RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Liza May <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:18:15 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (82 lines)
Ellie,

<< I've stayed out of the back and forth comments about NFL, but I need to put
my 2 cents into the issue. I have nothing wrong with thinking that cooked
foods can be addicting. >>

Hi Ellie!

Actually, any substance, or behavior, can be addicting. I could have an
addiction to biting my nails, or always stepping around a certain spot on the
rug, or drinking 2 3/4 glasses of water each morning. My problem with calling
cooked foods "addictions" is that "addictions" is being used as a buzz word,
to confuse people and to imply that cooked foods are more similar to narcotics
than to nails being bitten, or carpet spots, or water in the morning.

<< Anything that the body can not use to maintain life is a stimulant >>

I haven't thought of it in this way, and I would be interested to hear why you
think so. I have read that meat is a stimulant, and I understand why sugars
can be stimulating. But I would like to hear why you think that anything that
the body doesn't use is "stimulating." I guess I would have said "toxic" or
"burdensome" or "draws on the energy reserves of the body."

<< if one has an addictive personality. >>

I have some clinical experience and education and much interest in this
subject, (I know you have too), and I'm familiar with the line of thinking
that says that there are addictive personalities and non-addictive ones. I
personally don't subscribe to that theory, since I have seen so many people
with so many complex variations of addictive behaviors, abuse of various foods
and any and all other substances under the sun.. I've also seen supposedly
"well-balanced," laid-back, "non-addictive" personalities turn into addicts
when life gave them a really rough twist. Conversely, I've seen hard-core
addicts turn their lives around entirely, to the point where the draw of
addictive behaviors was not even a threat or part of the picture anymore. So I
don't believe that's its as simple a thing as having an addictive or non-
addictive personality. I do, howeever, think that if you grew up seeing loads
of alcoholism, drugs, crazy food behaviors, etc. it tends to teach you that
using mind-numbing strategies is a useful way to cope with life, maybe more so
than a person who doesn't see as much of that growing up. Maybe that's what
you're referring to as an addictive personality?

<< The craving for stimulants is physiological and cannot be overcome by will
power. >>

I think of every craving as both physiological and emotional (central nervous
system and immune system as one system, not two); and I DO think these craving
can be overcome by willpower alone. I've seen this done - some people are
lucky enough (or God is with them, or life makes it easy or possible somehow)
to be able to summon up through sheer fortitude of willpower alone, the
determination to overcome an addiction NO MATTER WHAT. In my experience with
people, it seems to have to be that for whatever reasons, a person finds
themself "sitting in the gutter" and has decided that they would rather die
than go on living this way. From my expereince, it seems to require this kind
of life-and-death decision.

<< A campaign to prohibit cooked food or fruit is a waste of time >>

The people talking this nonsense are foolish, 100% ineffective, and don't have
a clue (or an interest) in what makes people tick. Their motives are greed,
profit, and self-promotion, so they are not interested in actually helping
people in any real way at all. They're just another version of dishonest
salesmen (we have lots in the United States).

<< and to degrade people who may be addiction prone, whether cooked foood
eaters or fruit eaters, is offensive. >>

Yes, but it sells your books. And you can even rally a group of confused
dieters around a "cause" based on hate of other people. Lots of religious and
cult groups try this same tactic, and are usually able to get a little sicko
following. There isn't anything rational or ethical about it at all, so its a
waste of time to even worry about the dumb things they try to say.

Anyway, thanks for your "two cents." I am always interested in what you have
to say, because you are thoughtful and logical and you care about people.
Looking forward to your replies! (and your great great book as soon as its
out).

Love, Liza
[log in to unmask] (Liza May)


ATOM RSS1 RSS2