>Mentally, I've been able to make a switch over to complete
>aversion to dairy because the cognitive tape that plays in
>my mind is "oh, I'm allergic to that" when offered, say, ice
>cream.
>
>But because I can't feel/see anything really bad happening
>to my body after the sugar/wheat sucking sessions, it's
>much harder to form the cog aversion model for these items.
>
>So if you'd like to take a minute and send me your best
>this-stuff-is-toxic lecture, I'd appreciate it and perhaps having
>voices other than my own stressing this to an impatient id
>will help.

Just an observation here based on four years of running the Natural Hygiene
snailmail many-to-many (M2M) newsletter (on vegetarian raw foods) before
waking up, moving on to other things like Paleodiet, etc., and having seen
lots of behavioral problems over food. We saw lots of rending of raiment
over the fact people couldn't stick to the diet--it constituted a lot of
the wordage and verbiage and ink spilled in the M2M.

One thing that really struck me was what I now call the "all-or-none"
syndrome. That is, some people were so perfectionistic that if they
couldn't stick 100% to their food plan (whatever diet it might be), they
despaired and then sort of just lapsed back in a pendulum-swing reaction
into whatever they did before, considering themselves a failure. Then they
would feel guilty and work up their willpower again and aim for 100%
compliance, fail, and repeat the cycle. Over and over.

Nobody is perfect. (Well, there might be some that were, but the ones we
saw that really *were* perfect in their behavior were perfectly crazy and
flipped-out as well!) I have never had food behavior problems really. But
what has always worked for me is to look at one's successes, take a "glass
is half-full" rather than half-empty view, and not worry about the lapses
too much. And when you relax about trying to achieve absolute perfection,
then voila! you don't feel guilt or the surreptitious need to
subconsciously "reward" yourself for good behavior by periodic binging.
With this approach, when you do indulge, it's no big deal, no psychological
pendulum swing reaction that causes you to lose your center.

I don't even try to be perfect anymore personally. 90% is good enough to
aim for, and then if I achieve 100% for certain periods of time, GREAT!,
but I am not going to beat myself up for the modest lapses at other times.
When I gave up the desire to be perfect and just let myself be a "quitter"
in terms of pushing myself for absolute success, the "backlash" from
indulging subsides. I have decided to live with 90-95% and not worry about
it too much. Life is too short. If we lived in an actual Paleolithic world
of nature, it would be easy to be 100%, but given today's environment and
social and peer pressure and particularly lack of easy availability of
Paleolithic foods without putting in a fair amount of extra effort, I
refuse to beat myself up about it.

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>

P.S. Let me add that there have been times when I have behaved 100% the way
I believed as far as food intake, without any problems with "indulging" or
"lapsing." I am the type of disciplined person having been a distance
runner and such much of my life where it's fairly natural for me. But I
have found on the whole life isn't as enjoyable that way as if I give
myself at least a little bit of wiggle room. That's the main reason I
changed my own approach. Not that I couldn't do it, but that 100%
perfection weren't worth the consequences.