I think people should do whatever works for them - personally, for me eating with no rules and no effort to remain healthy is unintuitive. Yes, I listen to my body, but if my body is...
I think people should do whatever works for them - personally, for me eating with no rules and no effort to remain healthy is unintuitive. Yes, I listen to my body, but if my body is sugar-addicted and is craving something I know is incredibly unhealthy for me, my brain is going to exercise some self-control and keep it in check. Having said that I try have a healthy diet not to lose weight but to maintain my long term health, so have never personally experienced the bounce-back people talk about after dieting specifically for weight loss.
And what makes eating certain things intuitive for us? I grew up in a post-soviet country, in a home where overeating was not really a thing, and intuitively I do not crave much food. I have friends who grew up in the states with junk food and huge portion sizes around them at all times, and that became their baseline, so for them that feels "intuitive". Just because your circumstances made overeating "intuitive" doesn't make it objectively healthy.
The article points out that preliminary studies found intuitive eating less effective (for short term weight loss), and that it helped improve body image. I guess if the goal is to feel better about yourself as opposed to the weight loss it could be a great idea! I hope we get more data about long term results of intuitive eating as well.
This kind of follows the Allen Car methodology of following your intuition and natural cravings (while ignoring the bad stuff like junk food and whatnot).
This kind of follows the Allen Car methodology of following your intuition and natural cravings (while ignoring the bad stuff like junk food and whatnot).
That's rather reductive and highly dismissive of the reality of the situation. What may seem like "common sense" to you is not necessarily so to everyone, and even when it is, sometimes rendering...
That's rather reductive and highly dismissive of the reality of the situation. What may seem like "common sense" to you is not necessarily so to everyone, and even when it is, sometimes rendering said common sense into a formal system with clearly laid out steps to follow is the push people need to start down the path of utilizing it and sticking to it long term.
I agree with you. But even if people struggle with eating healthy, it's widespread common sense that one should not eat a lot and avoid junk food. There's not a single person who doesn't know...
I agree with you. But even if people struggle with eating healthy, it's widespread common sense that one should not eat a lot and avoid junk food.
There's not a single person who doesn't know this.
I'm not saying that it's easy for everybody, i'm just saying that this is common knowledge.
Assigning labels is what gives birth to fad diets and misinformation. And like all diets, people tend to just drop it after some time.
There is not a single person who doesn't know drinking alcohol to excess, smoking cigarettes and doing hard drugs is destructive and shouldn't be done, either... that's just "default living well...
There is not a single person who doesn't know drinking alcohol to excess, smoking cigarettes and doing hard drugs is destructive and shouldn't be done, either... that's just "default living well 101"... and yet people still do them (myself formerly among them).
IMO labels do not by their very nature give birth to fads, they are simply tools like any other bit of language... and as such can be used in many ways, propagating fads (good or bad) among them, but not exclusively... they can also help easily convey a complex set of information in a short and easily identifiable way.
E.g. The "12 Step program" is just "common sense" to a large degree and yet applying that label to the particular system and approach aids its effectiveness greatly. Alan Carr's quitting smoking method is really no different. And ultimately, fad or not, if something works why does it matter if it's been labelled?
Yes. And i'm an alcoholic. It doesn't change what i said. Labeling myself an alcoholic in fact just did more bad than good for me. How is the 12 step program common sense? The success rate of AA...
There is not a single person who doesn't know drinking alcohol to excess, smoking cigarettes and doing hard drugs is destructive and shouldn't be done, either... that's just "default living well 101"... and yet people still do them (myself formerly among them).
Yes. And i'm an alcoholic. It doesn't change what i said. Labeling myself an alcoholic in fact just did more bad than good for me.
E.g. The "12 Step program" is just "common sense" to a large degree and yet applying that label to the system aids its effectiveness greatly.
How is the 12 step program common sense? The success rate of AA and 12 step programs are abysmal and it certainly isn't a popular thing in my country.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/ Twice the rate of maintaining abstinence as those who did not attend AA is hardly what I would call "abysmal". I would disagree there, too....
