"There is not a single animal in the animal kingdom that will walk a mile to search for food when food is available right in front of it because it's the "healthful" thing to do, and yet we beat ourselves up when we can't manage to do that without struggle."
welllll.. i think it really depends on what kind of food it is, for humans. for example, when i went on a road trip to certain places in the south, i was amazed at the lack of variety in food in certain states. unfortunately i can't remember which state it was, but i very clearly remember being hungry.. so we drove for food.. Wendys. No thanks. drove for another HOUR before coming across.. McDonalds. Ugh. drove for another hour before coming across.. a Denny's. At which point we gave up and went in to eat because we had been driving for horus. however, as hungry as we were, we would have gladly driven for another hour if there was a promise of some better food down the road.
so i guess that was a bit of an extreme example.. here's a more simple one. you're in a theme park. there is food right in front of you, but its crap and greasy and pricy. there's much better food outside the park in restaurants but that means you have to walk all the way to the entrance to leave the park and get in your car, etc. not everyone will just go with the crap food, but most people will like you said, out of convenience and sheer laziness, and this is why most people are now fat.
I totally disagree that we shouldn't beat ourselves up over this. it might be instinct, but we, as humans, fight instincts everyday. its one of the only things that makes us different from other animals. another main difference from animals is the ability of humans to understand delayed rewards (going to work everyday and not receiving a paycheck right away). to give up these abilities (which, in other words, can be called self-control and discipline) gives up the very thing that makes you human.
that is why i, for one, refuse to give my environment the power to control something as personal as my eating habits. i WILL walk further for better food. its a simple, conscious choice that requires more effort. i urge everyone, don't be lazy, go that extra mile. maybe that's why i've never been overweight, ever.
my point is not that we should just give up and give into our instincts because it's convenient. It's that we shouldn't be surprised that it's a difficult choice to make, because it is one that we're making against our instincts. And ultimately, just because someone makes that choice doesn't mean that they're inherently a better person; The choice to eat or not to eat in and of itself is neutral.
If we were in an environment that praised heavier figures, they certainly wouldn't liken the spread of obesity and weight to a virus. Being grossly underweight can cause just as many long term problems as being grossly overweight, and the models they plaster everywhere as the body type to emulate have a pretty good chance of being technically obese when you measure actual body fat percentage, because exercise makes them bulk up, which is an industry no-no.
And, especially here in the US, the cards are stacked against you. Kids are offered junk food in lieu of fruit and the culture in general has developed a taste for more sugar, more sodium, etc; For many years ketchup satisfied the "vegetable requirement" that school cafeterias had to fulfill, and that said amusement park probably won't let you back in without paying full price and certainly won't let you back in if you're toting that healthier fare in hopes of eating with your friends. Kids, women in particular, are entering puberty earlier than ever because of hormones in meat and with that comes the tendency to pack on pounds a lot earlier than we've seen with previous generations. And providers of weight control programs/food are still in it for the business, and in it to make sure you eventually come back.
My point is that there are a lot of mixed messages and contradicting influences, of which this article is one, that oversimplify a really complex condition that even within one person isn't ever going to be a static one.
welllll.. i think it really depends on what kind of food it is, for humans. for example, when i went on a road trip to certain places in the south, i was amazed at the lack of variety in food in certain states. unfortunately i can't remember which state it was, but i very clearly remember being hungry.. so we drove for food.. Wendys. No thanks. drove for another HOUR before coming across.. McDonalds. Ugh. drove for another hour before coming across.. a Denny's. At which point we gave up and went in to eat because we had been driving for horus. however, as hungry as we were, we would have gladly driven for another hour if there was a promise of some better food down the road.
so i guess that was a bit of an extreme example.. here's a more simple one. you're in a theme park. there is food right in front of you, but its crap and greasy and pricy. there's much better food outside the park in restaurants but that means you have to walk all the way to the entrance to leave the park and get in your car, etc. not everyone will just go with the crap food, but most people will like you said, out of convenience and sheer laziness, and this is why most people are now fat.
I totally disagree that we shouldn't beat ourselves up over this. it might be instinct, but we, as humans, fight instincts everyday. its one of the only things that makes us different from other animals. another main difference from animals is the ability of humans to understand delayed rewards (going to work everyday and not receiving a paycheck right away). to give up these abilities (which, in other words, can be called self-control and discipline) gives up the very thing that makes you human.
that is why i, for one, refuse to give my environment the power to control something as personal as my eating habits. i WILL walk further for better food. its a simple, conscious choice that requires more effort. i urge everyone, don't be lazy, go that extra mile. maybe that's why i've never been overweight, ever.
Reply
If we were in an environment that praised heavier figures, they certainly wouldn't liken the spread of obesity and weight to a virus. Being grossly underweight can cause just as many long term problems as being grossly overweight, and the models they plaster everywhere as the body type to emulate have a pretty good chance of being technically obese when you measure actual body fat percentage, because exercise makes them bulk up, which is an industry no-no.
And, especially here in the US, the cards are stacked against you. Kids are offered junk food in lieu of fruit and the culture in general has developed a taste for more sugar, more sodium, etc; For many years ketchup satisfied the "vegetable requirement" that school cafeterias had to fulfill, and that said amusement park probably won't let you back in without paying full price and certainly won't let you back in if you're toting that healthier fare in hopes of eating with your friends. Kids, women in particular, are entering puberty earlier than ever because of hormones in meat and with that comes the tendency to pack on pounds a lot earlier than we've seen with previous generations. And providers of weight control programs/food are still in it for the business, and in it to make sure you eventually come back.
My point is that there are a lot of mixed messages and contradicting influences, of which this article is one, that oversimplify a really complex condition that even within one person isn't ever going to be a static one.
Reply
Leave a comment