- focus on hunger/satiety rather than some judgement about what should be the “normal” way to eat
- the confusion of what is “usual” (a simple fact) with what is “normal” (a judgement)
- carbohydrate load strain is simply about being metabolically non-alike
- Metabolic diversity – laying claim to acknowledgement and respect
Continued from previous post …
Of course, I just had to post a comment to her, and her reply also deserves attention:
“Well, Dea, we could start by refusing to use the dominant discourse which insists we name the kind of eating (which I do) that provides satiety and eliminates hunger as “low carb” or “high fat”. Those are simply socially constructed categories that force people to think of eating for satiety as some WEIRD or anti-social or (OMG) UNHEALTHY way to eat. It’s “low” or “high” because the so-called authorities (corrupted by corporate influences, etc) SAY IT IS LOW OR HIGH. Crazy making, pure and simple. I’m done playing that stupid game of pretense–my lived experiences inform my choices now, not some “authorities” who don’t give an instant’s thought to my well being. They can’t. They can only spout whatever the “authorities” spout. There’s no relationship to whether it’s helpful for people or not. ARGH.”
This is exactly the kind of direction I’ve been trying to express in much of my writing on this blog, especially the recent 3 post series on Satiety Focused Weight Health. In fact, that is the reason for developing this blog in the first place. Hence the blog title “it’s the satiety” – that is, my view that a key missing ingredient to unlocking the weight control conundrum is to use a focus on satiety as both the essential process and a goal.
I have put my heart and soul into promoting a shift from focusing on “which diet” to focusing on the process of resolving struggles with hunger – which can only be done on an individual-by-individual basis using a trial and error approach to finding what they experience as worthwhile. The target – “weight heath with food peace”. An individual “lived experience” exploration of hunger/satiety responses to carbohydrates in different amounts and forms is one of the key things to consider within that framework.
Still, we need some language to use when discussing this process of coming to understand one’s own responses to carbs. Whether you wind up eating “low” amounts of carbs or “high” amounts of carbs is not at all the point. The point is, are you having a carbohydrate load that is within your current ability to handle without strain or damage. Are you under carbohydrate load strain or not?
I also have to mention here that some people have clearly reported the “lived experience” that they can feel unwell when consuming carbs at (how shall we call it, we still need to use commonly understood terms to communicate) a “low” intake at various levels below about 100 grams per day.
If neither of these states apply to you, the amount of carbs you are having is just fine for you – and “high” or “low” become not judgement issues, but just matter in terms of practical issues, like finding recipes and exchanging practical ideas with each other.
There is a subtle difference between using “low” or “high” as relative terms that relate to some implied normal and using “low” or “high” as merely descriptive quantitative terms that relate to some factual usual. “Usual” does not have to include any judgement value of desirable or “normal”. I am short, in that my height is factually below the usual height for women in my country. It is not customary in our society to regard “usual” height as implying a “normal” height, which would make me a deviant. Much confusion arises from mixing up what is “usual” with what is “normal”.
“Metabolic diversity” is the name of the game. I insist that my metabolic individuality be acknowledged and respected. I eat the amount of carbs that is “just right” for me. It is “low” compared to the usual intake. On the other hand, it is not “low” at all compared to any normal level, because there is no “normal carbohydrate intake” to be deviant from.