The food is more satisfying in all ways. Real food is satisfying in ways that chemically enhanced, fake food is not.

I don't remember exactly when I switched to real foods. I think I did like KCCC mentions, making little changes, then more little changes, until at least 80% of the food I eat is real food. Over time, I noticed I was eating less at meals. Then I noticed that I rarely ever felt really hungry, that stomach-gnawing, "I have to have food NOW" feeling. I could easily go longer times between meals without feeling much of anything. Sometimes I'll feel a little hungry but it passes. Getting food isn't an emergency. One day last week due to an unusual set of circumstances, I went 10 hours between lunch and dinner. While I was certainly ready for food, I wasn't overly hungry.

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:27 pm

Fascinating. I had no idea. My son picked up smoking in Afghanistan. Apparently, EVERYONE smokes over there mostly as stress releif. I don't think he smokes much anymore, if at all, but I will point him towards the tobacconists tobacco if he is going to smoke.

I believe Dr. David Kessler addresses the addictive additives in food in his book The End of Overeating

Grammy G · Post by **Grammy G** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:30 pm

Very interesting! I like the connection you made to real foods too...How true!!
I have a son who just can't quit smoking and I am going to tell him about this article. His little daughter came to me a few days ago and said to me, "Do you know my dad uses smokers?" (She has no reason to know the word cigarettes..no ads on TV and no one mentions them with her around!)I told her I couldn't believe my son would do such a thing..and she told me,"I seed it with mine own eyes!" He needs to quit and this may be a way to get him away from those additives and make the transition a bit easier. Thanks wosnes!

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:34 pm

Blithe Morning wrote:

I believe Dr. David Kessler addresses the addictive additives in food in his book The End of Overeating

I think he does, too. I don't think that most people have a clue about it, though.

I also want to make it very clear that this doesn't mean I abstain from sweets and treats. It means that I either make them from scratch or buy them from someone who has made them from scratch.

BrightAngel · Post by **BrightAngel** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:11 pm

wosnes wrote:[I also want to make it very clear that this doesn't mean I abstain from sweets and treats.
It means that I either make them from scratch or buy them from someone who has made them from scratch.

wosnes,
I just want to take this opportunity to tell you that,
although I, myself, don't make it a special point to eat "real" food,
I greatly admire you for doing so.

oolala53 · Post by **oolala53** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:48 pm

I don't eat all real food, either, but a lot. I think moderation works on all foods, if we are aware of what we're doing, but I would say I do feel more satisfied and best with mostly whole foods. However, I use commercial sauces just about every day and I feel great with them. It doesn't take much. I don't tend to smother my pasta with tomato sauce, nor my grains with curry. But I take your point about whole foods.

I gotta tell you, it' been a few years since I travelled outside the US and I have mostly been to the third world. Smoking is quite prevalent in the countries I've visited. I was on a big platform listening to music on a beach in Bali one evening and all the people around me, mostly Europeans, all lit up at the same time! About 8 of them. I made an excuse to go back to my room just to get away from the smoke and sat somewhere else when I returned.

In fact, I saw more smoking in Utah on a trip last week than I usually see in San Diego! I guess I run in prissy circles. I sure appreciate that about the US, or at least California.

In India, they had (have?) little rolled up leaves of tobacco called beedies. You could get a package of 25 of them for about 8 cents when I was there. I don't know what they put on them, but they were addictive. I would usually smoke only half of one, but 15 minutes later I wanted another one!

Natural tobacco may not be as addictive, but it still doesn't smell very nice and I'd bet kissing a smoker still tastes like an ashtray. Sorry to complain. But smoking was fun!

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:47 pm

I bought The End of Overeating yesterday just to refresh my understanding of the addictive quality of food. Mammals are hard wired to eat more of certain types of food, especially those with fat, sugar, and salt. Their brains showed certain "hot spots" in the pleasure center lighting up that is similar to the patterns seen in drug addicts brains (I think he mentioned cocaine, specifically) when they get a fix. Not all mammals showed equal willingness to seek out the addictive food. This might help explain why some people seem to struggle so hard with food and others don't.

It struck me afresh that the chain restaurant foods and highly processed/prepared foods are layered in fat, sugar and salt. Kessler used some of the menu items from The Cheesecake Factory to demonstrate this concept. You have a base or carrier of something like chicken that is layered with fat (fried breading) and salty sweetness (dipping sauce). It was a little disconcerting to hear things like lettuce and potatoes referred to as carriers.

In all honesty, there is some layering in homemade food but not nearly as much. I think about how I make oven roasted potatoes; potatoes, olive oil, kosher salt. Ore Ida fries have potatoes, vegetable oil (palm, sunflower, cottonseed, soybean and/or canola) salt, dextrose (emphasis added), disodium pyrophosphate, annatto (vegetable color). I imagine the dextrose is used for coloration as well as to sweeten up the flavor.

I will have to find the section where he talks about how to "cool down" this response, particularly the anxiety and fixation that occurs before the indulging the addiction. I do recall that knowing that you simply aren't allowed to indulge does help. He gave the example of a smoker on the plane. A smoker in flight will generally not feel the anxiety or strong desire for a cigarette because he knows he can't. I think that is one of the reasons No S can help with binges. I'll try and report back when I find that section.

jellybeans01 · Post by **jellybeans01** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:37 pm

I really agree about the junk food leaving cravings for more junk food. I ate 2 candy bars in a row last weekend.(pregnancy craving) It did nothing but make me feel like crap and I was still just as hungry for my regular meal. When I was doing Weight Watchers I would spend lots of money on these low point type snack stuff. It never satisfied and I spent so much time figuring out how many snacks could I have for an hour workout, silly. I love no s, because I love real food and in the end i know i really am eating better and less.

oolala53 · Post by **oolala53** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:32 pm

IMHO, Kessler is a little too dogmatic about avoiding those foods. If you know ahead of time that they are going to make you want to eat more, you can eat moderately, enjoy what you have and either leave or take home the rest. I sometimes ask for the doggie bag/container at the beginning of my meal. I put away enough so that a reasonable portion is left on my plate. Then I eat it with gusto. The leftovers are usually used to flavor portions of whole foods I've prepared. I don't feel like overeating them but enjoy the flavor.

Completely avoiding the "highly palatable" food actually increases its addictive power if OVEReaten again. If it will lead to likely sickness or death, as alcohol for the addicted, complete abstinence is the smartest policy. Moderate portions of foods that are unlikely to be abstained from forever, eaten on occasion, as No S recommends, decreases their neurochemical addictive power, but the urges will be great at first and must be ignored.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:41 am

I don't eat 100% real food. I aim for 80 percent and I'm very happy with that. I regularly consume some things (white flour and white rice) that the purists would consider faux food. But I figure that they've been consumed for hundreds (or more) years without problem, and I'm not about to argue with success.

Graham · Post by **Graham** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:54 am

Interesting tale. As an ex-smoker I'm a little suspicious. I have two suspicions about the tobacconist's loose cigarettes:

1. they contain more nicotine than the packaged ones, hence less are needed/desired.

2. the tobacconist may be using the trick Orwell mentions in "Down and Out in London and Paris" - tobacconists would pay people to collect cigarette butts which were then combined with fresh tobacco to make "new" cigarettes. They were then much higher in tar, and presumably nicotine - cheaper to produce, more potent, more toxic.

The main difference with hand-rolled cigarettes, I recall, was that they went out if you didn't keep puffing - the ones from a packet would burn all the way down unassisted once lit. This could partly explain why hand-rolling is cheaper way to use tobacco, but I don't know that it is any safer.