NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/support/diet/2796

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 3.7 KB | 64 lines

Newsgroups: alt.support.diet
Path: sparky!uunet!nwnexus!seanews!eskimo!feathers
From: [e-mail] (Cheryl Owen)
Subject: Re: 1300 cal/day, why?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: <<< ESKIMO NORTH (206)-FOR-EVER >>>
References: References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:41:18 GMT
Lines: 52

   Sigh.  Your response is a perfect example of what I was talking
about.  It was when I WAS in a hospital, following an exact, and I mean
EXACT diet designed by a nutritionist and a dietician and measured to
the demi-ounce, that it became obvious that I needed much less in the
way of calories to maintain a normal weight.  I was pregnant and
diabetic with high blood sugar, which was why I was hospitalized.  If
you know anything about those circumstances, then you would know you're
not going to find any more controlled circumstances than that.  Not only
was all the food measured and eaten at precise times, but the exercise
was
also measured and timed, and my blood and other bodily functions were
monitored and tested regularly.  So be as skeptical as you want; your
skepticism is pretty meaningless next to the cold hard facts.
   The thing you seem to miss is that attitudes like yours make things
harder for people who use food more efficiently than you do.  There are
a lot of people out there who believe that they can't lose weight
because they know they don't overeat (according to normal standards) and
yet they remain fat.  Your attitude reinforces that fear for those
people.  The importance of what I'm saying is that my experience is not
mine alone, and that it *is* possible for people like us to lose weight;
it's just a matter of realizing what's necessary and accepting that it
means eating very, very little all your life.  That also means that if
our bodies were designed to run efficiently on a small amount of food,
then sabotaging messages like "it's impossible, that's not healthy" etc.
etc., blah blah blah, get in our way.  My doctor was a very wise man
when
he told me it wasn't really important how I took off weight, just that I
did, and that whatever worked would be fine.  He said that most people
don't lose it and used not being able to follow standard diets as an
excuse.  Strip away the excuses and you're left with the task.  Find out
what it takes to accomplish the task and then do it.  (Of course, my
doctor knows me to be a rational, psychologically healthy, reasonably
educated woman, so he knew I wouldn't include eating disorder type
behaviour, cult gerbil diets, etc. in the repertoire).

 > What difference does it make if other people don't believe you if you
 > don't talk about it?  Just tell tthem that the food they offer is
 > not on your diet.

   You make a completely erroneous assumption here, that I talk about
this voluntarily.  Nope.  You wouldn't ask such a question if you'd gone
out to dinner with people several times and they ALWAYS comment
lengthily about how much you're not eating, spend a great deal of time
urging you to eat, when all you want to do is enjoy the dinner and the
conversation, have them mind their own business, shut the hell up about
how little I eat and eat what's on their own damned plate.  The ONLY
time this ever comes up is when other people make a big deal about it
and I want to make them knock it off without them thinking I'm an
anorexic or something.  I'm socially active; I go out a lot.  If you
dine with other people and you eat noticeably less than others
consistently, they notice and comment.  Sometimes ad nauseum.  To the
point of persecution.  Now do you get it?