Eating: Not Too Much

Mr. Pollen's next bit of advice, "Not Too Much," sounds easy to follow. We've all heard it before, and even if we hadn't, we'd probably each figure it out for ourselves. It's a pretty self-evident solution to our main symptom of food related misbehavior: obesity.

So, why don't more people follow it? Why are we facing an epidemic of overweight adults and children in this country?

This mystery is similar to the one I was thinking about when I first started this project: why don't people do the things they need to do in order to be healthier? But I don't think it's the same answer. Like I wrote before, (at least, this is what I remember writing...I'll have to go back and read it to be sure) I think the problem with us not being healthier is two fold. The first problem is that we don't really know how to be healthier. There is so much conflicting advice and so many things to do, it's hard to figure it all out. And secondly, I just don't think the motivation is very strong. "Healthier" is such a vague quality. Most people associate it with living longer, which is a distance reward. Actually, most people associate it with maybe living longer, which is a kind of gamble that probably just doesn't seem really worth it compared to the immediate temptation and certain gratification of most unhealthy behaviors.

But with eating less, it's not confusing. It's simple. As the coach tells the team in that silly cheer-leading movie, "Think about what you eat every day and cut it in half." A person wouldn't even need to be that specific, or that extreme. Even just eating slightly less would have an effect.

And, it's not a vague goal like health. Being thin, or at least a little thinner, is a really attractive reward for most people.

So why is the instruction: "Eat Less" so seldom obeyed in this country? I think to answer that, we need to ask another question. Eat less than what? The obvious response is, less than we do. That's the answer that makes obedience sound easy. But the real answer is, less than we want. And that reveals why it's difficult.

So, the next question is, why do we want to eat more than our bodies need?

I can understand why, evolutionarily speaking, we are wired to eat a little bit more than our bodies need. Surely our ancestors, who relied on wily game and the seasonal fluctuations of edible plants, instead of 24-hour grocery stores, experienced periods of privation. During those times, a good store of fat wouldn't just come in handy. It would be life-saving.

But if that "good store" was so abundant that an individual's physical fitness was compromised, it seems like the burden would have outweighed the benefits. A pre-historic person who couldn't walk all day, and occasionally run quickly, probably wouldn't have survived long in a primitive environment anyway.

Maybe that just didn't happen. Maybe it was impossible for people to gain too much weight before the advent of agriculture and modern conveniences. Maybe there just wasn't enough food around to get fat on. Even in times of abundance, maybe there was too much physical effort required for simple daily living. Both those propositions seem highly probably.

So, if being overweight was just impossible to do in the early years of our species, it would be no wonder if we hadn't developed any physiological responses to keep us from getting that way. I mean, our skulls haven't developed sufficient strength to withstand the impacts that occur when an accident occurs in a vehicle driving 60 miles pr hour. Like saddlebags and spare tires, high-speed travel wasn't an issue our ancestors dealt with.

So we shouldn't be surprised if the solution is to simply engage our will-power in a fight against our biology. It's not a winning proposition. Just look at all the eco-activists who end up procreating for an example of biological impulses overriding rational decision-making. If it comes down to making the right choices in opposition to the urges that have been built in and reinforced over thousands of generations, it really doesn't look good for us humans. We're probably going to be fat until the climate shifts so dramatically that food production is hampered.

But I think maybe it's not as hopeless as all that. I think maybe we lucked out. (Not about the environment, we're definitely going down in flames on that one.)

Is seems to me that we do have an instinctive tendency to eat the correct amount of food. The reason we end up overweight is that our bodies aren't only in need of food as fuel. I'm going to suggest that we have internal monitors that normally shut down our desire to eat only when we have achieved BOTH of the following criteria each day: we have consumed enough calories AND we have consumed enough nutrients.

When you think about it this way, it's obvious why we keep stuffing our faces long after we've passed the 2,000/day calorie goal that would keep most of us fit. If we've reached that marker by filling up on fats, sugars and starches...which is all most processed foods are...of course our bodies are going to urge us to keep eating. Even with all the "added" vitamins and "enriched" food-products we eat, I am convinced that most of us are suffering from chronic nutrient deficiency.

So if we are really serious about eating "Not Too Much," here is what we need to do. Stop eating nutritionally blank foods. (Of course, if you're following my advice from the previous post about how to "Eat Food," you're already doing this.) Start eating nutritionally dense foods.

These are:
Whole grains
Fresh fruits and vegetables
Plant-based fats
Lean proteins

When I stick to these foods, I'm usually just not hungry at the end of the day. On the contrary, sometimes I have to make a mental decision to eat again, after calculating my day's intake and concluding I haven't eaten enough.

It's such relief, not needing to struggle against that powerful urge to eat, eat, eat. It's almost as much of a relief as it is to give in to that urge. But the side effects are better.

I fit into my clothes. I feel radiant and beautiful. And, sometimes, I feel happy.