This made me think of something semi-related. I've always been pretty into meditation. A while ago I tried sitting 2 hours a day, got lots of benefits, but still regressed somewhat when my environment suddenly changed. I managed to hold it together but it took a while to build back up to a disciplined practice.
I started to go to two connected Zen centers in my area about 6 months ago, and began to come into contact with people who I think of as literal Bodhisattvas. Like people who radiate ease and joy. I also spent a long stretch going in for a dharma talk every Thursday (fell out of it a few weeks back) which was helpful for clarifying compassionate action, what "Bodhisattva" actually meant in a human, non-magical way, met people who were less top-of-the-mountain but working sincerely on themselves to be better people for all beings.
It's all come around to deepen my understanding of Zen Buddhism and Mahayana, and now meditation seems more important when it's for everyone else. Not even like never getting angry anymore, although becoming less practice helps, but being able to understand and accept angry people. It's brought a lot more of a sense of purpose to my sits and I've been back to the 2 hour a day routine, which seems to be a good number for me although it's pretty difficult to stick to. I've also managed to bounce back from lapses when I've not sat for a day or sat less, and I feel less perfectionistic when sitting with other people.
That's a great example of how scaling can offer positive reinforcement. I spent several years in Asia and went to several monasteries/temples to study meditation. And what struck me was that the "true believers," were a fairly small part of the population, but the dynamic of the widespread worldview put guardrails on the behavior and morality of those who weren't that into it. There were positives and negatives to those ideas being in the air, of course. And dangerous deluded cults reinforce themselves in the same fashion. In either case, the closer to get into "the center," of the true believer ring, the more the positive reinforcement cycle works. But often, as in the case of healthy eating and meditation, the benefits outweigh the downsides.
Its not the morals, it is the social aspect of food, but those two things are tightly intertwined. The people who return to eating garbage do so because everyone around them eats it. The Adventusts, however, don't have that problem.
The only way for me to keep my diet clean is to be what some consider to be rude and antisocial about food.
Anyone who eats clean has visitied their Mom, or someone else's Mom, explained that they only eat whole foods and no meat, and Mom plops a rare steak and a processed sugar bomb in front of them during dinner anyway.
Cooking for and feeding people is a pure form of love. But its been corrupted by convenience and commerce. We have to change the culture around it.
Then there's the fact that we're all stuck indoors, working long hours and in our cars ALL the time. Work less. Buy less shit. Go outside everyday. Dont eat anything you didnt cook yourself.
The social aspect is certainly an element, but it's just one thing pushing against people eating healthy food. You might think of it as a second vacuum that calls to be filled, with the first being foregone pleasure. And if someone is used to drinking alcohol, and they frequently drink with friends at a bar, stopping drinking means the loss of the pleasure of the drink, the numbing of the drink, and the loss of socializing. Now we've got several givens of a life that are absent, a yawning vacuum demanding to be filled.
It's very hard to fill these — permanently — in productive and healthy ways if all choices are equal in quality beyond their utilitarian payoffs.
Lost hedonism, or they lose a coping mechanism. Many people who get lapband surgery commit suicide because of this.
For many years, humans only drank in a social setting as part of a ritual or ceremony. All of this abundance has caused us to devalue everything, especially ourselves. Yet people still act as if everything is scarce.
Well said. I can speak from experience when I say that much of my worst eating comes during my workday. There is simply no time during the day to actually prepare anything, let alone eat it.
It becomes an exercise in immediate satiation, jamming as many calories and carbs in as quickly as possible before the next meeting. Not everyone's job is like this, of course, but I imagine that most Americans can relate.
Note that also, our foods have also fundamentally changed. In the industrial era, our food choices have narrowed considerably. And while we can grow more using less land, water, and fertilizer, many of our foods are less wholesome. In other words, we are getting more calories and fewer vitamins and minerals per calorie: https://www.lianeon.org/p/the-paradox-of-processed-food
I really don't think our food choices have narrowed since the industrial era, at least not for the vast majority of people. In the before times most people lived on only a few staples.
