I think about health topics more than I want to. To paraphrase someone else, I could have learned three foreign languages in all of the time I've spent thinking about, reading about, agonizing over, and trying to practice good nutrition and exercise. I did make a big breakthrough in my thinking and practice of exercise last year, and I've felt better since then, but I admit that food continues to wear me down. This is due in large part to my food sensitivities, but that's not all.
I consider myself mostly immune to trends around eating. Frankly, when my sensitivities have limited me as much as they have, I don't have room to play. The only "choice" I'm making these days is not eating meat, and since that's been the case since I was sixteen (other than the period I was bullied by my college boyfriend), I'm not apologizing. Since it's accepted that eating meat does a lot of really bad things to you, yeah, I don't feel like I'm being indulgent. I'm a vegetarian because I want to be; I'm a vegan because eggs and dairy make me ill, and I can't eat wheat or soy because those set me back for a week.
And it's not just food sensitivities--there is nothing like an experience of cancer, particularly colon cancer, to make you sensitive about your diet. I am never consuming alcohol again, and since I've never liked it in the first place, why should I? I go out of my way to eat legumes and whole grains as well as fruits and vegetables--and nuts and seeds--and avoid coconut products and refined sugar--because of all of the evidence around mortality, cancer, and general health. It's not my fault I developed cancer--my diet was still pretty good by modern American standards--but I think it's understandable why I prioritize things that give me a better chance of living longer.
So my behavior isn't about trends--with the exception of time restricted eating. That was something recommended to me by my acupuncturist a few years ago, and all of the research I did on it showed no ill effects. In fact, it was mentioned as one of the only effective "dieting" strategies, and it also is said to good things for blood sugar and cholesterol. What was the harm? I mean, other than the fact that I can't eat large meals (thanks to a very small but manageable hernia between my stomach and duodenum), and that being hungry at night was sometimes just depressing?
I don't know what or why, but today the American Heart Association released results of a study that showed that time-restricted eating may yield short-term benefits but may have long-term negative effects; at the very least, it's not shown to have long-term positive effects. This isn't a perfect study and more work needs to be done, but for now it's enough to make me think that maybe I don't have to try to force feed myself and that maybe, just maybe, it's okay to go back to eating five or so small meals over the course of the day.
I'm reminded of something Dalia Kinsey, the author of Decolonizing Wellness wrote. Your body's reaction to hunger is going to be hoarding fat; even if you're not trying to lose weight, that's not a good outcome. More importantly, only you know how much your body needs of anything, regardless of what is advised for a serving or a number of servings. And while that may sound touchy-feely, that was one of the most profound messages out of Ultra-Processed People by Chris van Tulleken, and yes, he had plenty of scientific evidence to back it up.
Listening to our bodies can be really hard when we're subjected not only to ultra-processed foods but also marketing (see Raj Patel on that one), which is why it's important to do our best to break from both. I can tell you it's much easier to break from ultra-processed foods than marketing, no matter what kind of media you choose to consume. But it's worth the effort, however imperfect. Take a deep breath when your experiences contradict claims, and maybe cross your fingers that if you're in alignment with most of the best scientific research, you might have some grace around the rest of it.
Deb in the City
No comments:
Post a Comment