The review organizes the research on AA effectiveness according to six criterion required for establishing causation: (1) magnitude of effect; (2) dose response effect; (3) consistent effect; (4) temporally accurate effects; (5) specific effects; (6) plausibility. The evidence for criteria 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 is very strong: Rates of abstinence are about twice as high among those who attend AA (criteria 1, magnitude); higher levels of attendance are related to higher rates of abstinence (criteria 2, dose-response); these relationships are found for different samples and follow-up periods (criteria 3, consistency); prior AA attendance is predictive of subsequent abstinence (criteria 4, temporal); and mechanisms of action predicted by theories of behavior change are present in AA (criteria 6, plausibility).
Twice the rate of maintaining abstinence as those who did not attend AA is hardly what I would call "abysmal".
Labeling myself an alcoholic in fact just did more bad than good for me.
I would disagree there, too. Recognizing and admitting you're an addict is the critical first step to recovery, after all. ;)
p.s. If you need someone to talk to about it let me know. I am all ears and definitely won't judge you in that regard. I have been rather deep down that particular road myself and quite literally lost a few friends along the way... so I can at least sympathize with you, if nothing else.
It's still abysmal compared to something like Naltrexone. Being twice bad doesn't make it good. Sure higher levels of attendance are related to higher rates of abistinence. Keeping yourself...
It's still abysmal compared to something like Naltrexone. Being twice bad doesn't make it good.
Sure higher levels of attendance are related to higher rates of abistinence. Keeping yourself occupied has a correlation, specially if it's talking about alcohol addiction. That's not the merit of AA itself, just the merit of actively seeking help and having a support group.
S.M.A.R.T. has worked a lot better because of it's use of CBT and psychology.
I would disagree there. Recognizing you're an addict is basically the first step, after all. ;)
You can disagree with me, but it's my experience.
Recognizing i have a problem is different than labeling myself as an alcoholic. With the label there were a lot of stigmas attached (thanks to AA) and it closed some doors to experiment and try different things because the groups of alcoholics i knew just preached the disease model and the absolutist solutions. They viewed everything in black and white and there was only one path to recovery. Like i said, one friend is 3 years sober thanks to 0% beer. I tried talking about 0% beer with AA attendants once...
I'm getting better and one of the things that helped me is letting go of the label. I have a problem i need to solve. That's it.
I'm glad it works for some people, just doesn't work for me.
I agree there is generally more effective methods, and I am not particularly keen on the religious aspects of AA/NA nor the absolutist abstinence model they generally preach (I still smoke pot and...
I agree there is generally more effective methods, and I am not particularly keen on the religious aspects of AA/NA nor the absolutist abstinence model they generally preach (I still smoke pot and have the occasional beer but have not had a hard drug relapse in over 10 years), but not everyone works the same and sometimes 12-steps/AA/NA actually is the particular ticket someone needs, so I try not to be cynically dismissive of them entirely.
In any case, good luck to you (and your friends)... and if you ever need to talk to someone, you know where to find me. :)
Sure, why not? The Easy Way (Allen Carr's Method) led me to stop smoking, control my drinking, and change my eating habits drastically. It's more about changing what "Common Sense" means to the...
Sure, why not? The Easy Way (Allen Carr's Method) led me to stop smoking, control my drinking, and change my eating habits drastically. It's more about changing what "Common Sense" means to the individual. Common sense used to mean to me that smoking, having a few drinks, and over indulging myself on junk food was a way to "unwind". A lot of that is due to brainwashing perpetuated by advertising and underlying culture of always wanting "more" (Whatever more is).
So... Common Sense should come with an asterisk I think. Your common sense and my common sense may point in two very opposite directions (though I think they're more aligned than we may first realize).
I think people should do whatever works for them - personally, for me eating with no rules and no effort to remain healthy is unintuitive. Yes, I listen to my body, but if my body is sugar-addicted and is craving something I know is incredibly unhealthy for me, my brain is going to exercise some self-control and keep it in check. Having said that I try have a healthy diet not to lose weight but to maintain my long term health, so have never personally experienced the bounce-back people talk about after dieting specifically for weight loss.
And what makes eating certain things intuitive for us? I grew up in a post-soviet country, in a home where overeating was not really a thing, and intuitively I do not crave much food. I have friends who grew up in the states with junk food and huge portion sizes around them at all times, and that became their baseline, so for them that feels "intuitive". Just because your circumstances made overeating "intuitive" doesn't make it objectively healthy.