OK, sure. But there's a difference between "the total number of different species humans grow or eat all over the world" and "the number of different plant foods most people have access to." If anything, the greater variety foods we have now contributes to the obesity epidemic rather than it being the case that we have limited food choices and are getting fat as a result.
Yes. This is a big part of it too. I had to resort to only eating once per day to sort this problem out. Still typically do this. (Its much easier to do when you don't eat simple carbs/sugar and experience constant sugar crashes.)
I don't know about less choices. Much of Asia survived on rice for millennia. Europe survived on bread and potatoes. At least poor Americans had access to hunting and fishing.
And yes, our food has more calories with less nutrients.
Ultimately, we've traded an old set of problems for a new set of problems. Everything is always a tradeoff, and its all about balance.
In my philosophy, health plays a very big role to live a good life. In my view, any serious philosopher/thinker should prioritise it.
I was a bit surprised to read that many of your clients regressed back to eating junk food *after* having lost a lot of weight. I would imagine that the immense benefits they must have experienced after their change would be enough to make them not regress, and quite often I would say they are enough. What percentage of your clients would you say have regressed?
The National Weight Control Registry (NWCR) — a large, long-term study of individuals who have successfully maintained weight loss — shows that only 20% of those who lose 30-pounds or more are able to maintain that loss for even a year.
I can't give you great data on my clients outcomes because most wantrf to stop paying for my help after losing the weight or after they fely like they'd learned enough to continue on their own, which is only natural.
But I had plenty come back and essentially say...."ya...I messed up 6 months ago and I've regained the weight and I need your help again."
So I had to start incorporating more the philosophy/psychology from the early steps.
This made me think of something semi-related. I've always been pretty into meditation. A while ago I tried sitting 2 hours a day, got lots of benefits, but still regressed somewhat when my environment suddenly changed. I managed to hold it together but it took a while to build back up to a disciplined practice.
I started to go to two connected Zen centers in my area about 6 months ago, and began to come into contact with people who I think of as literal Bodhisattvas. Like people who radiate ease and joy. I also spent a long stretch going in for a dharma talk every Thursday (fell out of it a few weeks back) which was helpful for clarifying compassionate action, what "Bodhisattva" actually meant in a human, non-magical way, met people who were less top-of-the-mountain but working sincerely on themselves to be better people for all beings.
It's all come around to deepen my understanding of Zen Buddhism and Mahayana, and now meditation seems more important when it's for everyone else. Not even like never getting angry anymore, although becoming less practice helps, but being able to understand and accept angry people. It's brought a lot more of a sense of purpose to my sits and I've been back to the 2 hour a day routine, which seems to be a good number for me although it's pretty difficult to stick to. I've also managed to bounce back from lapses when I've not sat for a day or sat less, and I feel less perfectionistic when sitting with other people.
That's a great example of how scaling can offer positive reinforcement. I spent several years in Asia and went to several monasteries/temples to study meditation. And what struck me was that the "true believers," were a fairly small part of the population, but the dynamic of the widespread worldview put guardrails on the behavior and morality of those who weren't that into it. There were positives and negatives to those ideas being in the air, of course. And dangerous deluded cults reinforce themselves in the same fashion. In either case, the closer to get into "the center," of the true believer ring, the more the positive reinforcement cycle works. But often, as in the case of healthy eating and meditation, the benefits outweigh the downsides.
Its not the morals, it is the social aspect of food, but those two things are tightly intertwined. The people who return to eating garbage do so because everyone around them eats it. The Adventusts, however, don't have that problem.
The only way for me to keep my diet clean is to be what some consider to be rude and antisocial about food.
Anyone who eats clean has visitied their Mom, or someone else's Mom, explained that they only eat whole foods and no meat, and Mom plops a rare steak and a processed sugar bomb in front of them during dinner anyway.