The article points out that preliminary studies found intuitive eating less effective (for short term weight loss), and that it helped improve body image. I guess if the goal is to feel better about yourself as opposed to the weight loss it could be a great idea! I hope we get more data about long term results of intuitive eating as well.
This kind of follows the Allen Car methodology of following your intuition and natural cravings (while ignoring the bad stuff like junk food and whatnot).
Is this a methodology now? Are we giving labels to common sense?
That's rather reductive and highly dismissive of the reality of the situation. What may seem like "common sense" to you is not necessarily so to everyone, and even when it is, sometimes rendering said common sense into a formal system with clearly laid out steps to follow is the push people need to start down the path of utilizing it and sticking to it long term.
I agree with you. But even if people struggle with eating healthy, it's widespread common sense that one should not eat a lot and avoid junk food.
There's not a single person who doesn't know this.
I'm not saying that it's easy for everybody, i'm just saying that this is common knowledge.
Assigning labels is what gives birth to fad diets and misinformation. And like all diets, people tend to just drop it after some time.
This is just default eating 101.
There is not a single person who doesn't know drinking alcohol to excess, smoking cigarettes and doing hard drugs is destructive and shouldn't be done, either... that's just "default living well 101"... and yet people still do them (myself formerly among them).
IMO labels do not by their very nature give birth to fads, they are simply tools like any other bit of language... and as such can be used in many ways, propagating fads (good or bad) among them, but not exclusively... they can also help easily convey a complex set of information in a short and easily identifiable way.
E.g. The "12 Step program" is just "common sense" to a large degree and yet applying that label to the particular system and approach aids its effectiveness greatly. Alan Carr's quitting smoking method is really no different. And ultimately, fad or not, if something works why does it matter if it's been labelled?
Yes. And i'm an alcoholic. It doesn't change what i said. Labeling myself an alcoholic in fact just did more bad than good for me.
How is the 12 step program common sense? The success rate of AA and 12 step programs are abysmal and it certainly isn't a popular thing in my country.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/
Twice the rate of maintaining abstinence as those who did not attend AA is hardly what I would call "abysmal".
I would disagree there, too. Recognizing and admitting you're an addict is the critical first step to recovery, after all. ;)
p.s. If you need someone to talk to about it let me know. I am all ears and definitely won't judge you in that regard. I have been rather deep down that particular road myself and quite literally lost a few friends along the way... so I can at least sympathize with you, if nothing else.
It's still abysmal compared to something like Naltrexone. Being twice bad doesn't make it good.
Sure higher levels of attendance are related to higher rates of abistinence. Keeping yourself occupied has a correlation, specially if it's talking about alcohol addiction. That's not the merit of AA itself, just the merit of actively seeking help and having a support group.
S.M.A.R.T. has worked a lot better because of it's use of CBT and psychology.
You can disagree with me, but it's my experience.
Recognizing i have a problem is different than labeling myself as an alcoholic. With the label there were a lot of stigmas attached (thanks to AA) and it closed some doors to experiment and try different things because the groups of alcoholics i knew just preached the disease model and the absolutist solutions. They viewed everything in black and white and there was only one path to recovery. Like i said, one friend is 3 years sober thanks to 0% beer. I tried talking about 0% beer with AA attendants once...
I'm getting better and one of the things that helped me is letting go of the label. I have a problem i need to solve. That's it.
I'm glad it works for some people, just doesn't work for me.
Thanks for the support :)
I agree there is generally more effective methods, and I am not particularly keen on the religious aspects of AA/NA nor the absolutist abstinence model they generally preach (I still smoke pot and have the occasional beer but have not had a hard drug relapse in over 10 years), but not everyone works the same and sometimes 12-steps/AA/NA actually is the particular ticket someone needs, so I try not to be cynically dismissive of them entirely.
In any case, good luck to you (and your friends)... and if you ever need to talk to someone, you know where to find me. :)
Sure, why not? The Easy Way (Allen Carr's Method) led me to stop smoking, control my drinking, and change my eating habits drastically. It's more about changing what "Common Sense" means to the individual. Common sense used to mean to me that smoking, having a few drinks, and over indulging myself on junk food was a way to "unwind". A lot of that is due to brainwashing perpetuated by advertising and underlying culture of always wanting "more" (Whatever more is).
So... Common Sense should come with an asterisk I think. Your common sense and my common sense may point in two very opposite directions (though I think they're more aligned than we may first realize).