Cooking for and feeding people is a pure form of love. But its been corrupted by convenience and commerce. We have to change the culture around it.
Then there's the fact that we're all stuck indoors, working long hours and in our cars ALL the time. Work less. Buy less shit. Go outside everyday. Dont eat anything you didnt cook yourself.
The social aspect is certainly an element, but it's just one thing pushing against people eating healthy food. You might think of it as a second vacuum that calls to be filled, with the first being foregone pleasure. And if someone is used to drinking alcohol, and they frequently drink with friends at a bar, stopping drinking means the loss of the pleasure of the drink, the numbing of the drink, and the loss of socializing. Now we've got several givens of a life that are absent, a yawning vacuum demanding to be filled.
It's very hard to fill these — permanently — in productive and healthy ways if all choices are equal in quality beyond their utilitarian payoffs.
Lost hedonism, or they lose a coping mechanism. Many people who get lapband surgery commit suicide because of this.
For many years, humans only drank in a social setting as part of a ritual or ceremony. All of this abundance has caused us to devalue everything, especially ourselves. Yet people still act as if everything is scarce.
Well said. I can speak from experience when I say that much of my worst eating comes during my workday. There is simply no time during the day to actually prepare anything, let alone eat it.
It becomes an exercise in immediate satiation, jamming as many calories and carbs in as quickly as possible before the next meeting. Not everyone's job is like this, of course, but I imagine that most Americans can relate.
Note that also, our foods have also fundamentally changed. In the industrial era, our food choices have narrowed considerably. And while we can grow more using less land, water, and fertilizer, many of our foods are less wholesome. In other words, we are getting more calories and fewer vitamins and minerals per calorie: https://www.lianeon.org/p/the-paradox-of-processed-food
I really don't think our food choices have narrowed since the industrial era, at least not for the vast majority of people. In the before times most people lived on only a few staples.
Perhaps it depends on how it's counted. Per this source, it's declined 75 percent: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2021/10/26/Crop-diversity-underpins-food-security-Scientists-flag-enormous-diversity-loss/
OK, sure. But there's a difference between "the total number of different species humans grow or eat all over the world" and "the number of different plant foods most people have access to." If anything, the greater variety foods we have now contributes to the obesity epidemic rather than it being the case that we have limited food choices and are getting fat as a result.
I think you make a good point and distinction. I may go back and edit this essay to reflect this.
Yes. This is a big part of it too. I had to resort to only eating once per day to sort this problem out. Still typically do this. (Its much easier to do when you don't eat simple carbs/sugar and experience constant sugar crashes.)
I don't know about less choices. Much of Asia survived on rice for millennia. Europe survived on bread and potatoes. At least poor Americans had access to hunting and fishing.
And yes, our food has more calories with less nutrients.
Ultimately, we've traded an old set of problems for a new set of problems. Everything is always a tradeoff, and its all about balance.
In my philosophy, health plays a very big role to live a good life. In my view, any serious philosopher/thinker should prioritise it.
I was a bit surprised to read that many of your clients regressed back to eating junk food *after* having lost a lot of weight. I would imagine that the immense benefits they must have experienced after their change would be enough to make them not regress, and quite often I would say they are enough. What percentage of your clients would you say have regressed?
The National Weight Control Registry (NWCR) — a large, long-term study of individuals who have successfully maintained weight loss — shows that only 20% of those who lose 30-pounds or more are able to maintain that loss for even a year.
I can't give you great data on my clients outcomes because most wantrf to stop paying for my help after losing the weight or after they fely like they'd learned enough to continue on their own, which is only natural.
But I had plenty come back and essentially say...."ya...I messed up 6 months ago and I've regained the weight and I need your help again."
So I had to start incorporating more the philosophy/psychology from the early steps.
That is quite interesting - I was not aware of those specific numbers. Thank you for sharing.